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

[Brad Sallows]

Why do you and so many others think he had to be coerced out? Biden seems like he genuinely wants what's best for the country. Trump=bad for the country. Ergo, if Biden can't beat em, stepping away for someone who can seems like the patriotic thing to do. Or does the idea of selflessness not register within Trump supporters?

Because he resisted stepping aside for so long, and his reactions ranged from irritation to anger when people proposed he step aside.

It's possible he had a change of heart for the "good of the country", but it's probable he was threatened with something unpleasant.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’m still confused why GOP supporters are crying foul over Biden dropping out.

Why does anyone react irrationally when they think a sure thing has been denied them?

Why couldn’t the GOP take the win and then focus on Harris?

Some are, just as some are having a hard time letting go of Biden.

Having the narrative that the Dems are attacking each other (they’re not - Biden dropping out has been a rally for the Dems) takes time and space from attacking her policies.

The attacks stopped once Biden stepped aside. Prior to that, the airing of laundry was ugly. They'll get one more polling "bounce" when Trump is sentenced. If things slide after that, wait and see if the "shoulda kept Biden" or "shoulda had an open convention" factions air more laundry. Surely it's obvious that some of the enthusiasm is forced?

 

[Brad Sallows]

And the Republicans are still papering things over.

I never cease being amazed at how delusional they are about Trump - particularly when they had some decent options.

I'm wondering what event will finally be "too egregious for the amount of whitewashing" of Trump's glaring inadequacies so that they'll be "forced into 'changing course'."

Trump's history is an open book; realistically almost no flaw goes un-investigated or unreported. Republicans had an open primary; Trump was chosen by primary voters. Nothing to be papered over.

 

[Pelorus]

I'm wondering what event will finally be "too egregious for the amount of whitewashing" of Trump's glaring inadequacies so that they'll be "forced into 'changing course'."

I doubt it will happen when Trump finally says the N-word in public, but we're getting closer to finding out every day:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829638103184953760

 

[QV]

I doubt it will happen when Trump finally says the N-word in public, but we're getting closer to finding out every day:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829638103184953760

You have to be kidding or mixing it up with Biden.

Look at Trump’s history with the black community and then look at Biden’s. (Hint: even Harris called Biden a racist). These are easy things to follow up on, otherwise you're voluntarily maintaining a state of propaganda victimhood.

It’s never a surprise just how uninformed some of the anti-trump crowd is.

 

[dimsum]

You have to be kidding or mixing it up with Biden.

Look at Trump’s history with the black community and then look at Biden’s. (Hint: even Harris called Biden a racist). These are easy things to follow up on, otherwise you're voluntarily maintaining a state of propaganda victimhood.

It’s never a surprise just how uninformed some of the anti-trump crowd is.

You’re talking about the same guy who took out a full page ad calling for the death penalty for 5 Black and Latino teenagers, and maintained that stance after they were exonerated, right?

Central Park Five members condemn Trump at DNC for calling for their execution

Members of the Central Park Five said at the Democratic convention Thursday of Trump that "45 wanted us un-alive."

www.cbsnews.com

I’ll add that those of us refuting your arguments are posting the receipts.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Here's the clip that I think was a decent answer to a quesiton:

Thanks. I'm really surprised by that video. I can't imagine why she goes with the airhead approach so often when she is capable of being coherent.

 

[dimsum]

Thanks. I'm really surprised by that video. I can't imagine why she goes with the airhead approach so often when she is capable of being coherent.

I don’t think anyone vying for POTUS who isn’t Dubya “tries” for that approach. And apparently, he did it to seem down-to-earth.

It’s possible that like everyone, she knows some things really well, and some things not-so-well. There is no way that one person will know everything, especially in questions where things change often. And POTUS candidates will have everything thrown at them, and their answers judged not just by the content of their answers, but that they would want to make sure that their answers don’t end up being memes.

Example: It’s bad enough if you’re giving a parachuted-in brief where you’re not the SME but people just throw you the notes and wish you luck. Now imagine that every word you say will be in public, with recording, and if you say anything stupid then it will be replayed endlessly. I know that I would seem like a very slow talker if I had to check my responses in my head, in real time, as I’m giving them.

