Harris Trump debate

[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 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.

They are embarassed by how he looks, not about what he did.

 

[Politesse]

What’s the alternative? Elect Trump. Then’s your choices, Trump or Harris, like it or not.

Well aware. This why I am extremely concerned about January next, and everything that follows. Beneath the admittedly satisfying hoorah girlboss moments, this debate was from a long- run perspective extremely unsettling.

 

[RVonse]

Trump MAGA is for staying out of war with the populous focus at home

Yes. They intend to avoid conflict by capitulating to, and aiding, dictators everywhere. All the apricot's friends; Xi, Kim, Vlad, Rodrigo, Bin Salmon; they'll get along most happily with him as long as he does what they want, which he will because he wishes he was them.
Trump never met a dictator he didn't think was "very smart, a great guy".

This global dic-sucking WILL bring peace of a sort while his "populous" (sp?) focus at home will bring us blessed authoritarianism, racism , death camps, mass deportations, the institution of a police State and a Trump dynastic dictatorship, along with a wrecked isolationist economy and a burgeoning poverty class, which will of course need to be put down with firm authority, Kim Jong Un-style, if they protest.
But at least the apricot won't end up in jail, and that's the ONLY important thing, right?
MAGA!!

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

 

[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.

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?

Perhaps there is no need to “grow a spine” to abandon or mitigate that promise.

 

[Toni]

Trump MAGA is for staying out of war with the populous focus at home

Yes. They intend to avoid conflict by capitulating to, and aiding, dictators everywhere. All the apricot's friends; Xi, Kim, Vlad, Rodrigo, Bin Salmon; they'll get along most happily with him as long as he does what they want, which he will because he wishes he was them.
Trump never met a dictator he didn't think was "very smart, a great guy".

This global dic-sucking WILL bring peace of a sort while his "populous" (sp?) focus at home will bring us blessed authoritarianism, racism , death camps, mass deportations, the institution of a police State and a Trump dynastic dictatorship, along with a wrecked isolationist economy and a burgeoning poverty class, which will of course need to be put down with firm authority, Kim Jong Un-style, if they protest.
But at least the apricot won't end up in jail, and that's the ONLY important thing, right?
MAGA!!

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

The world IS still turning and every day the Taliban finds new restrictions to place on half its populations which the neocons find inspiring. But sure, the world keeps turning
and the grass don’t pay no mind.

 

[pood]

Trump MAGA is for staying out of war with the populous focus at home

Yes. They intend to avoid conflict by capitulating to, and aiding, dictators everywhere. All the apricot's friends; Xi, Kim, Vlad, Rodrigo, Bin Salmon; they'll get along most happily with him as long as he does what they want, which he will because he wishes he was them.
Trump never met a dictator he didn't think was "very smart, a great guy".

This global dic-sucking WILL bring peace of a sort while his "populous" (sp?) focus at home will bring us blessed authoritarianism, racism , death camps, mass deportations, the institution of a police State and a Trump dynastic dictatorship, along with a wrecked isolationist economy and a burgeoning poverty class, which will of course need to be put down with firm authority, Kim Jong Un-style, if they protest.
But at least the apricot won't end up in jail, and that's the ONLY important thing, right?
MAGA!!

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

There were no “neocons” in the 1960s. The war was engineered by JFK’s “Best and the Brightest,” though by the end of his life there is plenty of evidence that JFK himself intended to pull out of Vietnam. And yes, to some extent anyway, they did fall. Laos and Cambodia became Communist, although a lot of that had to do with Nixon expanding the war into their territory. Incidentally, “falling dominoes” was coined by President Eisenhower, a moderate Republican.

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

We went into Afghanistan to get Bid Laden, who engineered 9/11, not to stop the Taliban from “taking over everything,” unless by “everything” you mean all of Afghanistan. And yes, they have done exactly that.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia …

This is utter nonsense, of course. First, Biden is the president and not Harris, so if you feel Biden fucked up Ukraine, blaming Harris is just sleazy guilt by association. But of course Biden did not get us into a war with Russia. We are not fighting Russia. Russia is wholly and completely to blame for invading Afghanistan.

you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

Of course the world will still turn. It would still have turned had Hitler won World War II, right? So your observation is vacuous.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

That’s true, and what goes for us goes in equal measure for people like Putin and Netanyahu.

 

[TomC]

Police action is Harris' strong point, of course.

I sincerely hope that is true.

