U.S. Politics

[nick76]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I think he sees it as an opportunity to paint her as not being authentic.

The accusation from conservatives is that she didn’t really mention her ties to her estranged father until recently, when it became politically expedient to be black in left wing politics, following the BLM movement. 

It’s such a weird thing and only caters to the racist side of his party and puts off everybody else.  That she talks about one part of herself doesn’t mean she’s dismissing or hiding another part of herself.  

She leant into BLM because it is a black discussion, she leans into women’s issues because she’s a women…it’s weird that they want her to mention other things about her, I mean she’s have to list everything in every discussion just in case a future topic affects her.  

The worst thing though is if you look at Kamala it’s not a surprise she has Indian heritage so it’s not even a shock.  She’s never hid it, it can be easily found out, she has talked about it previously….maybe she hasn’t done a massive publicity event about it but why would she, it’s only Trump and co that is trying to make it an issue.  It’s also a particular difficult personal subject for her re her estranged father relationship I believe.

It’s just plain weird by him.

[nick76]

Weinstein was King of the Woke apparently!
 

 

[maqroll]

Trump is intelligent enough to understand that once Harris entered the race, his poll numbers would drop. The Walz pick seemed to strengthen her position and she was mopping the floor with him at the debate.

Until he uttered the eating cats and dogs line. A shrewd if despicable tactic that seemed to plug a hole in his sinking ship and take the focus off her completely outclassing him as a candidate. 

Sure enough, Harris has lost her lead.

Fear sells, and "Nobody knows it more than Trump."

[Awol]

Both candidates are dire. It’s like watching the special Olympics, but not wanting anyone to win. Given the vortex of absolute shite the free world is facing from Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea, we really need a US President that can rise to the challenge. Harris is the lesser of two evils, but still unbelievably crap. 

[nick76]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

Harris is the lesser of two evils, but still unbelievably crap.

I’m not saying she would be the greatest President ever or even in the top half of Presidents but I’d like to understand why you think she is unbelievably crap?  

Her record from before she was a politician to the present day stands up against most who have been the nomination for their party, in my life time watching these.  She’s no Obama imo but she stands up well against most of the others from either side.  I don’t see anything that makes me think she can’t rise to the challenge.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I’m not saying she would be the greatest President ever or even in the top half of Presidents but I’d like to understand why you think she is unbelievably crap?  

Her record from before she was a politician to the present day stands up against most who have been the nomination for their party, in my life time watching these.  She’s no Obama imo but she stands up well against most of the others from either side.  I don’t see anything that makes me think she can’t rise to the challenge.

Fair enough. Context: I really don’t care about the insane asylum of US internal politics and whatever her domestic agenda is, that’s the business of Americans and no-one else. 

I do care that whoever holds the office is the de facto leader of the free-world, and sets the policy agenda that dictates the strategic direction the rest of us will follow. 

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Trump would be catastrophic and likely bring down the Atlantic alliance, which for all its faults is the guarantor of a world order that at least tries to live up to its ideals - in most cases. 

That disclaimer made, I’ve seen nothing that makes me think Harris is remotely qualified to carry that burden, understands the issues at stake, and would be competent of acting in a way that preserves it. 

If I’m missing some big speech she has made that dispels those doubts, or a similar expression of policies and principles that she written down herself that addresses those issues, I’d be very grateful for a link to it. 

FWIW I think we’re all in big trouble, and I can’t identify a current leader in any of the major democracies who is equipped to deal with it. 

[nick76]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

Fair enough. Context: I really don’t care about the insane asylum of US internal politics and whatever her domestic agenda is, that’s the business of Americans and no-one else. 

I do care that whoever holds the office is the de facto leader of the free-world, and sets the policy agenda that dictates the strategic direction the rest of us will follow. 

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Trump would be catastrophic and likely bring down the Atlantic alliance, which for all its faults is the guarantor of a world order that at least tries to live up to its ideals - in most cases. 

