POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The difference between party and country is one of membership. It's the responsibility of "the party" to decide on the candidate, and the people vote on the candidates available. It doesn't mean people would vote on the party at all, it means the party needs to find a candidate who will win. Moreover, the process for determining who gets to call each party "their" party is flawed, and there's no good way to improve it. I've voted Democrat in every election but one, when I voted Libertarian, but I've never voted in a Democratic primary. Meanwhile, people who have split their vote much more down the middle, or even people who vote straight Republican, vote in them. I admit to some bias, in that I honestly don't care who wins the Democratic primary, since I know I'll prefer them over the Republican. But, even if I voted Democrat every election, it's not "my" party -- it's just the party I happen to prefer. I think the idea that "the people" should choose a party's candidate is a mentality created by a two-party system. If there were five or more parties, the idea of a primary for each of them would feel ridiculous.



This feels extremely disingenuous. He wasn't selected "twice", I think the other time you're referring to was for the 2020 election - that was a different thing. As for the time he was selected in 2024, are you seriously saying that choosing a different nominee from an election where he was virtually unopposed is "subverting democracy" to you?

I think it's a strange hill to die on when you look at how messy the nominee selection process has been historically and how small of a role "the people" have directly played in the process.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Do you think it's racist to refer to Harris as a DEI candidate?

Of course, you can throw in sexist as well. If the republicans go heavy on her "sleeping her way to the top" and not earning her position, I don't think it will help them. You can't control the fringe, but the Trump campaign needs to focus more on her policies and experience in office. Of course, there's zero chance Trump avoids the personal attacks - and I think that will be a big plus for Harris.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Some of the options I mentioned could be done in less than a week. I agree with not dragging it out, but I would say the fact that Democrats not complaining about it is one of the most ... I want to say something like 'damning' but not really that as I don't like the connotations. It's just like what was mentioned before about them not wanting Biden to run and then not giving a crap when he did and primaries were cancelled and similar. They were perfectly fine dragging out the whole drama for weeks after the debate, so I don't buy the 'give the candidate a chance angle' a bit.

It tells me they don't really care about democracy.

As I said before, there was no practical way to challenge Harris once the machines of Biden+Obama+Clinton+Pelosi got behind her. It would have been political suicide to even run as a legit candidate. There may be a patsy they all agree to put up against her in the convention (to make it look like she was challenged), but she was given the golden ticket on Sunday.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just to add, there is zero doubt in my mind what the general reaction of the board here would be if this kind of thing were happening on the Republican side.

Imagine if there would have been a "McCain-like" candidate for the republicans who was old and polling awful. Going into the convention, they go out and replace him with Trump - the left would have absolutely lost their mind.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

In honor of reports that the GOP has already tried to file for impeaching Harris...

I give you the:

GOP BOT2.024 Code upgrade

Looks a lot like the Crowdstrike update last Friday

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Do you think it's racist to refer to Harris as a DEI candidate?

Is it racist (or in this case sexist) if it is true?

Joe Biden specifically said he was looking for a woman to be his Vice President. Her being Vice President is the only reason she's the leading candidate. If Joe had a announced a policy like that while working for a private company he would be sued into the ground.

[Flasch186]

Is being racist or sexist bad?

Ask yourself that first and that’ll color the second question


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flasch186]

Dola

That’s part of the problem for me

Just own it

If you’re racist or sexist don’t be ashamed of it. It’s tough to live in shame.

The GOP members (and anyone else) ought to just own it and say it out loud. They’ll find like minded prime. Perhaps they already have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

I don't know why people have allowed the right to shape what being a DEI hire means. It doesn't mean less qualified or anything of that nature. Why DEI hires are needed is the bigger question.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is it racist (or in this case sexist) if it is true?

Joe Biden specifically said he was looking for a woman to be his Vice President. Her being Vice President is the only reason she's the leading candidate. If Joe had a announced a policy like that while working for a private company he would be sued into the ground.

If you think Harris is less qualified than Trump or Thiel, oops Vance, then I seriously question your judgement. Biden was selected by Obama because he was an old, white guy. He's DEI all the way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Why DEI hires are needed is the bigger question.

Why anyone batshit enough to believe they're anything other handouts to people who haven't earned something are allowed to vote, or even walk the streets with sane people is the bigger question.

