US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[Lumber]

"No one", as with "everyone", is usually wrong. A common principle of libertarians is free movement across borders. A common principle of progressives is immediate access to welfare programs. Some people support voting rights in lower level elections for residents (not exclusively citizens). I have read a few who would extend that to federal elections (pay taxes, have the right to vote for representation), which is after all one of the ideas that prompted the American Revolution.

I suppose it's remotely possible that there is no one person who holds all of these ideas along with whatever else is needed so as to be indistinguishable from "citizenship".

Ok, you got me, I was being far too hyperbolic.

Correction: No one within the Biden-Harris administration nor the Harris campaign has implied explicitly or implicitly that they intent to push forward a policy that would allow free and automatic citizenship to anyone who crosses in the states, whether legally or illegally.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You may want to rethink quoting someone who reports on "Soros linked progressive prosecutors".

That doesn't matter much to the target audience, which is clearly being whipped into a frenzy (again) over 'stealing the election' etc ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wouldn't call Mark Penn an expert on Democrat cheating. He's biased. He's had a hate on for the democrats ever since the out the blame on him for Hillary's failed run for President in 2008. Ever since then, he's done nothing but throw mud at everything democrats do, and has been vocally praising Trump since at least 2018.

A NeverDemocrater. Strange that there should be such a thing. So is it the case that Never"X"ers are not worth listening to on the subject of whatever it is that has their noses out of joint?

 

[Blackadder1916]

Pope Francis urges Catholics to pick 'lesser evil' between Trump and Harris

Pontiff calls candidates "against life", criticising Trump on immigration and Harris on abortion.

www.bbc.com

I haven't given much credence to pronouncements from Rome in the past half century, or to be more specific, the past 62 years (age 7 having been the age of reason). I've generally ignored the church and was happy enough if they (or the individuals in its service) ignored me. However, this is the second time in the last month or so when the Pope has commented on specific events. While he may have been more enlightened than his predecessors, I think he (and his organization) has reached its best before date and he should just shut the f*** up.

 

[Lumber]

A NeverDemocrater. Strange that there should be such a thing. So is it the case that Never"X"ers are not worth listening to on the subject of whatever it is that has their noses out of joint?

Absolutely not, but take everything into context. Watching the debate, Harris' responses did not suggest any prior knowledge of the questions, despite accusations to the contrary. The questions themselves were typical of what one would expect in a presidential debate, for which all candidates should have been extensively prepared. Moreover, as a former litigator, Harris is adept at crafting responses on the spot. The claim that she had advanced knowledge likely stems, in part, from Trump’s underwhelming performance. In contrast to him, Harris spoke with an eloquence and precision that seemed almost divine by comparison. However, it’s more plausible that Trump's supporters are simply shucking shade and seeing what sticks, and Penn is amplifying these baseless narratives because he's an unethical sycophant. Someone with less baggage and a shorter history of literally fawning after Trump would be someone's who's opinion I lend more credence to.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Pope Francis urges Catholics to pick 'lesser evil' between Trump and Harris

Pontiff calls candidates "against life", criticising Trump on immigration and Harris on abortion.

www.bbc.com

I haven't given much credence to pronouncements from Rome in the past half century, or to be more specific, the past 62 years (age 7 having been the age of reason). I've generally ignored the church and was happy enough if they (or the individuals in its service) ignored me. However, this is the second time in the last month or so when the Pope has commented on specific events. While he may have been more enlightened than his predecessors, I think he (and his organization) has reached its best before date and he should just shut the f*** up.

Speaking on moral issues is part of his job. You should just ignore him.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Absolutely not, but take everything into context. Watching the debate, Harris' responses did not suggest any prior knowledge of the questions, despite accusations to the contrary. The questions themselves were typical of what one would expect in a presidential debate, for which all candidates should have been extensively prepared. Moreover, as a former litigator, Harris is adept at crafting responses on the spot. The claim that she had advanced knowledge likely stems, in part, from Trump’s underwhelming performance. In contrast to him, Harris spoke with an eloquence and precision that seemed almost divine by comparison. However, it’s more plausible that Trump's supporters are simply shucking shade and seeing what sticks, and Penn is amplifying these baseless narratives because he's an unethical sycophant.

