2024 U.S. Presidential and State election thread - I'm gonna... I'm gonna... VOOT!!! I'm VOOOOOTING!!!

Who are you voting for?

  • Total voters
    3,694
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was looking for more reactions, saw this:
IMG_0904.jpeg
Is Sweden waking up?
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Core Theorist, ChromaQuack, Romeo and 106 others
Nuns with guns said:
You have to remember that for over a year, the media were hyping Swift as a kingmaker. Although it was almost definitive that she was going to support the Democrat candidate, there was still speculation that maybe, just perhaps maybe, she could go for Trump, and they were scared. There were articles pumped about how Taylor was going to swing the election, decide it once and for all, and that we were at her mercy.

We, too, were scared here. When Taylor endorsed Kamala, there was a lot of copium. Then Trump said that he hated Taylor, but it was swept under the rug because he had another assassination attempt that day.

Then what happened? Taylor did absolutely nothing. Zilch. She sent a lot of traffic to a voter registration page, and that was the media's big cope, but that traffic came from all across the world. Then, the polls came out, and it turns out Taylor's endorsement meant nothing—if anything, it pushed more people NOT to vote for Kamala.

They know that their celebrities mean nothing now. In the final stretch, they tried to throw every single celebrity imaginable to see what would stick, but nothing worked. Trump won, and he's expected to win the popular vote for the first time.
Click to expand...

Taylor Swift is the ideal woman for the Democrats, in that she looks like an emaciated holocaust survivor.

My biggest concern as far as celebrity women goes...

Did she vote for Trump?

Screenshot 2024-11-10 120333.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Male Idiot, Tofu Dust, Ron Jeremy Stan Account and 12 others
babadook said:
Ngl in the months up to the elections I ventured outside my comfort zone because I kept thinking "what if I am in a bubble, and the optimism about Trump is heavily biased?" - I haven't changed my opinion on it after checking how overblown if not outright fabricated a lot of stuff was, but at least I have been self aware enough to have doubts.
Click to expand...
There was a brief moment after the Biden-Trump debate when everyone got brought to reality on the fact they'd been heavily lied to about Biden that I thought would have shaken some of them out of their propaganda bubbles, but I guess not.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: Knight of Utatanation, 2020chan, Humble Crab and 17 others
Nuns with guns said:
I need a smart maths person for this.

This is the current vote tally. Trump is leading the popular vote by only 2.5%
View attachment 6630699

Most states are accounted for already, all except California.
View attachment 6630704

In 2020, Biden won California with 63.48%, but the map was bluer.
View attachment 6630709

For comparison, this is how California currently looks. We had Orange County, but it got flipped.
View attachment 6630711View attachment 6630714

Trump has a solid lead on Riverside and San Bernardino, both won by Biden and Hillary. I think Kamala's lead in California (58.2%) is as good as it gets. It might get to 60%, but that's still below Hillary's 61.73% and Biden's 63.48%.

Considering the trends keep up, how many votes would each candidate end up with? Is Trump in danger of losing the popular vote because of California?
Click to expand...

@Gehenna stated earlier, that Trump will win the popular vote even if California tries to go for ballot printer brrtttt in their slow ass counting.

And the Jew York Times projected Drumpf to win the popular vote by 1.5 million, and that was on election night, when Trump had roughly an 8 million lead over the Kween.

I am sure they factored in California.

And non of the libshits are bringing that part up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Humble Crab, FlappyBat, Autistic Gunspergings and 8 others
Nuns with guns said:
I'm retarded, what does he mean? Just not to delay the process?
Click to expand...

When the senate is in recess, often for months at a time during the year, the President can appoint judges without having to be approved via the senate. I believe they still have to be approved later but basically once they're presiding the effort to vote them down is pretty much removed. It's a way to get around just trying to run out the clock with an opposing party in control.

Joepedo rammed through a LOT of federal judges in 4 years who will be all for letting your family be raped and murdered in the name of equity, and Schumer is looking to do the same here in this lame duck session over the holidays. But as long as republicans show up to object to unanimous floor votes, they can't get any more judges through in rapid succession. But this means republicans have to actually show up and sit down every day in the chamber to object. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul have done this well in the past few years, but we need more. Faggots like Romney will just disappear and not show up because he's a little bitch.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
Reactions: KoopsInk, 2020chan, Humble Crab and 20 others
Xarpho's Return said:
I closed the NY Times page on accident and now I got always get paywalled. I'm trying to go through the Network tab to avoid getting the subscribe script to activate, but just creates a transparent immovable block.
Click to expand...
If you have a public library card you can often get free access if you navigate through your library's homepage.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: 2020chan, GetToTheChoppa, “Token” the Neigermiester and 6 others
namelesstacotruck said:
Movies were significantly less shit when he was around. Scientology too.