And THAT is among the things that has killed a once great nation: we're allowing the chronically stupid and/or mentally ill to vote.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is it racist (or in this case sexist) if it is true?

Joe Biden specifically said he was looking for a woman to be his Vice President. Her being Vice President is the only reason she's the leading candidate. If Joe had a announced a policy like that while working for a private company he would be sued into the ground.

She was a successful AG and senator from the biggest state in the union. She is qualified and to suggest she was selected because she is black and is unqualified is racist and sexist. Just own it.

Trumps VP has literally been in government for 18 months and already comes across as a buffoon.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why anyone batshit enough to believe they're anything other handouts to people who haven't earned something are allowed to vote, or even walk the streets with sane people is the bigger question.

And THAT is among the things that has killed a once great nation: we're allowing the chronically stupid and/or mentally ill to vote.

It's a reason to tear down people of color or women. Period. JD Vance wasn't questioned as a DEI hire even though Tim Scott and countless others within the GOP were infinitely more qualified to be VP. He's a bad author pretending to be a bad politician with no experience in government.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And THAT is among the things that has killed a once great nation: we're allowing the chronically stupid and/or mentally ill to vote.

That's not new. Those people have always been able to vote.

[cuervo72]

I mean, at least for Vance he did get his way to a good school then got a fairly high-powered job. Not really sure that qualifies him to be VP*, but I'll hand that to him. How many positions in finance, law, law enforcement, etc. are gotten just because daddy/pappy lined things up for them? How are those not handouts? We're decrying this too, yes?

(Can't leave out nepo babies in music/Hollywood or politics either.)





* On the other hand, I was just reading The Forrestal Diaries and back then it didn't seem abnormal for someone who did well in business to swing over to government for a time to, well, help the country. Of course in Forrestal's case he was rewarded for it by cracking from the stress and plunging from an open window.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean, at least for Vance he did get his way to a good school then got a fairly high-powered job. Not really sure that qualifies him to be VP*, but I'll hand that to him. How many positions in finance, law, law enforcement, etc. are gotten just because daddy/pappy lined things up for them? How are those not handouts? We're decrying this too, yes?

(Can't leave out nepo babies in music/Hollywood or politics either.)





* On the other hand, I was just reading The Forrestal Diaries and back then it didn't seem abnormal for someone who did well in business to swing over to government for a time to, well, help the country. Of course in Forrestal's case he was rewarded for it by cracking from the stress and plunging from an open window.

For Vance, Thiel is his daddy. Thiel has provided him almost everything in his career including jobs, a Venture Capital company, and over $15M for his campaign. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Thiel was involved in promoting and propping up the book.

[Passacaglia]

Regardless of what you think of Trump, hasn't his winning an election put to bed the idea of who is "qualified" to hold a position?

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Regardless of what you think of Trump, hasn't his winning an election put to bed the idea of who is "qualified" to hold a position?

I would say the exact opposite when it comes to the result of electing someone unqualified

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I would say the exact opposite when it comes to the result of electing someone unqualified

Sure, of course. I guess my thought is if you support Trump (or are even kind of okay with him), but you argue someone else is a DEI candidate, you can't legitimately argue that candidate is not qualified. So all that's left is that you have a problem with the fact that the candidate is diverse.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

Imagine if there would have been a "McCain-like" candidate for the republicans who was old and polling awful. Going into the convention, they go out and replace him with Trump - the left would have absolutely lost their mind.

We can only hope to be as consistent and thoughtful as you and Brian. Maybe one day we'll be better, but until then, we have you to guide us. Thanks for setting such a great example.

[Danny]

If Trump got sick tomorrow and then they did the same process of having trumps delegates be released and put them towards vance thatd be about what youd expect i gusss.

Ideally biden would have dropped much sooner but it seems having his delegates released and then them voting for kamala his vp and who he endorsed seems to fit within the history and rules.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Danny

If Trump got sick tomorrow and then they did the same process of having trumps delegates be released and put them towards vance thatd be about what youd expect i gusss.

Ideally biden would have dropped much sooner but it seems having his delegates released and then them voting for kamala his vp and who he endorsed seems to fit within the history and rules.