That disclaimer made, I’ve seen nothing that makes me think Harris is remotely qualified to carry that burden, understands the issues at stake, and would be competent of acting in a way that preserves it. 

If I’m missing some big speech she has made that dispels those doubts, or a similar expression of policies and principles that she written down herself that addresses those issues, I’d be very grateful for a link to it. 

FWIW I think we’re all in big trouble, and I can’t identify a current leader in any of the major democracies who is equipped to deal with it. 

Thanks for the response.  I understand your points.  I think she’ll be good on the world stage but I get that point about how shit the world is and needing somebody to lead better times and yes I can’t think of anybody to do that.  That’s if anybody could historically either.  I think we are just going into more dangerous times than ever before given how small the world both physically and online has become and the resources bad actors have.  I’m not sure anybody would truly be prepared or equipped to do that.

[il_serpente]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

Fair enough. Context: I really don’t care about the insane asylum of US internal politics and whatever her domestic agenda is, that’s the business of Americans and no-one else. 

I do care that whoever holds the office is the de facto leader of the free-world, and sets the policy agenda that dictates the strategic direction the rest of us will follow. 

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Trump would be catastrophic and likely bring down the Atlantic alliance, which for all its faults is the guarantor of a world order that at least tries to live up to its ideals - in most cases. 

That disclaimer made, I’ve seen nothing that makes me think Harris is remotely qualified to carry that burden, understands the issues at stake, and would be competent of acting in a way that preserves it. 

If I’m missing some big speech she has made that dispels those doubts, or a similar expression of policies and principles that she written down herself that addresses those issues, I’d be very grateful for a link to it. 

FWIW I think we’re all in big trouble, and I can’t identify a current leader in any of the major democracies who is equipped to deal with it. 

Out of curiosity, what specifically- if anything- had you seen in Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama that mady you think they were qualified when they were running?  They had no more, if not less, experience and exposure to foreign policy than Harris.   Did any of them make a big speech that suddenly made you think they understood what's at stake as well as you?   If so, can you point us to it?

For better or worse, Harris will be surrounded with people who have plenty of experience and expertise.  She won't be a monolith dealing with world issues.  There will be continuity in foreign policy and diplomacy from the Obama and Biden administrations (ignoring the 4-year glitch that was the Trump administration).  Trump will surround himself with yes men/women who, with the exception of the batshit crazy Mike Flynn, will have no high level experience because no respectable person will be willing to serve with Trump this time around.  My biggest concern with Harris' handling of world issues is the continued failure to use any meaningful leverage to stop Israel committing war crimes.  Of course, Trump will likely tell Israel they're not being tough enough on the Palestinians, so there's not much of a question who's the better choice there, either.

[Straggler]

12 hours ago, Awol said:

Fair enough. Context: I really don’t care about the insane asylum of US internal politics and whatever her domestic agenda is, that’s the business of Americans and no-one else. 

I do care that whoever holds the office is the de facto leader of the free-world, and sets the policy agenda that dictates the strategic direction the rest of us will follow. 

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Trump would be catastrophic and likely bring down the Atlantic alliance, which for all its faults is the guarantor of a world order that at least tries to live up to its ideals - in most cases. 

That disclaimer made, I’ve seen nothing that makes me think Harris is remotely qualified to carry that burden, understands the issues at stake, and would be competent of acting in a way that preserves it. 

If I’m missing some big speech she has made that dispels those doubts, or a similar expression of policies and principles that she written down herself that addresses those issues, I’d be very grateful for a link to it. 

FWIW I think we’re all in big trouble, and I can’t identify a current leader in any of the major democracies who is equipped to deal with it. 

Policies written down

Quote

Vice President Harris is ready to be Commander in Chief on day one. She has helped restore American leadership on the world stage, strengthened our national security through her travels to 21 countries and meetings with more than 150 world leaders, defended American values and democracy, and advanced America’s interests. 