So this may be a situation where the question was something she knows very well, and can speak to it easily off-the-cuff.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I'm not sure if it's on account of some personal bias of mine, or the careful editing by elements of the media but to me Harris comes across as the dumbest politician on the field.

Not trying to break the political forum name calling rules here but she really sounds like an imbecile (per the old psychiatrist usage).

Do you know of any interviews or speeches where she comes across as articulate and intelligent? Or even where she has the slightest clue what she's talking about?

Prior to her getting to the top of the ticket, I hadn't paid any attention to her speaking style or made any judgement of her intelligence. But since then, it's been damn near impossible to avoid listening to her (or to the other party's candidate, as much as some of us would have happily wished for the past eight years). And while I wouldn't characterize her as sounding 'dumb', "imbecilic' or 'airheaded', her speaking style is not what most would usually expect from a presidential candidate, even a female one. And yes, gender and race undoubtedly plays a major element in how a woman of color presents herself in the political arena.

I found this opinion piece in the LA Times about her speaking style to be very interesting.

Opinion: Kamala Harris' often-mocked speaking style is the strongest tool in her arsenal

Black women receive backlash for dominant leadership styles. By choosing to project warmth, the vice president strategically avoids such reactions.

www.latimes.com

And also, she is a lawyer, more importantly a trial lawyer, who likely honed her verbal style to suit her profession.

While the following doctoral thesis from 1980 could perhaps be easily rebutted (@FJAG?), some of my experience with lawyers has sometimes lead to an opinion that they bill by the word (or that they hope their verbal bullshit baffles brains).

A model for the analysis of the language of lawyers

https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4151&context=uop_etds

While many of the most striking peculiarities of the language of lawyers are lexical, others extend to the levels of the phrase, the sentence, the paragraph, and the document. Phrasal placement is sometimes odd and repetition of key phrases is more common than in standard usage. Sentences grow to extreme length and often contain many levels of subordination, as well as multiple coordination. Words, phrases, and even clauses in series--sometimes quite long--are common. Sentences are frequently couched in the passive voice for nonapparent reason.

 

[FJAG]

While the following doctoral thesis from 1980 could perhaps be easily rebutted (@FJAG?), some of my experience with lawyers has sometimes lead to an opinion that they bill by the word (or that they hope their verbal bullshit baffles brains).

It's late here so I'll make my comments without having read the thesis - wow! a whole thesis on the language of lawyers.

Let me just state that lawyers no longer bill by the word - some did over a century ago. We basically use two systems: transactional (- where the the legal activity is generally well known and defined like a real estate sale or purchase, an oil and gas lease or an incorporation. Generally a flat rate for a completed job.) and time-based (where the degree of required work is unknown and can be of short duration or years) In my case it was in six-minute increments i.e. 1/10th of an hour times an agreed hourly rate)

The transactional gains nothing from long or many words. However, it is greatly influenced by the cut and paste process of including terms in the transaction paperwork that are either required or are ones that have passed muster through prior court challenges. To the layman they are verbose. To the lawyer they provide a level of surety that the transaction will survive a legal challenge.

Time-based billing is subject to churning. Research can be excessive, questionable motions and challenges or other activities which burn up unnecessary billable hours can be generated. Lawyers with a decent practice who are already busy don't need to do that. All we have to sell is our time and knowledge and there are only so many hours in the day. But there are lawyers who churn out extra and unnecessary work. Sometimes it's the lawyer looking for more work/income; sometimes its the client's demands (the "it's not the money; it's the principle" fight. Trust me. It's always the money when all is said and done.).

I must admit, I'm prone to taking more time than is often necessary in explaining things. I jokingly say that the only lie that I've ever told in court is "My Lord. I'll be brief." As a litigator the problem you have is that you have to sell the judge or a jury with your theory of the case. You've worked on it for weeks or months - you know this shit cold - but you're giving it to folks who have no idea about all of the relevant facts or the law that applies. You need to spoon feed them just enough so that they get your point but not so much that you confuse them or lose their interest. That takes some finesse. Not all lawyers have that.

So yeah. In the legal profession, words matter.