I tend to agree. She just did a short interview with a station in Philadelphia. She has a hard time getting to the point, if at all. It's difficult to believe she could have that much trouble if she knew questions in advance. Adept, no. An adept person would make a point concisely. Eloquence and precision, sure, but those have nothing to do with substance, unfortunately. (Maybe not so much precision, either. She tends to speak in cloud-shaped phrases.)

I am thinking the debate was for her a tactical victory and strategic error. She took the wrong objective. Few Americans still need to be shown Trump's flaws. People who enjoy "Harris pwned Trump" are already voting for her. She needs to convince undecided voters, and what all the pundits are saying is that undecided voters are waiting to hear what her administration will do. The debate was the single greatest opportunity to reach a large number of people - 50 to 60 million - and she wasted it. She should have ignored Trump, looked at the camera, and sold her policy points to the huge audience. She is running out of time. The fewer appearances she does in which people aren't holding her hand, the longer it's going to take her to learn to do it well.

The VP debate is less than 3 weeks away. If she hasn't stuck the landing on policy details and Walz starts doing it, all the "emotional support animal" and "Dad at the interview" memes will come out again and critics will wonder whether Walz ought to be running for president and her for VP.

There isn't likely to be another debate, so no repeated opportunity to reach such a large number of viewers. I can guess that's why her campaign would like another one, if they've realized their mistake. Since the debate was basically just a panel interview, and Trump and Vance have been doing plenty of interviews, there's no need for Trump to consent to doing another one that just gives Harris more exposure. She can do her own interviews.

 

[Lumber]

She can do her own interviews.

And she really needs to start doing those. I don't understand the strategy here, and the daily notifications on my phone from Fox news of "48-1, Trump vs Harris interview count", "32 days since Harris became a nominee and still hasnt..." are getting annoying.

 

[dimsum]

And she really needs to start doing those. I don't understand the strategy here, and the daily notifications on my phone from Fox news of "48-1, Trump vs Harris interview count", "32 days since Harris became a nominee and still hasnt..." are getting annoying.

The undecided voters (whoever is left in that category) are probably not going to base their vote on whether Harris has done an interview or not.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The undecided voters (whoever is left in that category) are probably not going to base their vote on whether Harris has done an interview or not.

Is there a foundation for that belief, or is it just wishful thinking?

The undecided voters already know Trump's personal characteristics and what a Trump administration is likely to be like. They know what a Biden administration is like. They've had a few weeks of joy and vibe, so anyone who was looking for that presumably is already locked in. They don't know what a Harris administration will be like. More of Biden, more of Harris 2020, or something different? I suppose the campaign could rely on one-way conversations by the candidate, the web site, the campaign ads, Walz, other prominent Democrats, and various aides (named or unnamed). It's a hell of a leap of faith to believe they won't care about how often Harris is willing to face an interviewer who can make her sweat. Do they assume that she's weak, or that she's strong but the proles aren't entitled to see her perform - they have to vote for her to find out what's in her?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Speaking on moral issues is part of his job. You should just ignore him.

If everyone still listened to the Pope, especially this one, we'd be in a world of hurt.

 

[Halifax Tar]

And she really needs to start doing those. I don't understand the strategy here, and the daily notifications on my phone from Fox news of "48-1, Trump vs Harris interview count", "32 days since Harris became a nominee and still hasnt..." are getting annoying.

Even I don't have the Fox app on my phone... I never would have suspected you did.

 

[Lumber]

Even I don't have the Fox app on my phone... I never would have suspected you did.

Fox, CNN, CTV, The Globe, BBC, AJ, and Reuters.

 

[daftandbarmy]

For the win


On Friday, Ohio Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted posted a photo online of two migratory Canadian geese. "Most Americans agree that these migrants should be deported," he said.

Donald Trump vows mass deportations from Ohio town rocked by 'pet-eating' lies

Trump says Springfield in Ohio has been "destroyed" and repeats baseless claim that migrants are eating pets.

www.bbc.com

 

[brihard]

For the win


On Friday, Ohio Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted posted a photo online of two migratory Canadian geese. "Most Americans agree that these migrants should be deported," he said.

