US Politics Thread

[bishopshodan]

15 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Yeah that's what I was referring to (he's confusing Harris with Warren).

 

Oh, I though he might have tweeted that when Warren was speaking. 

[DSVII]

 

This is what Conservatism means to me. The McCains, and even further back, Eisenhower, back to that stoic integrity and respect for the country and for those across the aisle and the sense of responsibility. 

[stawns]

Kamala says he won't hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself

 

 

MAGA voters wondering what being a car lover has to do with being POTUS 

[stawns]

13 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

This is what Conservatism means to me. The McCains, and even further back, Eisenhower, back to that stoic integrity and respect for the country and for those across the aisle and the sense of responsibility. 

 

I have never been conservative, but I've always understood and valued the importance of a strong fiscally conservative party in the political system. 

 

The Tea Party and it's ugly child, MAGA, are not fiscal conservatives

[RupertKBD]

16 hours ago, Johngould21 said:

How this pos is a free man is beyond me.

 

Because a skateboard is apparently a deadly weapon in America.....

 

Interestingly enough, if you ask some Republicans, flag poles and steel pipes are not.....at least not when engaging in "legitimate political discourse".....

[24K]

1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

I respectfully disagree.  Can't be passive against him.  Be on the attack (if nothing else, it gets Herr Sh*tsHisPants triggered into Daffy Duck mode):

 

(but let her VP guy handle much of that as he's good at it):

 

 

 

 

The 2016 Dotard would know when to adjust attack strategies.  2024 version has "Sleepy Joe Oldman-i-tis" & doesn't realize he already has the Nazi vote & yet keeps this same message:

 

 

Guy can't even get his racist insult straight (confusing First Nations people's with Indians (subcontinent) in 2024.

I meant on policy. Harris shouldn't be playing at Trump level of little to none policy talk. 

[RupertKBD]

16 hours ago, smithers joe said:

trump says that 100% of new job creation has gone to imagrants. he says they don't have all the numbers, it is probably more than 100%. what?

 

This is why Republicans are trying to gut the US education system and ban books.....

 

They want people to remain stupid enough to believe idiocy like this.

[RupertKBD]

15 hours ago, stawns said:

 

I agree, especially if it turns out Trump promises him a cabinet position

 

I'm thinking something in the Health portfolio.....or maybe Wildlife Management....

[RupertKBD]

14 hours ago, Jaimito said:

How many Scaramuccis? 

 

I always thought of it kind of like how they gauge jet speed.....

 

"Looks like RFK JR. just made it to Mooch1".....

[24K]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

 

I think Trump and the repugs are trying to make that the issue......that doesn't mean it actually is an issue.  Is she expected to publish a manifesto?

 

Expanding on bidens policy isn't a bad thing, he's done a solid job and she was part of that.  

The issue is lack of details allow Repub to frame the vague proposals in their framing. 

 

You see that with the price gouging roll out. It is now toxic. That was squarely caused by a vague policy that lacked details allowing MAGA to frame it as price control. Without any actual details, you can't even counter that. 

 

Now I am not saying she need to go knee deep in speeches. No body care but a bit of explanation or examples will help her ward off attacks. Defend good policy don't let others define it for you. 

 

When I say signature policy, you need that to energize the base. Right now she is riding on brat summer and vibes but when that subside, it is the signature policy that drives the momentum. Now the vibes may just long enough to get to November and so far it looks like dems is putting all their chips into riding that vibe. 

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, 24K said:

The issue is lack of details allow Repub to frame the vague proposals in their framing. 

 

You see that with the price gouging roll out. It is now toxic. That was squarely caused by a vague policy that lacked details allowing MAGA to frame it as price control. Without any actual details, you can't even counter that. 

 

Now I am not saying she need to go knee deep in speeches. No body care but a bit of explanation or examples will help her ward off attacks. Defend good policy don't let others define it for you. 

 

When I say signature policy, you need that to energize the base. Right now she is riding on brat summer and vibes but when that subside, it is the signature policy that drives the momentum. Now the vibes may just long enough to get to November and so far it looks like dems is putting all their chips into riding that vibe. 

