To hope that Donald Trump doesn’t win the election

[RosaMoline]

….it’s getting closer.
I was hoping that Kamala would be a shoo-in for the presidency, but looking at the betting odds, I’m feeling quite pessimistic.
It’s incomprehensible to me that a convicted felon, racist, rapist, liar and misogynist who spurred on an insurrection - after everything that’s happened - is running for office again and may very well win.
It’s comforting to read though that fellow Brits DON’T support him.
Apart from Reform. Obviously.
yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50752-who-did-britons-want-to-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election

JD Vance - is that you? 😂

That's the single most manipulative, disingenuous and dishonest take on this issue that I've read yet.

Like women's fundamental human rights should be based on geography.

You people are grotesque.

I said single issue misinformed voters. If someone votes for Trump because they believe him when he says that babies are being aborted after birth, they are both dangerous and stupid.

The person who would vote for Trump because she says that Kamala wants to trans gay kids would probably say that she would do this because she supports women's rights. In reality, Trump is the worst possible president for women's rights.

It does make you stupid. And worse.

History will judge those of you who put an ageing, unstable, unpredictable, amoral, criminal man in the most powerful job in the world. A man who we know to have autocratic tendencies, and a man described by his former Chief of Staff and others as being a fascist.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

There was also a good piece from an historian and professor who answered the question of whether the term fascist could be used correctly

Can you link to it?

I know 'fascism' isn't a straightforward concept to describe.

This is a good podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/fascism-the-fraternity-of-violence/id1624704966?i=1000587700721

That's actually really interesting. To me it suggests that people who want to vote for Trump somehow still believe in the American Dream, despite it not working for the vast, vast majority of them. America as it is now is a very young country, so that makes sense to me - it's a form of idealism.

Not sure how to source BBC world service. It was very good.

But pretty much he said not.

That's not to say there aren't other concerns, which I have anyway

A very major reason for not having Trump is the fact that he may well die or become incapacitated, and then the US will have the possibility of 8 years of JD Vance, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and the Heritage Foundation shaping the future of America.

And that should terrify all Americans.

More like a form of nostalgia IMO. They just want to return to an earlier time which they feel was safer and more prosperous. They are uneasy with change. That's been shown in studies about the psychology of why people vote as they do. The more conservative the voter, the more afraid of change and novel experiences he/she was and the more fearful, anxious and focused on the negative in general.

Here's an article about the brain differences that may explain it;

www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

@XChrome agreed, there is absolutely such a thing as toxic nostalgia. People long for the 'good old days' when everything was simpler - I see it on my local Facebook pages all the time. I have no time for it, I'm old enough to have lived through the days when rape in marriage was legal in my native Netherlands and I was only 23 when that law was changed. For every item mentioned in those 'good old days' lists, I can come up with one that is horrific that progress has removed - but people don't think like that.

Would you say a voter whose single issue is abortion who has failed to realize that the Democrats have had the opportunity to pass federal abortion rights laws is misinformed?

The person who would vote for Trump because she says that Kamala wants to trans gay kids would probably say that she would do this because she supports women's rights. In reality, Trump is the worst possible president for women's rights.

That’s interesting as it’s the pro trans Democratic platform is the one that is currently dismantling Title IX. So yes someone opposing the trans agenda would be standing up for women’s rights.

For those not familiar Title IX:

In June 1972, President Nixon signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 into law. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that has removed many barriers that once prevented people, on the basis of sex, from participating in educational opportunities and careers of their choice.

How is it not working?

Are you a US voter?

My top concerns are not that but I’m here in the U.K. not in US

Women's fundamental human rights do not depend on geography. But how those rights are reflected in the law depends on the political context.

Democratic systems have a much better track record of advancing womens rights than totalitarian systems ever have, and sacrificing democratic fundamentals for the sake of any given issue, however compelling, puts all of our rights at risk.

Today the issue may be abortion, but tomorrow it might be other civil liberties. It's nice to think we'll always be on the right side of history, but if we fail to appreciate our democratic inheritance, and defend it to the full, this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

So yes, how rights are expressed and defended definitely depends on geography, to the extent that we all rely upon the democratic traditions of the nations that defend those traditions.

Just ask women in Iran or Afghanistan.

"Contrary to the self-conception that the United States is the “land of opportunity,” relative social mobility—the likelihood of a child born to low-income parents climbing to the top of the income distribution as an adult—is low in the United States, compared to many European countries."

equitablegrowth.org/the-american-dream-is-less-of-a-reality-today-in-the-united-states-compared-to-other-peer-nations/#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20the%20self%2Dconception,compared%20to%20many%20European%20countries.

Just look up the data on socioeconomic mobility in the US. It has declined and is less than in most comparable European countries.

You're being disingenuous here. We are talking about women's rights within the United States.

"Women's fundamental human rights do not depend on geography"

Except now they do.

Because women in half of America have undeniably lost access to reproductive care in their state.

"It's nice to think we'll always be on the right side of history"

If you think you're on the right side of history in applauding changes to the law that've resulted in women in half of the USA losing access to reproductive care in their state, you've lost your mind.

Particularly as that change was the result of the actions of an unelected conservative dominated high court, it can hardly be framed as a marvellous expression of the democratic ideal.

"Disingenuous" is that poster's middle name.

Average income per capita is higher in Mississippi than the average income in the UK. And Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the USA.

You're not concerned about Project 2025?

Have you read it?

I think she thinks he means the ones who entered a port illegally via the Mexican border..technically she didn't enter illegally as she entered as a tourist on esta. Also the wife and mother of usa citizens and she is white.

She thinks because she is white she will have an easier ride even though she has to wait. Tbh a few months earlier she was telling me she would get her green card in 5 months and her authorization to work in 3 months. And her MIL told me she is british like Prince Harry so the American immigration authority would not make life difficult and it only took a few months when she immigrated in the 1980s.

The issue of abortion and the removal of a woman's autonomy over her own body is a matter of fact, not a misinformed POV or one that's open to (mis)interpretation.

So it really is a completely different issue, yes.

It's okay. Trump voters know that Trump has nothing to do with it. They are adamant that Trump knows nothing about Project 2025, and definitely, definitely won't be enacting any of its horror upon reelection.

I'll answer but are you in the US?