US Politics Thread

[RupertKBD]

Just now, 24K said:

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

 

For sure. And it seems to be working.

 

You're correct about policy though....I just think your worries are a bit premature.

[24K]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

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/

This is exactly what I am talking about. You leave a vacuum allowing others to run amok and now you have to both deflect that framing and try to redefine it instead of just defending good policy.

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, 24K said:

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. 

 

No, you have big business talking about it, not people.  That's the point

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

No, you have big business talking about it, not people.  That's the point

 

She has a lot of time to clarify her position on it. It will be a debate question for sure.

[Warhippy]

7 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Texas is in crosshairs 

 

This is the same for numerous provinces in Canada in which Conservative parties have run them for decades but it's always "Canada is broken vote X to fix it"

 

People are so easily mislead 

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

She has a lot of time to clarify her position on it. It will be a debate question for sure.

 

For sure, but I don't see any negative repurcusssions or toxic fallout from it currently.  If anything she's drawn a line in the sand between real people and the corporations screwing them.  

 

Theres a lot more people being screwed than there are big business folks doing the screwing.

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

For sure, but I don't see any negative repurcusssions or toxic fallout from it currently.  If anything she's drawn a line in the sand between real people and the corporations screwing them.  

 

Theres a lot more people being screwed than there are big business folks doing the screwing.

 

can't think like a Canadian tho, to us she seems quite reasonable, even a bit to the centre right.

 

But to a lot of Americans, socialism is comin' to git ya. She needs to be more moderate in the fine points imo. This is where the prosecutor side can come in, I think a lot of Americans are freaked out by the phrase "price fixing" but if her angle on it is that she's going to prosecute companies that have screwed people over, thats a different animal. 

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

[stawns]

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

can't think like a Canadian tho, to us she seems quite reasonable, even a bit to the centre right.

 

But to a lot of Americans, socialism is comin' to git ya. She needs to be more moderate in the fine points imo. This is where the prosecutor side can come in, I think a lot of Americans are freaked out by the phrase "price fixing" but if her angle on it is that she's going to prosecute companies that have screwed people over, thats a different animal. 

 

 

I think they know that the people that think that way are beyond getting anyway

[stawns]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

This is the same for numerous provinces in Canada in which Conservative parties have run them for decades but it's always "Canada is broken vote X to fix it"

 

People are so easily mislead 

 

same as they use the "America is a third world country"...........guess what?  it's deeply red states were that is the most true

[Warhippy]

17 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

can't think like a Canadian tho, to us she seems quite reasonable, even a bit to the centre right.

 

But to a lot of Americans, socialism is comin' to git ya. She needs to be more moderate in the fine points imo. This is where the prosecutor side can come in, I think a lot of Americans are freaked out by the phrase "price fixing" but if her angle on it is that she's going to prosecute companies that have screwed people over, thats a different animal. 

 

She needs to come at it like a normal person not a career politician.

 

"Corporations are screwing you, we're going to try to level the playing field to make sure prices reflect manufacturing and shipping without excessive profit taking"

 

That jives a lot more than price fixing

[24K]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

She needs to come at it like a normal person not a career politician.

 

"Corporations are screwing you, we're going to try to level the playing field to make sure prices reflect manufacturing and shipping without excessive profit taking"

 

That jives a lot more than price fixing

This. This is what I was talking about. You need this kind of framing and detail. Without it, it was co-oped into price fixing/control. 

 

That is my main criticism with the few original policy she proposed. 

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

same as they use the "America is a third world country"...........guess what?  it's deeply red states were that is the most true

The easily mislead will look around and see everything is nice and life is good.  Until they hear that crap too much then what was a nice sunny day is now dull and scary.  Kids playing at a park are now the kids of invaders.  A woman with to much shoulder is now probably a man in a dress.

 

It's genuinely sad how far things have gotten via fear tactics, misinformation and partisanship

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

The easily mislead will look around and see everything is nice and life is good.  Until they hear that crap too much then what was a nice sunny day is now dull and scary.  Kids playing at a park are now the kids of invaders.  A woman with to much shoulder is now probably a man in a dress.

 

It's genuinely sad how far things have gotten via fear tactics, misinformation and partisanship

 

agree completely

[Warhippy]

Just now, 24K said:

This. This is what I was talking about. You need this kind of framing and detail. Without it, it was co-oped into price fixing/control. 

 

That is my main criticism with the few original policy she proposed. 