 

You don't go into policy details in campaign speeches, that's what debates are for

[24K]

54 minutes ago, DSVII said:

 

I think everything leading up to the convention has just been about getting the electorate familiar with Harris and Walz as they are relatively unknown across the US. This has been about their stories and how they connect with the average american. I didnt know Walz before this but his plain coachspeak is appealing. The policy details will come now that the convention is done and they've outlined their vision in broad strokes more or less this last week. Undecided voters imo, don't sweat over which side has the better 40 page economic plan. They want to see the story, the vision and the character of the leaders. The emotional has always overriden the rational in these elections. They are playing on the publics exhaustion with rage based politics.

 

Donald meanwhile, has been rage tweeting every attack he can think of and sounding like a bitter old ex. If there is an opening it's not like he's jumping at it rationally. At least not at this point.

 

Don, when presented with the opening of his opponent having no policy released:

 

Of course don't bore people going through a hundred page white paper. 

 

Like I said in previous post. I am more concerned with her lack of details derailing her vague policy by creating a vacuum that allows GOP to define what they are. It is easier to defend good policy than warding off the false framing and trying to redefine what it actually is. 

 

Like with her price gouging. Had she provided an example, it will be harder to convince people it was price control. She didn't do that and that policy is effectively useless now as a campaign message. 

[24K]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

You don't go into policy details in campaign speeches, that's what debates are for

Ofcourse don't go knee deep. You have to provide context and examples though or immediately release the detailed plan afterwards. 

 

That has been a major weakness and it is now becoming indefensible after the convention. 

[RupertKBD]

1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

You're right.

 

I understand the confusion though.

Maybe Don should learn the term indigenous. 

 

But, that's a bigly word for him. 

 

I've always thought that was weird. Americans are careful to refer to black people as "African Americans", but they still use the term "indian". Where I live, that term is borderline racist.

[RupertKBD]

59 minutes ago, stawns said:

People who don't want it to be a major issue are saying that I think.  

 

Yep. In fact, I hear is most often from the token conservatives who are on panel discussions on CNN.....

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, 24K said:

Ofcourse don't go knee deep. You have to provide context and examples though or immediately release the detailed plan afterwards. 

 

That has been a major weakness and it is now becoming indefensible after the convention. 

 

I think you are way overthinking this.  That's every politician in every campaign.

[stawns]

9 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

 

You're right.

 

I understand the confusion though.

Maybe Don should learn the term indigenous. 

 

But, that's a bigly word for him. 

 

That would mean he'd have to pronounce "indigenous" and that is a disaster just waiting to happen

Edited August 24 by stawns

[24K]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

 

I think you are way overthinking this.  That's every politician in every campaign.

I don't think I am overthinking it when we already saw it with her price gouging proposal. The right took that vacuum and ran with it. Now you don't even hear her talk about it cause it has become toxic. 

[stawns]

1 minute ago, 24K said:

I don't think I am overthinking it when we already saw it with her price gouging proposal. The right took that vacuum and ran with it. Now you don't even hear her talk about it cause it has become toxic. 

 

It's become "toxic" within MAGA, just like everything else it touches.  I don't see any toxicity towards it anywhere else.  Don't equate what happens in the MAGA vacuum with what happens outside of ut

[RupertKBD]

22 minutes ago, 24K said:

I meant on policy. Harris shouldn't be playing at Trump level of little to none policy talk. 

 

I don't know....I think when your opposition is stumbling this badly, you step back and let them do so.

 

Right now the Democrats are riding a wave of populism and the Republicans are making themselves look like fools in their efforts to counter that wave. There is no reason at this point, to get into the minutiae of how she plans to govern. You said it yourself: The one policy idea she raised was not well received. Why expose yourself to that sort of risk, when the Trump team is embarrassing themselves on a daily basis?

 

At some point, she will have to, of course, but I don't believe that time is right now.

[24K]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

It's become "toxic" within MAGA, just like everything else it touches.  I don't see any toxicity towards it anywhere else.  Don't equate what happens in the MAGA vacuum with what happens outside of ut

No, it has became the mainstream position. You had all msm talking about how price control doesn't work and cause more problems. Multiple articles written from the likes of nyt, wapo, axios, that had economist saying as much. 

