Harris Trump debate

[Politesse]

It's clear you don't want any of those things. I agree with you that criticism of any candidate should be on the table. However, and I know you're in California, so your third party vote won't make a difference, but there are people like you in swing states that helped Trump win in 2016.

I am voting for Harris.

 

[Politesse]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

 

[southernhybrid]

This just in:

We know now that the "Haitians are eating cats and dogs" story came from a woman who posted online that a neighbor's daughter's friend had heard that Haitians were skinning and eating cats in Springfield. The original source has herself said she regrets posting it and now fears for her family's safety. JD Vance picked up on the viral post, amplified it, and that of course led to Trump's rant in the debate.

Now Vance has admitted that he "created" the story. Not that he shared the post and boosted it, but deliberately created the story out of those flimsy origins. Seriously.

“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes,” Vance said. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do, Dana, because you guys are completely letting Kamala Harris coast.”


Bash called out Vance over his stunning admission.


“You just said this is a story that you created.”


“Yes!” Vance said.

Vance was on "Meet the Press" this morning and although I was kind of sleepy while watching it, I think he started saying that we don't know for sure if the immigrants aren't eating pets, and then went on to make many racist remarks about Haitian immigrants and blamed it all on Harris. Does he not even know that Harris isn't the current president? For fuck's sake, that man is ever bit as crazy and mean as Trump.

 

[pood]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

It is because candidates, when elected, often make surprising detours from their stated policies in the campaign.

I could be wrong, but I expect Harris to depart from Biden’s virtually unstinting support of war criminal Netanyahu in his slaughter of innocent Palestinians, for example

 

[Politesse]

This election is about tyranny or slower progress than you'd like.

That would be nice, if there was any reason to believe it was true. But if Harris isn't even bothering to promise any sort of "progress", and indeed urgently avoids any mention of that word. So, why would any rational person expect it? What she has promised are partial rather than full concessions to the Trump regime, and a national dick measuring contest to see which party can treat domestic immigrants and foreign enemies more brutally. Any "progress" that occurs under a Harris regime will be down to the hard work of public servants and policy advocates like myself, not Harris' absent leadership. We will be fighting against the grain, just as we have been for the past eight years. The apathy and inaction of the center-left isn't just a vulnerability at election time. With every passing year, we are losing rights and responsibilities that we had long held as citizens of this nation, while Alt-Right actors control more and more of the public sphere simply by dint of having a clear plan and a willingness to fight for it on whatever front they deem necessary.

 

[Politesse]

I could be wrong, but I expect Harris to depart from Biden’s virtually unstinting support of war criminal Netanyahu in his slaughter of innocent Palestinians, for example

On what basis? Not her statements. Not her record. Not her funding. Not her endorsers. I'm all for hope, but not naivete.

 

[laughing dog]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

Historically, candidates make many more promises than they end up delivering on. Whatever the reasons for the failure to deliver, that is the case. It is almost always the case that elected candidates have to either compromise (i.e. mitigate) on their goals or abandon them.

 

[Rhea]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

I feel a lot of the mystery involves what powers she has if she gains the presidency.

• Is it a landslide? Then she can do progressive things because progressives have shown her that she can do it without the blue dogs.
• Is it just barely a win? Then she can’t reach too high or she won’t even get the easy stuff done.
• Is it with majorities in both houses? She can do things with that, but would be insane to promise it before knowing she had that.

That’s the mystery. When we hired her to drive, did we give her a Ferarri, or a Trabant? She has to campaign for a Trabant. When we know what car she has, we can then hold her feet to the fire. And many a driver ends up going a lot further than they thought, when they find their foot on the gas pedal of a 12cyl engine.

 

[pood]

I could be wrong, but I expect Harris to depart from Biden’s virtually unstinting support of war criminal Netanyahu in his slaughter of innocent Palestinians, for example

On what basis? Not her statements. Not her record. Not her funding. Not her endorsers. I'm all for hope, but not naivete.

