2024 US Presidential Election

[Drjohnrock]

Another point about how this will/won't result in a (sorry)  bump for Trump: DJRock is comparing apples to Kalashnikovs.

Not exactly a high minded comment, and not confirmed by what's happened since. I suppose I should have known better than to get involved on poltical threads where's it's all about the trolling.  But even the music threads on here aren't that much fun. I have a limited amount of time to spend online and there are, quite frankly, much better places to spend it.  I'll probably delete my account.  If that makes anyone happy, that's fine.  It will probably make me even happier.

[degrassi.knoll]

Couch romancer vs funnel cake dad

[SGR]

Couch romancer vs funnel cake dad

When it's an election between a felon and a prosecutor, both parties need to add a side dish of fun and irreverence.

[Lisnaholic]

I think Kamala is going to win.

Yep, that's my hope too. I think she's in a great position to win the votes of women, young people, racial minorities, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't want a senile, privileged, white male criminal and wanna-be autocrat running their country.

I read the doubts expressed about Kamala's ability to face unscripted, hostile interview questions, but I was quite impressed with her ability to think on her feet while tackling hecklers at her recent rallies. Also of note: she can stay on topic, finish a sentence and convey a fact-based idea successfully, so, I'm sure, she is going to score in spades over Trump - for whom those 3 debating skills are out of reach.

I think it was Jwb who talked about KH "coasting" and "milking" the current enthusiasm for her: not very flattering words for what? Doing the obvious thing of trying to maintain the momentum she is rightfully winning:

I agree about Kamala being a political chameleon. Kamala is even trying to reposition herself into some kind of border hawk which is somewhat humorous and amusing, to say the least. Whether or not swing voters/independents will buy into this political repositioning remains to be seen. She doesn't yet have a policy platform on her site, so things are in flux and she has the flexibility to morph and bend to what she and her campaign believe to be the most auspicious political messaging.

Thanks for the Time article link, SGR, the headline of which, as you say, suggests some turn-around on border issues on her part: but is that the case? As it says in the article:

The new ad marks a change in tone for Harris on the border. As a Democratic senator, Harris forcefully led the charge against Trump's harsh immigration policies. She protested Trump's Muslim ban on travelers, and when the Trump administration began separating children from parents at the border, she called for the resignation of Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen and said the country needs to "think about starting from scratch" with its immigration enforcement system.

As Vice President, Harris worked to secure $5.2 billion in investments in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to boost the local economies and fight corruption in an effort to convince people living there not to migrate north to the U.S. At a press conference in Guatemala in 2021, she told migrants thinking of taking the dangerous journey to the U.S., "Don't come."

This doesn't look like a U-turn to me: it looks like someone trying to tackle the border issue with humane strategies, blocking the influence of drug cartels, while at the same time rejecting the Trump admin's illegal ethnic bans and the separation of children and parents at the border. That's not a U-turn, that's more about clarifying her position in the face of the absurd Republican talk of "open borders" - which probably haven't existed since (totally guessing) the era of the US-Mexican war, 1848.

[Trollheart]

Not exactly a high minded comment, and not confirmed by what's happened since. I suppose I should have known better than to get involved on poltical threads where's it's all about the trolling.  But even the music threads on here aren't that much fun. I have a limited amount of time to spend online and there are, quite frankly, much better places to spend it.  I'll probably delete my account.  If that makes anyone happy, that's fine.  It will probably make me even happier.

Right. In an effort to be fair, I've gone back to page 25 (this shows as 42 on mine, so that's a good distance) and I can't find the original comment I was responding to of yours. However I will say a few things. A few things. There.  No, I will say that I was not the only one to challenge or contradict your view on Trump (assuming this is what that's about) - SGR made a very intelligent and well-worded post - with links - rebutting most of your points. Second, to call my comment "less than high-minded" may be acccurate; I'm no political animal and I make pithy comments, however since you're cherry-picking that one comment and presenting it as my entire response to you, that's disingenuous. I made many longer posts pointing out where I believed you were in error. Of course, since Kamala I've been in error, but then, I can't see into the future. Nevertheless, I think you're being unfair and selling me short here.