Sufficiently that if Trump and the Teapartiers attempt another insurrection they will be dealt with immediately and appropriately.

I'm no fan of capital punishment generally, but there are circumstances under which I'd be very supportive of a public hanging or firing squad. Like Saddam Hussein and Trump.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

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.

I don’t question the merit of your intent. I share your desire expressed above. But that is not prescriptive. Descriptions of “the problem”, no matter how precise, don’t provide a map to a solution or even progress toward it. I understand the role of broadcasting what the problem is, to create awareness but question that these fora are an effective soapbox. Not gonna “wake’Murka up” from here imo. But what do you think would be effective action(s) to take to further the cause?
My first suggestion is see to it that we don’t cede the Country to the Nazis. Try to persuade people that Harris is the Second Coming if you have to. Just get them to vote blue.
I believe that should be our first and only focus until it is fait accompli.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How are these more "fawning" that excessive praise you Dems have for Swift?

“you Dems” is something I’d expect from a Trump fan.

Orange Dotard doesn't have fans. Orange Dotard has subjects sheep.

 

[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.

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.

If she wins, it will be largely on the strength of anti-Trump conservatives who have been begrudgingly swayed to her side. Just as I am now being chided for my lack of faith that Kamala will turn magically into a hero of the people after the election, or for not understanding that any criticism of the Biden administration is a vote for Trump, after the election I will be chided for not understanding that this election was a "mandate" for Bidenesque policies, that Harris' overwhelming win proves that milquetoast appeals to centrism and concessions to white nationalist attitudes are what the American people truly want. Don't I know that the midterms are coming up in just two years? Is now the time to betray the Party and demand a hearing of unpopular issues, right now with the fate of the Congress hanging in the balance? After all, Harris can't be blamed for any of her failures if "we" don't strongly control the Senate, Congress, and White House. If "we" want to do that, "our" all- important alliance with the dubious conservatives needs to be preserved.

 

[Politesse]

Police action is Harris' strong point, of course.

I sincerely hope that is true.

Sufficiently that if Trump and the Teapartiers attempt another insurrection they will be dealt with immediately and appropriately.

I'm no fan of capital punishment generally, but there are circumstances under which I'd be very supportive of a public hanging or firing squad. Like Saddam Hussein and Trump.
Tom

The revival of American neofascism is not something that can be solved by a firing squad. Martyrdom breeds imitation. Did killing and publically flaunting the corpses of the Hussein family restore peace to Iraq? The definition of the common culture of this nation is at stake, not just the bodies of its most notorious villains. For similar reasons, we're lucky all these would-be assassins we've had lately are such bad shots.

 

[Ford]

Trump MAGA is for staying out of war with the populous focus at home

Yes. They intend to avoid conflict by capitulating to, and aiding, dictators everywhere. All the apricot's friends; Xi, Kim, Vlad, Rodrigo, Bin Salmon; they'll get along most happily with him as long as he does what they want, which he will because he wishes he was them.
Trump never met a dictator he didn't think was "very smart, a great guy".

This global dic-sucking WILL bring peace of a sort while his "populous" (sp?) focus at home will bring us blessed authoritarianism, racism , death camps, mass deportations, the institution of a police State and a Trump dynastic dictatorship, along with a wrecked isolationist economy and a burgeoning poverty class, which will of course need to be put down with firm authority, Kim Jong Un-style, if they protest.
But at least the apricot won't end up in jail, and that's the ONLY important thing, right?
MAGA!!

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

Wow. Your grasp of US history is tenuous at best. Neoconservatives weren't really a thing until a good bit after the Vietnam war was over. They arose after the fall of the Soviet Union, and generally speaking were dedicated to filling that power vacuum with the US.

Our involvement in the "sport war" (sic) in Afghanistan also predates the rise of the Neoconservatives, as we initially began supporting the Afghan resistance when Carter was President. Reagan kept the arms flowing into the...arms of fundamentalist Islamic militias throughout the 80s, though the connection between that support and the rise of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is not entirely clear. My impression was that Bin Laden hated the US from the get-go, and wasn't down with our CIA support for what we were then calling "freedom fighters."

As for the "sporting war" with Russia? I thought your use of "sporting" was a typo, but you repeated it here. Odd. Anyway, the Russian incursion into Ukraine began in 2014, back when Biden was VP and Trump was still trying to figure out how he could keep his "reality" show from falling in the ratings in it's final seasons.