Our founders didn't predict the growth of political parties so there really aren't any rules for how parties nominate anyone. We've had numerous revisions throughout our history on how it's done. The people directly selecting someone has never been one of those ways.

There's also been corruption and backroom deals when left to any level of legislation.

I don't see how this isn't a democratic process. People aren't forced to vote for Kamala in the presidential election. She still has to win an election to hold office.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why anyone batshit enough to believe they're anything other handouts to people who haven't earned something are allowed to vote, or even walk the streets with sane people is the bigger question.

And THAT is among the things that has killed a once great nation: we're allowing the chronically stupid and/or mentally ill to vote.

I could write literally the exact same sentence about venture capital or bailouts propping up businesses that would/have failed in the "open market".


This country has been built on handouts, bailouts and family/fraternity/Masonic/military/romantic/national/political/sports/looks etc
nepotism since it's founding so I have to wonder about folks who only see an issue and get angry when minoritites get jobs.

What do you think the odds are that screeching Lauren Boebert never hired family or friends, and always hired the most qualifed applicant, to work for her at "Shooters Grill"?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We can only hope to be as consistent and thoughtful as you and Brian. Maybe one day we'll be better, but until then, we have you to guide us. Thanks for setting such a great example.

Where would we be without the grace of libertarians sharing their collective secrets of governing nowehere and nobody?

[GrantDawg]

This might be telling. Kelly was one of only three Democratic Senators that were holding out on this pro-union legislation. He had stated he wasn't totally against it, but wanted some parts of it changed. This was a sticking point to a couple of Unions that said they wouldn't endorse him as VP because of this. Now he says he would definitely vote for it.

A Possible Democratic Veep Pick Just Changed His Position On A Key Issue https://t.co/9resTiEq7l

— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) July 24, 2024

[GrantDawg]

Jeez, that's a big net. Also, they will announce a pick before August 7th. They are pressing ahead with the phone nomination vote to make sure they get the names in before the Ohio August 7th ballot date. They are still afraid that a legal challenge might keep Harris off the ballot if they don't meet the old deadline.

SCOOP: CBS News has learned that the Harris campaign is considering approximately 12 individuals for her VP pick – a larger number than previously reported.

The list includes:
-Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
-North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
-Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear…

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 24, 2024

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We can only hope to be as consistent and thoughtful as you and Brian. Maybe one day we'll be better, but until then, we have you to guide us. Thanks for setting such a great example.

There's hypocrisy on both sides here, I'm not trying to be anti-democrat with this. Both of these are true, and it's not great for the country:

1. The democrats would lose their mind if the Republicans pulled something like this to get Trump nominated without going through a primary
2. The republicans would 100% do number 1 if faced with a poor polling old guy they didn't like.

I know this isn't new, but the "win at all costs" that American politics has turned into is a sad state. Each side has their followers in such a fervor that if the other side wins, their lives will not be worth living.
Republicans were fine under Clinton
Democrats were fine under W
Republicans were fine under Obama
Democrats were fine under Trump
Republicans were fine under Biden

Republicans will be fine under Harris and democrats will be fine (again) if Trump wins. But I guess stating this goes against the justification for spending billions of dollars on election and thousands of hours campaigning.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Someone must have told Elon that Tesla sales are down since he started pushing Trump.

Tesla profit falls 45% to $1.48 billion on weak EV sales in Q2 | AP News

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Arles

Republicans will be fine under Harris and democrats will be fine (again) if Trump wins. But I guess stating this goes against the justification for spending billions of dollars on election and thousands of hours campaigning.

Sorry, but I won't take it for granted that my transgender daughter will be okay if Trump wins and starts implementing Project 2025 plans.

[RainMaker]

Brian is right in the sense that it's an undemocratic process. But it's always been one. Your vote in Presidential primaries is merely a suggestion. The party does not have to respect it at all. I think it's a terrible system but to be mad at it now instead of for the past century or two doesn't seem fair.

With that said, I don't know what other option there was. Not enough time for a primary and no one is jumping at the chance to throw their hat in the ring. And even if you did open it up, you're still putting the vote in the hadns of delegates and not voters. Now this sucks for those who want a more democratic approach, but the blame goes for the DNC for closing off the primary and discouraging anyone from running and Biden for being a narcissist who put the party and its supporters in this position.

