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

[QV]

For the last time.

You need to show ID to vote. Illegal immigrants, by their very name, do not have ID.

The voter fraud cases turned out to be mostly for the GOP last time around.

Voting is but one risk.

Tell me, do see any risk to communities and the country by allowing millions of undocumented migrants through your border each year? Or are you good with that?

 

[KevinB]

Voting is but one risk.

Tell me, do see any risk to communities and the country by allowing millions of undocumented migrants through your border each year? Or are you good with that?

Let’s just ignore that Trump had Congressional Republicans torpedoe the Bipartisan Border Bill.

 

[OldSolduer]

Let’s just ignore that Trump had Congressional Republicans torpedoe the Bipartisan Border Bill.

So the whole border thing is quite a mess. So how are the so called "safe havens" ie NYC and others coping these days?

I mean "sanctuary cities".

 

[QV]

Let’s just ignore that Trump had Congressional Republicans torpedoe the Bipartisan Border Bill.

Is your side ignoring these problems were greatly diminished between 2016 and 2020?

 

[dimsum]

Is your side ignoring these problems were greatly diminished between 2016 and 2020?

Roxham Road started being a thing in 2017.

So the whole border thing is quite a mess. So how are the so called "safe havens" ie NYC and others coping these days?

I mean "sanctuary cities".

NYC is a huge city and still a highlight of the US. It’s not exactly suffering, in that respect.

It’s like folks claiming that Seattle or Minneapolis is a smoking hole in the ground because of the 2020 riots. Have you guys gone there? It would be rather hard to miss a city like Seattle in ruins.

I’m just waiting for the “migrant caravan” to show up…

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, but practically how could that be avoided? Having them both answer at once?

Phrase all questions to put the candidate questioned on the spot. Phrase none of them to easily allow the topic to be shifted to what the other candidate did or might do. Don't be limited to asking the same question of both, especially if one has already repeatedly stated a simple position on an issue which is well-established in the public domain. Plenty of ways to get around it.

 

[dimsum]

Phrase all questions to put the candidate questioned on the spot. Phrase none of them to easily allow the topic to be shifted to what the other candidate did or might do. Don't be limited to asking the same question of both, especially if one has already repeatedly stated a simple position on an issue which is well-established in the public domain. Plenty of ways to get around it.

The debate showed that one of the candidates didn’t learn the “Answer the Question succinctly” lesson.

And what happens if the candidate swerves or just ignores the question, like what happened last debate?

 

[QV]

Roxham Road started being a thing in 2017.


NYC is a huge city and still a highlight of the US. It’s not exactly suffering, in that respect.

It’s like folks claiming that Seattle or Minneapolis is a smoking hole in the ground because of the 2020 riots. Have you guys gone there? It would be rather hard to miss a city like Seattle in ruins.

I’m just waiting for the “migrant caravan” to show up…

Head down to the US southern border then and find out.

 

[Brad Sallows]

34:1 Trump to Harris for errors or lies.

That's one of those myths that quickly became something "everyone just knows". A candidate lies by misrepresenting the other candidate's previously stated position. A candidate lies in disavowing a prior position without explanation or occluding it with a situational excuse (ie. "it was administration policy"). A candidate lies by misstating any key fact or omitting information which tends to accentuate or deprecate. A candidate lies by avoiding direct answers. A candidate errs by inaccurately stating any fact or figure.

It's common sense to assume that any politician speaking for more than a couple of minutes has said a number of things that just aren't plainly true. Anyone without photographic memory or very good retention of minutiae (eg. Christopher Hitchens) is going to make errors. Anyone accustomed to getting a pass on lies (eg. politicians) is going to lie a lot.

 

[dimsum]

Head down to the US southern border then and find out.

So I’m assuming you have personal experience on the US southern border.

 

[Remius]

Regarding the next possible debate.

First, I like the format that has been established. CNN did a fantastic job, even considering their bias, surprising everyone. Questions and discussions to both candidates were fair and measured. They stuck to the rules. CNN took flak for not being harder on Trump, from its own supporters.

The ABC debate was everything CNNs wasn't.

If a third debate is scheduled, it should be Trump’s pick of who runs it and where it takes place. Twice, Trump has stuck his head in the lions mouth to placate the democrats. It should be his choice now.

If the dems are serious about a third debate, they should agree to this.

Doesn’t seem likely.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/politics/donald-trump-no-third-debate/index.html

 

[QV]

So I’m assuming you have personal experience on the US southern border.

Look, I don't know what you're getting on about. If you don't think the border is a problem then just say so. I and others believe an uncontrolled border is terrible for the sovereignty of a nation. So is mass entry.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Which honestly makes me fairly happy as it will hopefully create a massive introspection into the party and eventually 4 year from now hopefully put out a decent candidate that is worth voting for.

Four years from now, two or more sub-factions will be contesting control of the party. One of them might be the neo-cons (NeverTrumpers). One of them assuredly will be those who choose to carry some version of Trump's populist mantle. One of them might be people who cleave to Reagan-era conservativism.

With respect to the first, a question primary voters are going to be asking is: where were you when we needed your support, even though you weren't the ones in charge for a change? There isn't going to be a waiver on "everything against Trump; nothing for Trump". Conservatives in that faction ought to think very hard about when they can afford to adopt "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and when they have to oppose Democrats, hard, right now.