Finally, if you can't take people challenging your views, perhaps staying out of the political threads is a good idea, but I would not delete your account unless for some reason you're not happy here, or expect all your views to be accepted by all without debate, see your comment above, "But even the music threads on here aren't that much fun." How you define "fun" I don't know. For me, fun is (in a forum) discourse, argument, the occasional verbal breeze-block to the head. If everyone agreed with everything I said, there wouldn't be much discussion, so I'm glad to hear opposing views. If you're not, then yeah, maybe this is not the place for you.

But I would say to you what I said to people on Music Banter (which really annoyed jwb if I remember): if you don't like what's in a thread, a) avoid it and b) if you wish, make your own thread. Don't complain about how the place isn't fun (because I think most people agree it is) - make it fun for yourself.

I would certainly take issue with your comment that "it's all about the trolling". If you're referring to this, and similar political threads, that's not true. Those who take the time to discuss things here - particularly SGR, the SCD Political Supremo, as well as Lisnaholic and JWB - compose their messages well, feed off each other and ensure there is lively debate and discourse here. Most of what they write is done in an intelligent, thoughtful and engaging way, and if there is any trolling, it's kept to a minumum, so I don't think your characterisation is at all fair, certainly not accurate.

In the end, though, if you don't like it here nobody is forcing you to stay, but we don't like to lose members so I would counsel you to maybe try adjusting the way you interact with people. I see few posts from you anywhere here, so find it odd how you can make the conclusions you have about the place. Anyway, it's your decision, but you might just find if you participated more, grew a thicker skin and didn't let comments get to you (and mine was not meant to do that, simply saying you were making a false comparison, which I don't think anyone could take offence at) maybe you'd enjoy it here more.

If, in the end, you want your account deleted, we can do that. We would, however, ask you to reconsider, unless your mind is made up.

At the same time, in the final analysis, at the end of the day and when all things are taken into consideration, it's your choice and you should do what's best for you.

[Lucem Ferre]

I don't particularly like Kamala, I just think she's going to win because I think the average voter is sick of having weird presidents and she's much much lower on the weirdo spectrum than Trump or Biden.

[Paul Smeenus]

I like Kamala, and Trump is openly stating that he would end democracy if he's elected in 2024, he will not accept the results of the election and will make January 6th seem like a sunny day.

[Trollheart]

What language has he put that in, and how is it then not enough to have him disqualified to run? If a candidate openly states "vote for me but if you don't I'm taking the White House anyway", how much more against democracy (as you have it in the USA anyway) can he be seen to be, and how is he allowed to say that and still run?   

[Lucem Ferre]

I don't think he's blatantly said he's going to end democracy. He said that if you vote for him you won't have to worry about voting again because he's going to fix everything and people ripped it out of context because politics doesn't mix well with honesty and scruples.

But he did say he won't accept the results if he loses. He said that last time, too.

[Paul Smeenus]

I don't think he's blatantly said he's going to end democracy. He said that if you vote for him you won't have to worry about voting again because he's going to fix everything and people ripped it out of context because politics doesn't mix well with honesty and scruples.

But he did say he won't accept the results if he loses. He said that last time, too.

He also said it in 2016, the difference being that he won in the electoral college.

I also believe that Project 2025 is a real thing, even though he's denying it. He lies all the time.

[SGR]

I don't think he's blatantly said he's going to end democracy. He said that if you vote for him you won't have to worry about voting again because he's going to fix everything and people ripped it out of context because politics doesn't mix well with honesty and scruples.

But he did say he won't accept the results if he loses. He said that last time, too.

A little additional context to the 'you won't have to vote anymore' quote. He was speaking specifically to Christians at a faith summit.

Former President Donald Trump told attendees at a conservative Christian event on Friday night that they "won't have to vote anymore" if he is elected into office in November. He implored Christians to save America by voting "just this time," so that he can win the presidential election in a landslide "that's too big to rig."