One basis is Michael Moore’s substack, in which he mentions unnamed sources who behind the scenes say Harris has been heavily pushing Biden to change his Gaza policy. Admittedly that may be a thin reed, but there is certainly precedent for vice presidents to publicly stay loyal to their president on controversial issues while privately pressing for a change of policy on those same issues. Two examples: Vice President Humphrey privately repeatedly expressed deep skepticism about President Johnson’s Vietnam War debacle, in response to which Johnson repeatedly derided and humiliated him. When Humphrey eventually became the Democratic presidential nominee, he openly broke with Johnson by calling for an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. Example two is Biden and Obama. Biden publicly expressed support for Obama keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while privately pressing him to pull them all out, which he eventually did when he himself was president.

 

[Elixir]

thought, when they find their foot on the gas pedal of a 12cyl

I dunno … I have a 10cyl Ford and its mileage sucks.
Anyhow, the only thing that matters once she’s elected, is the State of Congress.
Of course a 2/3 majority in both houses and we should expect a rapid and radical overhaul of the tax codes, SCOTUS and a lot of other things that need fixing. Bare majorities would still let her dabble, but I wouldn’t expect much. Split chambers will be paralysis as usual.

In any event, if Harris is elected we
WON’T BE LIVING IN SPRINGFIELD

 

[Thomas II]

 

[ideologyhunter]

Orange Dumbbell is now noising that he's going to visit Springfield. I hope it makes him look like an ass (reachable goal) and does extreme damage to his campaign (one must set one's sights high.)

 

[Politesse]

I am not counting on a president to come save me from the neighbors, and certainly not either of these two.

So, are you just here to complain, or do you have something prescriptive to offer?

I can offer detailed critique and informed recommendations on more or less any national issue you like, and regularly do on this forum as I think you in fact know. I don't want Harris to lose the race, I want Americans to wake the fuck up and pay attention to what their government is doing, no matter who takes the White House in November. Another four years of American citizens ignoring every news headline that doesn't have "Trump" or some other celebrity's name in it will leave us at a perilous historical crossroad as we face this exact same electoral or vigilante decision yet again, with yet more diminished franchise, fewer citizens, worse health, and a SCOTUS that has had four more years to dismantle such government as we have left.

 

[Politesse]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

Historically, candidates make many more promises than they end up delivering on. Whatever the reasons for the failure to deliver, that is the case. It is almost always the case that elected candidates have to either compromise (i.e. mitigate) on their goals or abandon them.

And I have a pretty good idea as to some of the projects Harris plans to abandon or allow the Congress to kill somehow (You're naive indeed if you think the grocery triopoly is going to be dismantled and grocery prices lowered in four years). But surrendering on a idealistic but unrealistic project is not the same as abandoning your fundamental values and policies for no reason at all. Why would Harris suddenly grow a spine, when promising a policy of conciliation to the far right just won her a contentious national election?

 

[pood]

I’d add that in 1932, the Democratic Party platform vowed to combat the Great Depression by radically reducing government expenditures and balancing the budget. As soon as FDR became president, he did exactly the opposite, to good effect.

 

[Politesse]

I could be wrong, but I expect Harris to depart from Biden’s virtually unstinting support of war criminal Netanyahu in his slaughter of innocent Palestinians, for example

On what basis? Not her statements. Not her record. Not her funding. Not her endorsers. I'm all for hope, but not naivete.

One basis is Michael Moore’s substack, in which he mentions unnamed sources who behind the scenes say Harris has been heavily pushing Biden to change his Gaza policy. Admittedly that may be a thin reed, but there is certainly precedent for vice presidents to publicly stay loyal to their president on controversial issues while privately pressing for a change of policy on those same issues. Two examples: Vice President Humphrey privately repeatedly expressed deep skepticism about President Johnson’s Vietnam War debacle, in response to which Johnson repeatedly derided and humiliated him. When Humphrey eventually became the Democratic presidential nominee, he openly broke with Johnson by calling for an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. Example two is Biden and Obama. Biden publicly expressed support for Obama keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while privately pressing him to pull them all out, which he eventually did when he himself was president.