Yes both were shit piles. But Scientology proved a check on the jews and its wane let jews move forward on other bullshit.
Click to expand...
Not sure. I do not think betting on either works. And movies were going to suck anyway since the woke took power.

Jade Philosophies said:
But he's "literally worse than Donald Trump!" to the average leftard on the street so the REEEEEEEEing would be glorious and hilarious. Meltdowns like you've never seen before. (Well, obviously he is literally worse than Donald Trump, but you know what I mean.) And like I said, he's probably going to die very soon. He's currently hospitalised.
Click to expand...
True but something tells me that the will be no shortage in REEEEEing. Better keep him there.

Forgot My Old Account :( said:
There was a brief moment after the Biden-Trump debate when everyone got brought to reality on the fact they'd been heavily lied to about Biden that I thought would have shaken some of them out of their propaganda bubbles, but I guess not.
Click to expand...
They were shaken in the sense that they realised that Biden could lose the undecided as his dementia has become undeniable. Vote Blue No Matter Who is the closest thing they have to a campaign slogan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KoopsInk
Scale Smerch said:
Something also not touched on too much about the Republican Senate majority here is how long it'll last. These are the seats up for the next two cycles:
2026
View attachment 6631018

2028
View attachment 6631023

Outside of Maine and Wisconsin there's no reasonable places for any Dem pickups now this decade, and if anything it's the Republicans who will grow their majority.
Click to expand...
If anyone's wondering why Ohio is gray in this map and why its up in both years whoever gets appointed to serve the rest of Vance's term has to run in a special election in 2026 alongside the reelection in 2028, which considering how the state is now they're most likely going to win due to the fact that the Democrats have barely anyone to run for the seat (only person I could think of that they could put to run is Sherrod Brown and considering the fact that he just lost and that he would be 73 by that time I don't think they would pick him in that race) and even though they're most likely going to be some Neocon (i've ready in the news that some of the names that are being thrown are Frank LaRose who's the Secretary of State and Jane Timken, both of whom had ran for the senate. One name I was surprised to not see was Matt Dolan since he is the stereotypical neocon in Ohio, but we'll see.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and World Famous Quasi Payer
Potatoherder said:
It would be suicidal at this point to not pick Scott.
View attachment 6631084
Click to expand...
McConnells faction does not care. He literally threw 2022, he sat on half a billion dollars of campaign funding in 2024. He is hella compromised by China and doesnt want industry brought home.

There is a real possibility the uniparty is waiting till wednesday to see if they will put a cuckcage on Trump. Hence the subdued reaction atm. All he can do is make sure they lose their next election. Which is fine with the uni party too. McConnell and the old guard give zero fucks at this point. McConnell already announced his retirement.

The whole Vance trick is retarded. Murkowski and Collins will go independent and force a split majority before letting that happen.

We are on the cusp of a major party realignment. If Dems jettison the hard left the Rinos will join them. Its only the path of them doubling down on communism and dei that is causing Trumps coalition to hold.

Like seriously what does McConnell's faction even WANT from Trump? They like being the minority. More Ukraine war is about it.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Romeo, Humble Crab, FlappyBat and 15 others
mlanguishi said:
Ironic that Null just want a jannie hiring spree, and maybe KF might have to be jannie-free to be legal? Lulz.

Anyway, I don't see how literally any site can do without speech jannies. It's too hard to only ban illegal stuff, if someone says wrongthink it's going to get modded even if legal but just againt the norms, much less breaking censorship TOS's.

ETA Asmongold just went on about how great jannie-free is, but he'll jannie anyone that says trannies aren't the greatest thing ever. Everyone wants their own censorship for the ones they don't like.
Click to expand...
I've had an idea for this. Basically, any site that allows users to post things will allow all content that's legal and not clearly a DOS attack. Individual users are able to block posts and users they don't like and moreover to publish their list of blocked stuff as a "moderation feed." Anyone can subscribe to another user's moderation feed so that they won't see the things it blocks. This means that some users will become recognized as trusted curators of the platform - but all this moderation is optional. It doesn't come from the site, so there's no issue without Section 230.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: 卐ㅤㅤ, Jade Philosophies, spiritofamermaid and 6 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back