Trump, who is the Republican Party's candidate for president, made his remarks at the end of a speech at The Believers' Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

"Christians get out and vote. Just this time," he urged. "You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore my beautiful Christians."

There are a lot of Christians who don't vote (slightly less than the general population, if memory serves), and there's also a lot of Christians who lean Democrat (not as many who lean Republican though). Trump's not exactly a role model for Christian behavior (I know, you're shocked), which is why in 2016, he had to recruit Mike Pence, an evangelical to run with him. So essentially, Trump was pandering here to Christians with the ridiculous idea that he'll be able to solve all their problems and concerns so effectively, that Christians won't even feel compelled to vote next time. But yes, it was ripped out of context and played like he was implying that if is re-elected, no one will have to vote anymore after.

[SGR]

I also believe that Project 2025 is a real thing, even though he's denying it. He lies all the time.

Trump didn't deny that Project 2025 was a real thing. It is a policy proposal wishlist created by a conservative think tank (Heritage Foundation). Trump's claim is that Project 2025 does not reflect his agenda (which can be found here) and that he has nothing to do with it.

[Paul Smeenus]

Again, Trump lies all the time

[SGR]

Again, Trump lies all the time

What is that supposed to mean? Is he lying about his knowledge of, or association to Project 2025?

[SGR]

Thanks for the Time article link, SGR, the headline of which, as you say, suggests some turn-around on border issues on her part: but is that the case? As it says in the article:

This doesn't look like a U-turn to me: it looks like someone trying to tackle the border issue with humane strategies, blocking the influence of drug cartels, while at the same time rejecting the Trump admin's illegal ethnic bans and the separation of children and parents at the border. That's not a U-turn, that's more about clarifying her position in the face of the absurd Republican talk of "open borders" - which probably haven't existed since (totally guessing) the era of the US-Mexican war, 1848.

Welcome back to the fray @Lisnaholic! 

By the way, did you take any pictures on your vacation of any beautiful vistas or anything like that? Don't keep me hanging if you did!

Anyways, the way Kamala has risen to the top of the ticket is somewhat unprecedented, definitely not common - but typically when a VP succeeds the sitting president in a race (like Bush Sr. in 1988), the record of the administration is tied to them, as they were VP in the administration. It's their burden to bear and defend, even as VP, whether it's right or wrong - and the border issue has been a serious sore spot for Biden's administration.

Kamala does have an opportunity here to try and define her position on immigration individually/different from the Biden administration's position and record, but it will be difficult. If she goes too far right of Biden, it will come off like she's running against both Trump and the sitting administration (a rebuke of sorts of the administration she's part of, if you will), but if she stays the course and has the same (or very similar) messaging and plans of the Biden admin, she'll basically forfeit the issue to Trump, which also isn't good. It's a fine line she'll need to walk, and much of her success might be dependent on how strong and persuasive Republican messaging about her record on immigration is. This is a weak point for Kamala and the Biden administration as a whole, and if Republicans can't capitalize on it, they deserve to lose.

There's no reason also, in her role as border czar, that the 'root causes' of immigration couldn't be investigated and addressed at the same time as the handling of entry is improved. Root causes and how entry is handled are two different things. Also, I posted this in the news thread, and it didn't get much traction in the media for whatever reason, but there are very real consequences for some of these migrant children once they're in our country and we need to house them.

Largest housing provider for migrant children engaged in pervasive sexual abuse, US says

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Employees of the largest housing provider for unaccompanied migrant children in the U.S. repeatedly sexually abused and harassed children in their care for at least eight years, the Justice Department said Thursday, alleging a shocking litany of offenses that took place as the company amassed billions of dollars in government contracts.

Southwest Key Programs Inc. employees, including supervisors, raped, touched or solicited sex and nude images of children beginning in 2015 and possibly earlier, the Justice Department said in a lawsuit filed this week. At least two employees have been indicted on criminal charges related to the allegations since 2020.

When I say Kamala is 'repositioning' her stance on the border, I simply mean she's attempting to differentiate herself to how the Biden administration has handled it.