[GrantDawg]

Another person being vetted: Admiral William McRaven. He oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and was the chancellor of the University of Texas.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Arles

Of course, you can throw in sexist as well. If the republicans go heavy on her "sleeping her way to the top" and not earning her position, I don't think it will help them. You can't control the fringe, but the Trump campaign needs to focus more on her policies and experience in office. Of course, there's zero chance Trump avoids the personal attacks - and I think that will be a big plus for Harris.

To piggyback on this, the media needs to be called out for the way they characterize some of this.

Case in point, the NYT ran an article with the headline, "Trump's New Rival May Bring Out His Harshest Instincts." This is in response to the misogynistic/racist attacks on Harris. And notice, the headline suggests this is HARRIS'S fault for provoking MAGA by existing as a black female Presidential candidate. Fucking awful.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Arles

Republicans will be fine under Harris and democrats will be fine (again) if Trump wins. But I guess stating this goes against the justification for spending billions of dollars on election and thousands of hours campaigning.

If you can’t see how different this gop is powered by the heritage foundation then you haven’t been paying attention. They absolutely want to fundamentally change our nation and damn anyone who it affects negatively. They aren’t exactly keeping their intentions a secret.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Sorry, but I won't take it for granted that my transgender daughter will be okay if Trump wins and starts implementing Project 2025 plans.

Yep. Pretty worried about my Muslim family too.

[Flasch186]

As of today me and the kids are dual citizens of Austria.

The irony that I put a parachute on my Jewish family (just in case) and it’s Austria of all places is not lost on me.

The wife will have to fend for herself 😂

Anyways not a joke post

But

Apparently to get an Austrian passport r we have to go to New York






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Anyone with a daughter, sister, niece, etc should be worried. Especially if Vance is anywhere near power.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This might be telling. Kelly was one of only three Democratic Senators that were holding out on this pro-union legislation. He had stated he wasn't totally against it, but wanted some parts of it changed. This was a sticking point to a couple of Unions that said they wouldn't endorse him as VP because of this. Now he says he would definitely vote for it

Yeah, him changing his position on that makes me think he's the frontrunner. All things considered, he's a really tough guy to attack and the contrast between him and Vance on a stage will be staggering.

I was against it because that Senate seat is valuable, but fuck it. If you have a shot to end Trumpism, you go for it. Beshear, Walz, JB, Whitmer, and Cooper would be fine although I dont' think help much. Shapiro is risky but has some upside. Still wouldn't risk it.

[Flasch186]

Kelly is the slam dunk choice

Could be a massive turnout on both sides for this one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If you can’t see how different this gop is powered by the heritage foundation then you haven’t been paying attention. They absolutely want to fundamentally change our nation and damn anyone who it affects negatively. They aren’t exactly keeping their intentions a secret.

Presidents do virtually nothing regarding social issues. The actual impact is:
Supreme Court: 60%
States: 35%
President: 5%

All presidents can really do is appoint judges (the 5%) or is veto something - but the odds of the senate and the house passing anything that impactful are very small. The only two court judges close to retirement are both conservative judges: Alito and Thomas, and those two retiring in the next four years is unlikely.

I can't think of a presidential election that will end up having a smaller impact on social issues that this one. Obama and the first Trump were way more important as they appointed 5 judges (the age of the judges was a very small factor in me voting for Oabama and Hillary - but not the deciding one).

I will be voting for Harris because I don't want to watch Trump bloviate for another four years and there is a very small chance she could replace one of the two older judges. As a social liberal, if Trump wins, it's unlikely anything negative happens to gay rights or abortion. I think people really overestimate the impact the president had. I mean, Roe vs Wade was overturned with Biden in office.

[Lathum]

Ok. So you’re not paying attention.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, him changing his position on that makes me think he's the frontrunner. All things considered, he's a really tough guy to attack and the contrast between him and Vance on a stage will be staggering.

I was against it because that Senate seat is valuable, but fuck it. If you have a shot to end Trumpism, you go for it. Beshear, Walz, JB, Whitmer, and Cooper would be fine although I dont' think help much. Shapiro is risky but has some upside. Still wouldn't risk it.