Donald Trump vows mass deportations from Ohio town rocked by 'pet-eating' lies

Trump says Springfield in Ohio has been "destroyed" and repeats baseless claim that migrants are eating pets.

www.bbc.com

Super encouraging that one of the contenders for president is threatening to arbitrarily deport a lot of people with legal immigration status who’ve done nothing wrong. Maybe it never truly was about whether or not they immigrated legally, but rather whether they’re there at all.

 

[dimsum]

Is there a foundation for that belief, or is it just wishful thinking?

The undecided voters already know Trump's personal characteristics and what a Trump administration is likely to be like. They know what a Biden administration is like. They've had a few weeks of joy and vibe, so anyone who was looking for that presumably is already locked in. They don't know what a Harris administration will be like. More of Biden, more of Harris 2020, or something different? I suppose the campaign could rely on one-way conversations by the candidate, the web site, the campaign ads, Walz, other prominent Democrats, and various aides (named or unnamed). It's a hell of a leap of faith to believe they won't care about how often Harris is willing to face an interviewer who can make her sweat. Do they assume that she's weak, or that she's strong but the proles aren't entitled to see her perform - they have to vote for her to find out what's in her?

At this juncture, what we know about the two candidates (and one more than the other), “undecided” likely means “I’m voting for someone but isn’t willing to tell people”.

Why do I say this? I have family in the US in this situation, and depending on what they do and their social networks, it’s less awkward to say that than outright saying one or the other. From what they tell me, in their areas (they live in different areas) it is hyper partisan to the point that they are unwilling to put up campaign signs.

Harris was Biden’s VP. Why would she not continue that trend? She would have had a big say in it.

 

[dimsum]

Super encouraging that one of the contenders for president is threatening to arbitrarily deport a lot of people with legal immigration status who’ve done nothing wrong. Maybe it never truly was about whether or not they immigrated legally, but rather whether they’re there at all.

And his bit (from the same article) about deporting them to Venezuela is odd too. You generally deport people back to where they’re from - in this case, Haiti.

If it was the first time he mentioned that country, I’d count it as a mis-step a la Biden and continue on. But he mentioned Venezuela in the debate. What’s his fixation with Venezuela?

I wonder if he is willing to randomly deport another a bunch of people with legal immigration status who’ve done nothing wrong but has also driven up housing prices - Canadians.

 

[ArmyRick]

Glad I am not American. What a shitshow. Trump was embarrassing with his concerns of not eating pets. Might be valid, I don't think its anywhere near the top of America's concerns. However his recent announcement of no taxes on overtime labour was a winner in my mind.
Kamala? Better than Biden (anybody who can print their own name and speak three syllable words is head of Biden), still not sure. If she shows how the Dems can go in a better direction than what is currently going on, maybe.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Harris was Biden’s VP. Why would she not continue that trend? She would have had a big say in it.

Read about GHW Bush's house-cleaning when he took over after the Reagan administration. VP's don't necessarily feel bound to serve the legacies of their presidents.

It's doubtful Harris had a big say. Go back and read what people were saying about her position years ago. She wasn't well-respected. Go back and read polls and opinions from a few months ago, when her head-to-head matchups were almost always worse than Biden's (against Trump) and some Democrats were throwing around ideas for switching out the VP candidate to improve Biden's chances. Those are not indicators that hers was a prominent voice in the WH.

Hope is not a strategy. Harris has a past; it's not an electorally attractive one; it's unlikely that hype alone and second-hand reassurances from people other than the candidate are going to conceal all of it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And his bit (from the same article) about deporting them to Venezuela is odd too. You generally deport people back to where they’re from - in this case, Haiti.

If it was the first time he mentioned that country, I’d count it as a mis-step a la Biden and continue on. But he mentioned Venezuela in the debate. What’s his fixation with Venezuela?

I wonder if he is willing to randomly deport another a bunch of people with legal immigration status who’ve done nothing wrong but has also driven up housing prices - Canadians.

Simple explanation - he's confused gangs from Venezuela who have recently been in the news in Colorado with legitimate Haitians in Ohio.