The thing is, even with the term "price fixing" it riles people up.  People have probably now taken a wider longer look at things and are seeing that yes, pricing is far out of control or out of the norm while seeing everyone raking in massive profits.

 

While the terminology was wrong, or dropped poorly it still alerts those listening that maybe something is up and the slower of the electorate will start to see that maybe something is up.  Because one side is saying "Biden/Harris made things unaffordable"  and the other sdie is saying"corporations are price fixing due to monopolistic endeavours look at their endless profits" and the largest voting block in the middle of the moderates will take a look and realize that something IS in fact up.

 

While you may not like or approve of how Harris is not dropping a secure or proper platform, she is doing or her campaign is at least doing what needs to be done to sway those moderates.  It's not a typical DNC tactic and it seems to trend more towards the trumpism style of politicking.  All she needs to do is skirt the line of moderation without saying anything too stupid , allow Walz to be the quality support she needs while Vance continues to tank himself and be measured in the debates while getting one or two quality zinger responses/comebacks to trumps rambling idiocy to get a quality soundbite and this election is hers.

 

Like some have said, in 2016 Trump was the unknown to the establishment pick of HIllary.  But those moderates are no longer there.  While the numbers were closer down the middle on a polarized level against Biden, that was more because the two options were just so bad.  Harris/Walz have a far more versatile campaign going than "anyone but him" and Trump hs pissed off so many people, has become "the old guy" and is so incoherent that even his people are questioning how far they actually went to lift him up for a sniff of power or legislative pushes of their own design.

 

While I still believe this election will be closer than some think, I also think Trump has completely worn thin and the statements I made back in 2015/2016 on the old CDC site regarding what trump would do to and for the Republicans and how eye opening his rule would be for Americans as a whole has come to fruition.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

17 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

same as they use the "America is a third world country"...........guess what?  it's deeply red states were that is the most true

This is what bothers me about what Bret Favre is *alleged* to have done.  He grew up in that *REALLY* poor state.  Went to college there.  He knows how bad conditions are (didn't grow up as a privileged rich person).  

[bishopshodan]

25 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

 

 

That poll only equals 100%

Trump is going to be looking for more, like the amount those migrant workers can achieve of new jobs. 

[24K]

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

While you may not like or approve of how Harris is not dropping a secure or proper platform, she is doing or her campaign is at least doing what needs to be done to sway those moderates.  It's not a typical DNC tactic and it seems to trend more towards the trumpism style of politicking.  All she needs to do is skirt the line of moderation without saying anything too stupid , allow Walz to be the quality support she needs while Vance continues to tank himself and be measured in the debates while getting one or two quality zinger responses/comebacks to trumps rambling idiocy to get a quality soundbite and this election is hers.

 

I don't think it is working as you analyzed it. 

 

Good article from nyt on how non dems view the speech. The first couple they interviewed kind for summarize how that strategy is going. Now it is only one couple but I think it summarized by critique of the campaign. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/us/democratic-national-convention-kamala-harris-speech-undecided-voters.html

 

In case you don't have access: 

 

But outside the arena, and outside the bubble of ride-or-die Democratic voters, some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech. And among some still on the fence — those who could make a difference in a tight contest — Ms. Harris’s words did not make immediate converts. They said they needed more specifics.
Bob and Sharon Reed watched Ms. Harris’s speech on their farm in the hills of central Pennsylvania. Both of them voted for Mr. Trump in past elections and both of them liked some of his policies, if not his personality. They came away from Ms. Harris’s speech feeling a little conflicted.
The problem? They liked it.
“I really wasn’t happy with the Biden administration,” said Ms. Reed, who like her husband is 77 and a retired schoolteacher. “But listening to her tonight, maybe it’s not as hard to vote for her. And, you know, I’m a little scared of what Trump will do when he gets back in power.”
Ms. Reed appreciated how Ms. Harris drew several specific contrasts between what she would do as president versus what Mr. Trump would do.
Mr. Reed, who had been leaning toward Mr. Trump, found Ms. Harris’s optimism and can-do attitude appealing. “This sounded presidential,” he said.
It had all left them as undecided as ever, and hoping the debates might help them make up their minds.
“I want some concrete answers and some substance in those debates,” Ms. Reed said. “I don’t know if I’m going to get either."

 

Essentialy how I feel about the campaign so far is they opened up people to vote for her but lack concrete policy ideas to fully convert and lock in those voters. 