I think Kelly is the right call. Beshear would be solid if he was from a swing state. Shapiro would get a lot of push back from a voting group you really need to pull. I don't think Whitmer is a good fit to pair with Kamala, which is unfortunate.

[GrantDawg]

Well, you know. Kamala has to make a DEI hire of a straight white man.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

As of today me and the kids are dual citizens of Austria.

The irony that I put a parachute on my Jewish family (just in case) and it’s Austria of all places is not lost on me.

The wife will have to fend for herself 😂

Anyways not a joke post

But

Apparently to get an Austrian passport r we have to go to New York






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're Australian, not Austrian. Also, I'm so old my kids were watching this with the originals. And I saw them live twice.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Well, you know. Kamala has to make a DEI hire of a straight white man.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Sadly she probably does.

[Flasch186]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

I mean, Roe vs Wade was overturned with Biden in office.

The case started from a 2018 law that Mississippi passed, which they did because they sensed there was no longer a pro-choice majority on the court, due to Trump's appointees. (They were clearly right). Lower courts blocked enforcement of the law in March 2018 and the appeals process took a couple years to get up to SCOTUS.

Before Trump was elected, SCOTUS had a 5-4 pro-choice majority. If he didn't get elected, then that majority would've remained and Roe would not have been overturned.

Not sure why you picked this example, since it's probably the clearest example of the impact Trump had on the country.

[GrantDawg]

And he is out. It is possible that he was being vetted mostly to see if he might be interested in another role in a future Harris White House...

I just received the following: “I am honored to have been considered as a possible running mate for Vice President Harris. However, there are far better candidates and I have removed my name from consideration.” Admiral William H. McRaven USN (Ret)

— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) July 25, 2024

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The case started from a 2018 law that Mississippi passed, which they did because they sensed there was no longer a pro-choice majority on the court, due to Trump's appointees. (They were clearly right). Lower courts blocked enforcement of the law in March 2018 and the appeals process took a couple years to get up to SCOTUS.

Before Trump was elected, SCOTUS had a 5-4 pro-choice majority. If he didn't get elected, then that majority would've remained and Roe would not have been overturned.

Not sure why you picked this example, since it's probably the clearest example of the impact Trump had on the country.

I think that’s covered in my post. I don’t see any obvious retirements in the next four years. There were 2-3 likely under Obama and then Trump. The rhetoric on these boards make it seem like Harris can stop actions against socially liberal policies. The reality is it is the states and the Supreme Court. So if she doesn’t appoint a new Justice (very likely) - then where is this action she can take to save LGBT rights or abortion?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Is it racist (or in this case sexist) if it is true?

Joe Biden specifically said he was looking for a woman to be his Vice President. Her being Vice President is the only reason she's the leading candidate. If Joe had a announced a policy like that while working for a private company he would be sued into the ground.

But it's not a private company, it's the government. And the government is supposed to be representative of the entire population, not just a few well-connected white guys. If the argument is that there is not a single woman eligible that could fill that role, fine. But I think his argument is that he wanted his government to be representative of all people.

And I don't think that's a terrible thing to want in government. Not gender or race specific, but I want some diversity in positions. I don't think the Supreme Court should be filled with people who went to the same schools, were in the same clubs, clerked for the same people, and had the same legal careers. We should have someone who worked their way up through a state school. Someone who worked as a public defender. The full gamut of experiences that represent the entire population would provide fairer rulings.

I don't really see the issue with her. If we're comparing resumes of Biden/Trump, one has failed upwards his entire life and the other inherited a ton of money from his Daddy and still had to con his way through life because he couldn't figure out how to run a successful business.

If we're talking about qualifications and credentials to be President, Harris has them beat by a country mile and the only reason this is being brought up is because she is black and a woman. And I don't particularly think that highly of Harris either. Biden and Trump are the one's that got handouts most of their life.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Before Trump was elected, SCOTUS had a 5-4 pro-choice majority. If he didn't get elected, then that majority would've remained and Roe would not have been overturned.

I'm pretty sure it was a 5-4 Pro-Life majority. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavannaugh.

[Arles]

Yeah, the idea that Harris is a DEI candidate is literally nuts. She was a district attorney for 7 years, the Attorney General for 6 years and a senator in one of the biggest states for 4 years. Throw in her four years as VP and you could make the argument she is the most qualified person to run for president right now.