Around this time, the Obama administration was laying the groundwork for exactly why Ukraine has been able to stand up to Russia. When Vlad annexed Crimea and sent totally not Russian soldiers into the Donbass and other parts of eastern Ukraine, the US sent in advisors to teach Ukraine's military many of the lessons we'd learned about urban warfare in Iraq. Their old Soviet-style command and control structure was jettisoned, and the Ukrainian military adopted tactics from the 21st Century as opposed to the Russian strategy of "just throw some more grunts at the problem."

It is no accident that Ukraine has been able to go toe to toe with Russia for 2 years.

As far as the withdrawal from Afghanistan is concerned, people on the right seem to forget that not only did Trump set the rough date for the withdrawal, but he released 5,000 Taliban soldiers back into the wild, reduced the American force down to considerably less than 5,000, and closed down all but one avenues of escape for the US military. Did the Biden administration "botch" the withdrawal? Yeah...same way that a football team made up of underpaid bench warmers would lose to a team of veteran players whose coaches literally had the US team's playbook.

See how I referenced "sport" just there right now?

 

[Bronzeage]

Your arithmetic is sound as far as 1971, but your statistical analysis, not so much. Your 4-5 acquaintance is doing all of us a favor by occupying some women that would benefit the rest of us very little. The sociosexual scene you have constructed, simply doesn't exist in reality. If you are unable to find a partner for sex with no attachment or obligation, it's not because hot guys have taken more than their fair share. Drawing on my experience, to be blunt, but gentle as possible, it's not a lack of supply. You are doing something wrong.

As a former "hot guy"(references on request), I can assure you, women do not always go for the hottest guys, no matter how obliging. It was like that in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.

The problem with this logic is that inherently there must be someone at the bottom of the desirability list. It's simply not possible for that not to be the case.

Like with the job market after the housing collapse. All this crap about trying harder did absolutely nothing about the fact that there were more job seekers than jobs. You look at it and conclude, correctly, that hotness isn't a required attribute. But that doesn't mean there aren't required attributes, just that you failed to identify them.

IIRC, Bronzeage has described himself (at least in his younger days) as "built like a Chippendale dancer". So, he may think the ladies were really after his clean fingernails, tucked in shirt and charm, but it seems likely he is deluding himself.

I made up for those deficiencies with overwhelming charm.

 

[Bronzeage]

Your arithmetic is sound as far as 1971, but your statistical analysis, not so much. Your 4-5 acquaintance is doing all of us a favor by occupying some women that would benefit the rest of us very little. The sociosexual scene you have constructed, simply doesn't exist in reality. If you are unable to find a partner for sex with no attachment or obligation, it's not because hot guys have taken more than their fair share. Drawing on my experience, to be blunt, but gentle as possible, it's not a lack of supply. You are doing something wrong.

As a former "hot guy"(references on request), I can assure you, women do not always go for the hottest guys, no matter how obliging. It was like that in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.

The problem with this logic is that inherently there must be someone at the bottom of the desirability list. It's simply not possible for that not to be the case.

Like with the job market after the housing collapse. All this crap about trying harder did absolutely nothing about the fact that there were more job seekers than jobs. You look at it and conclude, correctly, that hotness isn't a required attribute. But that doesn't mean there aren't required attributes, just that you failed to identify them.

Your analysis might be valid if there was such a thing as a uniform desirability list. There isn't one. There's a different one for every woman. I had an employee who was a remarkably attractive young woman and happened to be 5 ft 11. She would not date men taller than her because in her experience, "tall guys are assholes." The short guy who never approached her would never learn about his particular advantage.

The comparison to the housing market would make more sense if the house chose the buyer, maybe based on their aesthetic sense of landscaping. I'm sure the prospective buyer who wakes up every morning and says, "There's no house in the world that would have me", is going to be renting for a very long time.

If you Google Danny Trejo, you'll find him somewhere in top five of any Ugliest Actors In Hollywood list. There are three women who thought he was good enough to marry, all before his acting career started. He's 5ft6, so my employee might have found him interesting.


I'm going to have to scroll back a few pages to figure out why this is an issue in the Presidential Politics subforum.

 

[unapologetic]

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.

I don't hold her above criticism. For me it is more like 'turning a blind eye'. It is about character. Rump has none. Harris has some. I have always had to vote for the lesser evil. I have never seen a politician that I 100% favored. A politician I disliked often won, and we got by. I fear this won't be the case if Rump gets a 2nd term.