 

Dems are hoping the vibes is enough to get those who are now open to her to vote for her when they get to the ballot box. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

9 minutes ago, 24K said:

Essentialy how I feel about the campaign so far is they opened up people to vote for her but lack concrete policy ideas to fully convert and lock in those voters. 

 

Dems are hoping the vibes is enough to get those who are now open to her to vote for her when they get to the ballot box. 

 

To my untrained layman eyes, I don't think they're relying solely on vibes.

 

It's possible their strategy is to keep policy details tight to the chest while outlining in broad strokes what they plan to do - for the sole reason that it requires less energy to attack than it is to defend.  If they put out policy details too early on in the process, then the policy details become a focal point of attack, and they'll end up spending valuable time and energy trying to defend the details through the media instead of using that time and energy to reach as much of the electorate as possible.

 

And, as has been pointed out, the GOP hasn't put out anything of substance for their policies yet, so why make an easy target for them to attack by splaying your planned policies so early?

 

Just my USD $0.02.

Edited August 23 by 6of1_halfdozenofother

[RupertKBD]

Dotard is just posting whatever  BS enters his tiny little mind.....

 

You will also hear him brag to Evangelicals about how he packed the Supreme Court with the people that overturned Roe.....

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

Dotard is just posting whatever  BS enters his tiny little mind.....

 

You will also hear him brag to Evangelicals about how he packed the Supreme Court with the people that overturned Roe.....

 

In his mind (and probably also the mind of the evangelicals), the definition of "reproductive rights" is "you have the right to reproduce".

[Warhippy]

15 minutes ago, 24K said:

I don't think it is working as you analyzed it. 

 

Good article from nyt on how non dems view the speech. The first couple they interviewed kind for summarize how that strategy is going. Now it is only one couple but I think it summarized by critique of the campaign. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/23/us/democratic-national-convention-kamala-harris-speech-undecided-voters.html

 

In case you don't have access: 

 

But outside the arena, and outside the bubble of ride-or-die Democratic voters, some voters, particularly Republicans, said they did not even bother to watch the speech. And among some still on the fence — those who could make a difference in a tight contest — Ms. Harris’s words did not make immediate converts. They said they needed more specifics.
Bob and Sharon Reed watched Ms. Harris’s speech on their farm in the hills of central Pennsylvania. Both of them voted for Mr. Trump in past elections and both of them liked some of his policies, if not his personality. They came away from Ms. Harris’s speech feeling a little conflicted.
The problem? They liked it.
“I really wasn’t happy with the Biden administration,” said Ms. Reed, who like her husband is 77 and a retired schoolteacher. “But listening to her tonight, maybe it’s not as hard to vote for her. And, you know, I’m a little scared of what Trump will do when he gets back in power.”
Ms. Reed appreciated how Ms. Harris drew several specific contrasts between what she would do as president versus what Mr. Trump would do.
Mr. Reed, who had been leaning toward Mr. Trump, found Ms. Harris’s optimism and can-do attitude appealing. “This sounded presidential,” he said.
It had all left them as undecided as ever, and hoping the debates might help them make up their minds.
“I want some concrete answers and some substance in those debates,” Ms. Reed said. “I don’t know if I’m going to get either."

 

Essentialy how I feel about the campaign so far is they opened up people to vote for her but lack concrete policy ideas to fully convert and lock in those voters. 

 

Dems are hoping the vibes is enough to get those who are now open to her to vote for her when they get to the ballot box. 

YOur own article indicates that the moderates do in fact like her and that those who did vote for trump previously are hesitant to do so again.

 

You keep saying Vibes but that isn't the case.  Voter apathy and voter disgust are real.

 

While she may not be speaking of her platform it will be released.  It will be weighed against Trumps and project 2025.  More importantly, as the election draws closer, Trump will get more crazy and more desperate.  This will continue to push moderates away.  

 

You're opinion is that Harris needs to cement these votes.  but the truth is, the moderates have always been an ebb and flow vote.  Harris only needs to let things play out in this manner until the vote and they'll watch Trump sink himself.

 

Look no further than Canada.  Pierre has absolutely zero platform, Rustad as well.  But both potential leaders have just one consistent message and respond to questions or accusations in a very simple manner.  it is swaying people towards them as much as a sound and precise platform ever could.  because voter apathy and disgust are real.

 

Whatever the case, we'll see in the next few months

[SilentSam]

    I wouldn’t put it past them to do it !!

 

lol

 

 

 

 

[SilentSam]

Double post

Edited August 23 by SilentSam

[SilentSam]

    I wouldn’t put it past them to do it !!

 

lol