There isn't likely to be introspection among the great unwashed. They're more likely to be looking outward, angrily, at the people who were happy for years to receive support and then pitched a fit and decided to withhold it when their "turn" was over.

I can guess that the people who have been blaming the Deplorables and insisting it's the Deplorables who have to come to their senses and change are going to be disappointed. The Deplorables have a lot of votes.

If it comes down to decent candidates, Trump won't be running. DeSantis was a decent candidate worth voting for. But the NeverTrumpers couldn't compromise - they are pig-headed selfish arrogant entitled people insistent on regaining total control of the trough - and held out for one of their own (Haley). They got nothing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Let’s just ignore that Trump had Congressional Republicans torpedoe the Bipartisan Border Bill.

Yet another popular myth. Let's just ignore that Congressional Republicans had their own reasons for torpedoing the bill - chiefly, they didn't like the mechanisms for throttling the intakes of people and that the president could eventually override parts of it anyways. There is no point claiming something is a control measure if the control measure can be vacated.

There is no need to swallow whatever the supportive politicians and media are pushing. Look hard enough and you can always find discussions of the unacceptable terms in a piece of legislation, no matter what it is colloquially or officially named, no matter how people try to spin it. You might as well deem yourself well-informed by reading headlines.

Just because A aligns with B does not mean A is working for B.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The debate showed that one of the candidates didn’t learn the “Answer the Question succinctly” lesson.

Both, actually. See clips of Jake Tapper criticizing Harris's answers.

And what happens if the candidate swerves or just ignores the question, like what happened last debate?

Again, both.

Although moderators shouldn't be intervening with information, there's nothing wrong with a pointed "That wasn't the question I asked. Here it is again. ... Please answer the question asked, or ask me what clarification you require."

Most candidates for high office will not enjoy being humiliated this way more than a couple of times.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let’s just ignore that Trump had Congressional Republicans torpedoe the Bipartisan Border Bill.

Are you for controlled secure borders? Or should everyone be allowed to just walk in under Harris policies?
What part of the bill, that got canned, concerns you? What is in the bill that you agree with,and were sorry didn't pass?
Do you agree that anyone crossing the border illegally, should only have to pay what amounts to a traffic ticket, as supported by Harris?
Is it OK for 340,000 children to just disappear under Harris' border policy to where her administration cannot account for them?
Is it acceptable for Harris to allow Tren de Aragua to set up organized cells across America and take over apartment buildings to operate their drug business, human trafficking business, murder and extortion from?
How do you feel about giving all illegals free Medicare and education at the expense of US students?
What is you stance on free grant of thousands of dollars so illegals can buy homes? Especially when citizens don't have the same opportunity under Harris?
Are you OK with Harris hiking your taxes increasingly to pay for all these illegals who pay nothing?
Do you agree Harris should disband ICE?

Do you agree all of the above Harris policies are acceptable to you?

Again, what part of the Harris border bill are you disappointed didn't pass?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Four years from now, two or more sub-factions will be contesting control of the party. One of them might be the neo-cons (NeverTrumpers). One of them assuredly will be those who choose to carry some version of Trump's populist mantle. One of them might be people who cleave to Reagan-era conservativism.

With respect to the first, a question primary voters are going to be asking is: where were you when we needed your support, even though you weren't the ones in charge for a change? There isn't going to be a waiver on "everything against Trump; nothing for Trump". Conservatives in that faction ought to think very hard about when they can afford to adopt "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and when they have to oppose Democrats, hard, right now.

There isn't likely to be introspection among the great unwashed. They're more likely to be looking outward, angrily, at the people who were happy for years to receive support and then pitched a fit and decided to withhold it when their "turn" was over.

I can guess that the people who have been blaming the Deplorables and insisting it's the Deplorables who have to come to their senses and change are going to be disappointed. The Deplorables have a lot of votes.

If it comes down to decent candidates, Trump won't be running. DeSantis was a decent candidate worth voting for. But the NeverTrumpers couldn't compromise - they are pig-headed selfish arrogant entitled people insistent on regaining total control of the trough - and held out for one of their own (Haley). They got nothing.

The Never Trumpers didn't stop Trump from getting elected. The Never Trumpers didn't stop Trump from being overwhelmingly nominated this time. The RINOs and NT do not speak for the Republican Party. Other than keeping washed up politicians like Romney and Cheney in the limelight, they amount to nothing more than white noise. The GOP has changed. The day of the democrat apologist Republicans is finished.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yet another popular myth. Let's just ignore that Congressional Republicans had their own reasons for torpedoing the bill - chiefly, they didn't like the mechanisms for throttling the intakes of people and that the president could eventually override parts of it anyways. There is no point claiming something is a control measure if the control measure can be vacated.

There is no need to swallow whatever the supportive politicians and media are pushing. Look hard enough and you can always find discussions of the unacceptable terms in a piece of legislation, no matter what it is colloquially or officially named, no matter how people try to spin it. You might as well deem yourself well-informed by reading headlines.

Just because A aligns with B does not mean A is working for B.

It was a shell game and Harris got caught. That's why it failed.