Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
I didn't say unknowningly. Trump as well has some collectivist, authoritarian, anti freedom, anti constitutional tendencies (ie, communist tendencies).
Far less than democrats, but he is more Marxist than the average GOP candidate ever was except perhaps Nixon.
Just think about the "protect jobs" part of tariffs, that's Marxism 101
The only "ist" that Trump is, is Trumpist.
Con artist
I didn't say unknowningly. Trump as well has some collectivist, authoritarian, anti freedom, anti constitutional tendencies (ie, communist tendencies).
Far less than democrats, but he is more Marxist than the average GOP candidate ever was except perhaps Nixon.
Just think about the "protect jobs" part of tariffs, that's Marxism 101
You left out wanting to replace all of our leftist billionaires(even if it is a total lie)--that this capitalist system produced. Shouldn't he just sit back and say GG? No, I want new elites these current winners are duds lol It's the mentality of a sore loser--which oldschool America has always seen as lame.
You left out wanting to replace all of our leftist billionaires(even if it is a total lie)--that this capitalist system produced. Shouldn't he just sit back and say GG? No, I want new elites these current winners are duds lol It's the mentality of a sore loser--which oldschool America has always seen as lame.
He just allied with some very big names in the techno-bro world so i am not sure what you mean here
He just allied with some very big names in the techno-bro world so i am not sure what you mean here
That's still what the rhetoric boils down to though. And even across much of the right in general. Doesn't mean it's true--trump's mostly about branding/marketing. It's just kinda funny that it runs so contrary to traditional rightwing thought--while claiming to be all about a return to tradition.
Then again, trump's essentially a rino too according to the logic of his supporters ie regular old republican plus mean tweets.
That's still what the rhetoric boils down to though. And even across much of the right in general. Doesn't mean it's true--trump's mostly about branding/marketing. It's just kinda funny that it runs so contrary to traditional rightwing thought--while claiming to be all about a return to tradition.
Then again, trump's essentially a rino too according to the logic of his supporters ie regular old republican plus mean tweets.
The fact that anyone is still trying to ascribe some sort of self-consistent world view to US conservatives after the events of the last 8 years is quite frankly astounding to me.
The fact that anyone is still trying to ascribe some sort of self-consistent world view to US conservatives after the events of the last 8 years is quite frankly astounding to me.
There are divisions within the gop for foreign policy in particular but never as big as in the democratic party so i don't understand what you mean.
In the last 8 years republicans in the senate have been 98% of the times voting neocon policies for foreign policy, mostly i suppose because of their senate leader.
There are divisions within the gop for foreign policy in particular but never as big as in the democratic party so i don't understand what you mean.
In the last 8 years republicans in the senate have been 98% of the times voting neocon policies for foreign policy, mostly i suppose because of their senate leader.
I mean grassroots republicans, you know, the people who are now proud members of the personality cult of the guy who is a walking antithesis of all the values they supposedly hold near and dear, or at least did 8 years ago.
Kamala knocked it out of the park.
Might as well start printing up the invitations now.
Kamala did pretty well in this interview but there are two things she needs to work on:
1) she should have a clear way of distinguishing how her day 1 policies would be different from Biden. This can be as simple as talking about winning back the senate and congress to be able to pass legislation, or talking about what executive actions she plans on bringing to fruition.
2) she needs to identify one or two reasons why she is more moderate now. In my opinion, the best way to do it is by talking about her experience in the executive branch. I do like her answer about how she learned new info about the ability to pass sweeping, impactful climate legislation without compromising American energy. Hit hard on that. Secondly, she needs to talk about building consensus without seeming like she has no values of her own. Maybe contrast the difference between being a senator versus being a heartbeat away from the presidency. Maybe talk about what she learned from Joe Biden about how much can be done if you work towards the middle and build political compromise. Maybe point to changing conditions like increased asylum seeking at illegal ports of entry. Maybe talk about changing energy needs due to OPEC and Russian price manipulation in the international market.
She was pretty decent but it’s hard to live up to the expectations set by delayed gratification. The important thing is that Dana asked tough questions and she kept on topic. She didn’t change the subject, she didn’t ramble, she didn’t throw other people under the bus. Temperament and mentality wise, she is a much better candidate than Trump.
Kamala did pretty well in this interview but there are two things she needs to work on:
1) she should have a clear way of distinguishing how her day 1 policies would be different from Biden. This can be as simple as talking about winning back the senate and congress to be able to pass legislation, or talking about what executive actions she plans on bringing to fruition.
2) she needs to identify one or two reasons why she is more moderate no
I didn't watch the interview, but playing the part of presidential is gonna matter to a lot of people, and these people are unconsciously comparing her to Biden as well as consciously comparing her to Trump, which plays really well for her.
I don't think she needs to talk about governing from the middle and compromise, though. Her surrogates and the pundits can do that for her. She needs to stay on point and steel that her vision for America is more pragmatic than Trump's.
Her stance on immigration reminds me of Obama on healthcare in 2008. When Hillary lost, her scary socialist single-payer plan was out of play, so it became difficult to come at Obama with what they were preparing to hit the Dems with most because the Affordable Care Act was a very middle-of-the-road plan, relatively speaking, while still being transformative. All McCain could come up with were low-level vouchers ($2500 a year for singles and $5000 for families, IIRC). Obama killed him on this hot-button issue that was supposed to be a slamdunk fear tactic.
If we’re talking about acting presidential, I think she had that. However I will say when she’s on stage at a campaign rally, she sounds way more high energy and presidential. She has always struggled with coming across that way in interviews, and just comparing it to her campaign rallies she is much better there.