I am voting for Harris.

Thank You. I will stop worrying about you.

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.

In 2020 I tried to point out to my sister (the FauxNews watcher) that you could tell what a self-centered ass Rump was from 'The Apprentice'. Her response was "Oh, that's just a character he plays for the camera". Grrr...

My first suggestion is see to it that we don’t cede the Country to the Nazis.

Do you mean the NAT-Cs? NATionalist-Christians.

 

[scombrid]

If Dick Cheney has seen the light, maybe there is hope.

Dick Cheney's decision to endorse Harris instead of Trump shows Cheney thinks Harris would drop more bombs than Trump would. It's as simple as that.

If Dick Cheney endorsed someone I supported, it would make me lose support for that person. If I were running and Dick Cheney endorsed me, I would drop out of the race.

Cheney’s endorsement it a lie just like when the Koch’s fake endorsed Hillary and for the same reasons. Strengthen the narrative that Trump is anti establishment while knowing that all Republicans will vote Trump. Have to keep the RFK type people on side so that the Heritage Foundation and Heartland Institute can continue with their plans.

So everything is a giant conspiracy? Are the Illuminati involved? Or is it Reptilians?

Reptilians and Illuminati are for you people. Cheney is just an evil duplicitous shit bag. No conspiracy needed. Your response to his endorsement was his likely goal and it worked perfectly.

 

[ZiprHead]

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

Those neocons were all Republicans

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

And the Taliban took over everything. It was inevitable.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

You do realize it was the Russians that started the war, right?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I thought the moderators at least tried to limit his lies. Linsey Davis seemed more determined that David Muir to correct Trump's blatant lies.

But that also gave the distinct impression to anyone paying attention they were picking sides.

Trump was given more questions to answer, and more opportunities to speak to present his arguments and to do rebuttals; so it could be said that there was a specific bias in his favour (extra speaking time).

For example, Biden/Harris brought us the war in Ukraine …

Could you please support this claim with evidence and arguments? Thanks in advance for what I know you won’t be able to supply.

It is my personal hypothesis that if Trump wasn't elected in 2016 that Russia would be too afraid to invade Ukraine when POTUS was Hillary Clinton. Trump becoming president and the chaos he has created since January 2021, provided the opportunity for Putin in light of USA apparent weakness.

If Dick Cheney has seen the light, maybe there is hope.

Dick Cheney's decision to endorse Harris instead of Trump shows Cheney thinks Harris would drop more bombs than Trump would. It's as simple as that.

If Dick Cheney endorsed someone I supported, it would make me lose support for that person. If I were running and Dick Cheney endorsed me, I would drop out of the race.

Fortunately candidate Harris doesn't have your illogical mindset, and you are not the candidate which is another fortunate thing.

 

[marc]

Voice actor who does dramatic readings of speeches for practice shows how Trump should have delivered it

 

[JohnG]

Trump MAGA is for staying out of war with the populous focus at home

Yes. They intend to avoid conflict by capitulating to, and aiding, dictators everywhere. All the apricot's friends; Xi, Kim, Vlad, Rodrigo, Bin Salmon; they'll get along most happily with him as long as he does what they want, which he will because he wishes he was them.
Trump never met a dictator he didn't think was "very smart, a great guy".

This global dic-sucking WILL bring peace of a sort while his "populous" (sp?) focus at home will bring us blessed authoritarianism, racism , death camps, mass deportations, the institution of a police State and a Trump dynastic dictatorship, along with a wrecked isolationist economy and a burgeoning poverty class, which will of course need to be put down with firm authority, Kim Jong Un-style, if they protest.
But at least the apricot won't end up in jail, and that's the ONLY important thing, right?
MAGA!!

When we were fighting in Viet Nam the neocons said we had to stay the course because the domino's of communism would keep falling. But after enough political pressure we just gave up and went home. Did those domino's fall?

When the same neocons got us into another sport war with Afganistan they told us the taliban were going to take over everything unless we stayed there. But after Biden withdrew, the world is still turning today.

And now that Biden/Harris have got us into yet another sporting war with Russia you are telling everyone we have to be there or these bad dictators will be taking over the world. After Ukraine finally loses the world is still going to turn after that too.

We don't need to be creating violence everywhere else in the world just so our corrupt politicians and military complex can fill their pockets.

This only holds up until it doesn't