But Harris has done no such thing. How is the situation in any sense analogous?

Also, unless my history books left out something extremely important, Humphrey lost his election. So your advice to "elect x and see what happens" cannot apply. We have only Humphrey's word and yours as to what he "would have done" if the office were actually his. The exact same kind of testimony you're telling me to ignore when it's Harris telling us what she plans to do.

Michael Moore's testimony means nothing at all, even if it were accurate. I do think Harris will not be as direct about endorsing the Palestinian genocide as Biden was before the killing field opened in earnest. Even Biden himself has felt obliged to moderate his public position, and his lieutenant will feel even more constrained. That is because the "far left" refused to play this game of looking the other way while Biden funded a slaughter. But have a look around the forum. It us filled with "liberals" excoriating those protestors as anti-semitic, Marxist traitors, and angrily denying that any such genocide even occurred. It was just a police action to save Israel from terrorists.

Police action is Harris' strong point, of course.

 

[ZiprHead]

Your generator would help (but note that you can't store gasoline very long) but I would definitely talk to somebody who knows about such things before attempting to make solar panels coexist with a generator.

Most if not all home standby generators run on natural gas or LP gas.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This just in:

We know now that the "Haitians are eating cats and dogs" story came from a woman who posted online that a neighbor's daughter's friend had heard that Haitians were skinning and eating cats in Springfield. The original source has herself said she regrets posting it and now fears for her family's safety. JD Vance picked up on the viral post, amplified it, and that of course led to Trump's rant in the debate.

Now Vance has admitted that he "created" the story. Not that he shared the post and boosted it, but deliberately created the story out of those flimsy origins. Seriously.

“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes,” Vance said. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do, Dana, because you guys are completely letting Kamala Harris coast.”


Bash called out Vance over his stunning admission.


“You just said this is a story that you created.”


“Yes!” Vance said.

Vance was on "Meet the Press" this morning and although I was kind of sleepy while watching it, I think he started saying that we don't know for sure if the immigrants aren't eating pets, and then went on to make many racist remarks about Haitian immigrants and blamed it all on Harris. Does he not even know that Harris isn't the current president? For fuck's sake, that man is ever bit as crazy and mean as Trump.

He said Harris waved a magic wand and all the Haitians were somehow given legal access to the United States.

 

[Toni]

I've not advocated voting for Trump. But holding Harris above any criticism is taking things way the hell too far, and she has done nothing to deserve such loyalty.

Who is suggesting holding her above any criticism? What I think is let’s get her elected first, and then see what she does, as opposed to what she says, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Why the suspense? We know exactly what she will do. Both candidates have stated their plans for the country, such as they are, in clear terms. It's not some sort of divine mystery.

Historically, candidates make many more promises than they end up delivering on. Whatever the reasons for the failure to deliver, that is the case. It is almost always the case that elected candidates have to either compromise (i.e. mitigate) on their goals or abandon them.

And I have a pretty good idea as to some of the projects Harris plans to abandon or allow the Congress to kill somehow (You're naive indeed if you think the grocery triopoly is going to be dismantled and grocery prices lowered in four years). But surrendering on an idealistic but unrealistic project is not the same as abandoning your fundamental values and policies for no reason at all. Why would Harris suddenly grow a spine, when promising a policy of conciliation to the far right just won her a contentious national election?

When has Harris been in a position to use her spine in the way you suggest?

BTW, Trump is what has gained her the support of a bunch the of far right. Not because they think she will throw them some bones with meat. Which, like it or not, all successful presidents do: find compromises and areas of shared interest.

They can see how unhinged Trump is and that JD is not fit in terms of character or demeanor to take over the franchise, even for a few years. He’s proven that he will say absolutely anything and will do 180’s so quick your head will spin. Plus he is just plain unlikeable on camera. I doubt he’s better in person, either.

I absolutely do not understand how anybody can listen to a word Trump says—going back 20+ years and not know he’s a self-interested egomaniac who cannot think about what is good for someone else if it conflicts with his own self interest and genuinely cares about nothing and no one except himself. At best he’s a blow hard. The masses who support him usually spot that shit straight off. I honestly do not get it. At all.