Maybe now that she knows what she will be most likely asked from now on, she will do better and better in this format. I know for sure she did not lose the election in this interview and my prediction is it will not move the needle either way.
I’m interested in her having a more press conference style, but she needs to do like Trump and make sure the reporter questions are either one at a time or can’t be heard, because the staging on those press conferences have been phenomenal for Trump.
She did fine imo. I love how she dismissed the black question and focused on what she wanted to bring to the plate. Walz was good too. I feel like her job now is just avoid a major blunder until elections.
Refreshing to see a politician answer questions instead of deflecting
or just spouting a talking point that has nothing to do with the question.
The fact that anyone is still trying to ascribe some sort of self-consistent world view to US conservatives after the events of the last 8 years is quite frankly astounding to me.
It is a bit like listening to fans of a multiple-author comic universe coming up with explanations as to why there are no plotholes or inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, if a member of their political opposition has buttoned their shirt wrong, this apparently will lead to the end of the world as we know it.
It is a constant stream of hysteria that gets very tiresome.
It is a bit like listening to fans of a multiple-author comic universe coming up with explanations as to why there are no plotholes or inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, if a member of their political opposition has buttoned their shirt wrong, this apparently will lead to the end of the world as we know it.
It is a constant stream of hysteria that gets very tiresome.
funny because this is literally what we think reversed
Biggerboat:
She did fine imo. I love how she dismissed the black question and focused on what she wanted to bring to the plate. Walz was good too. I feel like her job now is just avoid a major blunder until elections.
Refreshing to see a politician answer questions instead of deflecting
or just spouting a talking point that has nothing to do with the question.
--These 2 posts back to back are seriously great comedy. Bigger basically says Kamala deflected and decided to just spout her own talking points (although he obviously framed it differently) and then Steamraise comes right in and says it is refreshing she didn't do this exact thing.
And zero self awareness at all.
--These 2 posts back to back are seriously great comedy. Bigger basically says Kamala deflected and decided to just spout her own talking points (although he obviously framed it differently) and then Steamraise comes right in and says it is refreshing she didn't do this exact thing.
And zero self awareness at all.
It is a bit like listening to fans of a multiple-author comic universe coming up with explanations as to why there are no plotholes or inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, if a member of their political opposition has buttoned their shirt wrong, this apparently will lead to the end of the world as we know it.
It is a constant stream of hysteria that gets very tiresome.
Yeah, the vast majority of Trump voters supported Bush in 04 who has never voted for Trump. And it's basically memory holed for conservatives how much Trumpism would have been rejected by conservatives just 20 years ago. Meanwhile the Democrats have changed so much that Jimmy Carter who was president before most voters were born hopes to live till election day so he can vote for Harris.
That's not what Bigger said, and that's not what happened. This is how it went (paraphrasing, of course) -
CNN: What do you think about Trump saying you're not black?
Harris: Same old crap.
CNN: Nothing else to say?
Harris: No. Let's move on.
Not even close to deflecting. She gave Trump's statements all the attention it deserved.
Refreshing to see a politician answer questions instead of deflecting
or just spouting a talking point that has nothing to do with the question.
Q1: what are you going to do day 1?
kamala: support the middle class (extremely vague) and i'm going to focus on not being donald trump
Q2: what are you going to do day 1? (yes, she literally asked the same question twice because kamala ducked it the first time)
kamala: we are going to decrease inflation (extremely vague) and give families a 6k tax credit (this will increase inflation)
Q: what do you say to voters who want to go back to when we were under trump and had low inflation?
kamala: we were coming out of a pandemic & our was to "rescue America" (it is safe to assume that she is talking about printing extra money, throwing money into the economy, locking down parts of the economy - which of course wre the major causes of the inflation) and then she attempts to suggest that corporations are price gouging and that was the cause of inflation. what we need to do is hand out more money (again, most economists have said this was the cause of inflation) via tax credits for having a baby or buying a home.
Q: you've had 3.5 years as VP why didn't you already give the tax credits for the babies and home buyers?
kamala: we capped the price of insulin to $35.
Q: you have flipped your opinion quite a bit recently. in 2019 you were quoted as saying "there is no question im in favor of banning fracking." do you still want to ban fracking?
kamala: no, i made it clear in 2020 i wouldn't ban fracking.
Q: i already read you your own quote that you clearly said you want to ban fracking in 2019. have you changed your mind?
kamala: in 2020 i said i wouldn't ban it (implying she changed her mind in 2020, but not since, but isn't willing to come out and say she flipped on the issue)
Q: so what made you change your mind on fracking?
kamala:"let's be clear. my values haven't changed"
Q: umm... so was there some date or something that made you flip on the fracking issue?
kamala: we can grow a clean energy economy w/o banning fracking (it took poor dana 4 times asking her the question for her to finally answer why she flipped on fracking)
Q: you previously said you don't think illegally crossing the border should be illegal. do you still believe that?
kamala: i think there should be consequences (extremely vague)
Q: what do you say to voters who don't like that you have flip flipped on a lot of issues?
kamala: i haven't changed my values.
Dana also asked her 3 times very directly if she would do anything differently that what biden has been doing on the isreal front and all 3 times kamala said we should focus on hostagese and the people who have died. Dana got tired of kamala ducking the question so she moved on to ask walz a different question.
Q: what was the call like when biden said he was dropping out?
kamala:
lol @ the Trumpers complaining Harris didn't answer the questions. Compared to the orange man she gave the equivalent of 100 page policy papers.