[RupertKBD]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

It's become "toxic" within MAGA, just like everything else it touches.  I don't see any toxicity towards it anywhere else.  Don't equate what happens in the MAGA vacuum with what happens outside of ut

 

It's not popular with economists, because they think of it as restrictive. However, that shouldn't be the only metric we use, when talking about combating price gouging. This article in the Atlantic explains it pretty well, IMO:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/economists-kamala-harris-price-gouging/679547/

[24K]

4 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I don't know....I think when your opposition is stumbling this badly, you step back and let them do so.

 

Right now the Democrats are riding a wave of populism and the Republicans are making themselves look like fools in their efforts to counter that wave. There is no reason at this point, to get into the minutiae of how she plans to govern. You said it yourself: The one policy idea she raised was not well received. Why expose yourself to that sort of risk, when the Trump team is embarrassing themselves on a daily basis?

 

At some point, she will have to, of course, but I don't believe that time is right now.

Well let's hope cause so far the Dems are just relying on vibes and the memes. 

[SilentSam]

Texas is in crosshairs 

 

[DSVII]

27 minutes ago, 24K said:

Of course don't bore people going through a hundred page white paper. 

 

Like I said in previous post. I am more concerned with her lack of details derailing her vague policy by creating a vacuum that allows GOP to define what they are. It is easier to defend good policy than warding off the false framing and trying to redefine what it actually is. 

 

Like with her price gouging. Had she provided an example, it will be harder to convince people it was price control. She didn't do that and that policy is effectively useless now as a campaign message. 

 

I think by doing what you are proposing, and operating from the paradigm of always fearing what the Republicans will do, the Dems will fall into the trap of confronting the Republicans on their terms, giving them something concrete to attack to latch onto to change the narrative and wind up losing the initiative anyway, without the Republicans having to release their own details.

 

I think the policy will come, it's just that timing is just as important and right now is not the time, there's still plenty of days left to election day. 

 

Dems need to be aggressive and play on their own terms. It serves the Dem's strategy right now to have Trump swing on air and try and use every dirty trick in the book to try and define Kamala and Walz, which they are failing at. ('Stolen Valour', 'DEI', etc...) The fact that Trump is swinging on air right now is driving him nuts.

 

This is why she is not doing the press interview despite the Republicans constantly hammering her on why she hasn't done it.  This approach has been quite refreshing actually.

 

And if this is a vacuum the GOP can exploit, the Dems can do it right back, the GOP have even more vague policy than the Dems. Why is the burden of proof on them? Why are we not asking where the Republican plan is? The Republicans are also claiming to do tax credits but have offered no attention to the cost of their own policies.

 

I guess, what level of detail are you looking for right now? From what I've gathered from some of the speeches that came out

• Protect spending on entitlements (pensions,  health-care) 
• Expansions of the child tax credit (bipartisan, last i checked)
• Raising taxes on the top 1% earners, corporations (28% tax rate), tax cuts on low-medium income families (how effective, remains to be seen)
• The construction of 3 million new homes in the next four years (~$40 billion cost)
• $25k credit on first time home buyers
• Price controls / Price gouging ban (I'll agree this idea is half baked atm and unlikely to pass, this is to buy votes)
• Crackdown on monopolistic mergers and acquisitions, especially in the grocery space (IMO a little too late for that one)
• Price caps on medicine, cancelling medical debts

 

Again, I think it is valid to call out the lack of platform policy on the Dems' part, in a normal election where the opponent is a normal rational actor who is working in good faith for their country, I just don't think this is the time or place for it right now. And let's not forget, the GOP also need to show their homework too.

 

The Republicans are showing even less, why should the Dems play the game? At the moment, the best thing that could be said about her policy is that it will be less damaging than Trump's, or it will come across as more beneficial that trumps. And that is enough for the public at the moment.

 

And as someone mentioned before, details and policy on both sides will come in the debates. Those will be crucial for both sides.

 

Edited August 23 by DSVII