Being POTUS is much more akin to being in a contentious marriage while serving as mayor of a city or town where gold or plutonium may or may not be located and getting it will involve exposing some of the population to radiation, some will lose their favorite park/the farm their family has owned for over 100 years but some people could become very wealthy and there would be money to improve the streets and schools. Lots of competing interests and needs and the absolute necessity of finding common ground and identifying and working towards the best interests of the most people short term, long term and midterm. Occasionally there will be a crack in the levy after spring rains or a tornado, blizzards and the football team is 0 for 3 and the quarterback was just accused of drunk driving and impregnating the head cheerleader whose parents are mid-ugly divorce and whose father has come out as gay.

Lots of balls in the air which require: people skills and the absolute ability to acknowledge to yourself that about a third to half of the town plus your spouse will ge angry with you no matter what you do, but you have to try your best anyway.

 

[pood]

I could be wrong, but I expect Harris to depart from Biden’s virtually unstinting support of war criminal Netanyahu in his slaughter of innocent Palestinians, for example

On what basis? Not her statements. Not her record. Not her funding. Not her endorsers. I'm all for hope, but not naivete.

One basis is Michael Moore’s substack, in which he mentions unnamed sources who behind the scenes say Harris has been heavily pushing Biden to change his Gaza policy. Admittedly that may be a thin reed, but there is certainly precedent for vice presidents to publicly stay loyal to their president on controversial issues while privately pressing for a change of policy on those same issues. Two examples: Vice President Humphrey privately repeatedly expressed deep skepticism about President Johnson’s Vietnam War debacle, in response to which Johnson repeatedly derided and humiliated him. When Humphrey eventually became the Democratic presidential nominee, he openly broke with Johnson by calling for an end to the bombing of North Vietnam. Example two is Biden and Obama. Biden publicly expressed support for Obama keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while privately pressing him to pull them all out, which he eventually did when he himself was president.

But Harris has done no such thing. How is the situation in any sense analogous?

I had a feeling you’d jump on that sentence and bold it.

No, Harris has not done the same thing. But the real analogy is the behind-the-scenes part. If it’s true that Harris, behind the scenes, is pressing Biden to change course on Gaza, that’s the point to focus on. If she is doing that, then, presumably, if elected, she will change course. But wait, now we get ….

Also, unless my history books left out something extremely important, Humphrey lost his election.

OK. So if we go with THIS comparison, you should be GLAD she isn’t deviating from Biden’s Gaza policy during the election, because the Humphrey example suggests she might then lose.

In reality, there’s little comparison between Vietnam and Gaza. The Vietnam War was all-consuming in America in 1968. The Gaza war has a fraction of the impact in 2024.

Although it should be noted too that after Humphrey called for an end to the bombing, he quickly rose in the polls, in which he had been lagging by as much as 16 points, and very nearly caught Nixon. The election was a cliffhanger. Historians have since discovered that NIxon committed treason by scuttling behind the scenes a Johnson peace deal.

So your advice to "elect x and see what happens" cannot apply.

What’s the alternative? Elect Trump. Then’s your choices, Trump or Harris, like it or not. You say you’re voting for Harris. What good does it do to belabor Harris over Gaza, when doing so may in fact turn off some perhaps small number of voters from voting for her? But in election as close as it seems, that small number may hand the White House to Trump.

We have only Humphrey's word and yours as to what he "would have done" if the office were actually his. The exact ssme kind of testimony you're telling me to ignore when it's Harris telling us what she plans to do.

You don’t have my word on it. I was 11 years old at the time, FFS. I’m not saying to ignore what Harris says. Harris is not the president. Let’s wait and see what she does when and if she is.

But have a look around the forum. It us filled with "liberals" excoriating those protestors as anti-semitic, Marxist traitors, and angrily denying that any such genocide even occurred. It was just a police action to save Israel from terrorists.

Police action is Harris' strong point, of course.

Around THIS forum? I’ve seen none of that here.