Vice President Harris has been a tireless and effective diplomat on the world stage. She has met with China’s Xi Jinping, making clear she will always stand up for American interests in the face of China’s threats, and traveled to the Indo-Pacific four times to advance our economic and security partnerships. She visited the Korean Demilitarized Zone to affirm our unwavering commitment to South Korea in the face of North Korean threats. Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, she met with President Zelenskyy to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade and helped mobilize a global response of more than 50 countries to help Ukraine defend itself against Vladimir Putin’s brutal aggression. And she has worked with our allies to ensure NATO is stronger than ever.  

Vice President Harris will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to protect U.S. forces and interests from Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. Vice President Harris will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and she will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. She and President Biden are working to end the war in Gaza, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination. She and President Biden are working around the clock to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done.

From advising on tough decisions in the Oval Office and the Situation Room, to serving on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to going after transnational criminal organizations as California’s Attorney General, Vice President Harris brings extensive national security experience — and it’s no surprise more than 350 foreign policy and national security experts have endorsed her. 

There is stuff in here I don't agree with, but the idea that she doesn't understand the issues or that it is hard to find her opinions on international relations surprises me. Granted, most of the stuff she is talking about right now is very USA focused, but she is running for President of the USA so it's understandable. 

[Seat68]

What I have found online broadly is that Republicans who reluctantly acknowledge Trump is a sack of shit feel the need to say that Harris and Trump are both bad. Lest they be seen to heaping any praise on a Democrat. 
It sort of matches with Tory supporters during the last election cycle here. 

[Awol]

8 hours ago, il_serpente said:

Out of curiosity, what specifically- if anything- had you seen in Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama that mady you think they were qualified when they were running?  They had no more, if not less, experience and exposure to foreign policy than Harris.   Did any of them make a big speech that suddenly made you think they understood what's at stake as well as you?   If so, can you point us to it?

For better or worse, Harris will be surrounded with people who have plenty of experience and expertise.  She won't be a monolith dealing with world issues.  There will be continuity in foreign policy and diplomacy from the Obama and Biden administrations (ignoring the 4-year glitch that was the Trump administration).  Trump will surround himself with yes men/women who, with the exception of the batshit crazy Mike Flynn, will have no high level experience because no respectable person will be willing to serve with Trump this time around.  My biggest concern with Harris' handling of world issues is the continued failure to use any meaningful leverage to stop Israel committing war crimes.  Of course, Trump will likely tell Israel they're not being tough enough on the Palestinians, so there's not much of a question who's the better choice there, either.

I honestly don’t recall a specific pre-election  speech made by Clinton, and we were all still high on our own farts with the ridiculous ‘end of history’ narrative in the 1990s anyway. 

Bush talked in depth about what his foreign policy would be before the hanging-chad election he ‘won’. The link below from C-Span hosts a 40 minute video of a Bush FP lecture at the Reagan Presidential Library from 1999. Was he right about everything in hindsight? No, 9/11 changed everything and the world turned upside down. It’s worth noting though, that speaking at length and in detail about foreign policy used to be the norm for presidential candidates.

Bush campaign speech

I do recall Obama’s campaign more clearly and he spoke/wrote with incredible clarity about what he thought the US should do. Like Bush he got a lot wrong in hindsight, but the coherence and depth of his thinking is beyond doubt. See for example the Op Ed piece linked below from the Guardian in 2008. Can you imagine either current candidate articulating the issues - or what should be done about them - so clearly? I can’t. 

Obama pre-election Op Ed in Granuiad 2008

For all of his buffoonery and subsequent treasonous behaviour Trump’s team actually got China spot on. That’s evidenced by the fact the changes he made gained cross-party consensus and have endured under Biden.

Today he wants to align the US with dictators, kill Ukrainian statehood, abandon NATO, and hates international trade. His views are barking mad, but we know what they are because he can’t contain himself from boastfully spouting them on TV (I don’t know whether he can actually write). 

So, what about Harris? Some people have written that she’s been to places, and a narrative reinvention has taken place since Biden dropped out placing her at the centre of FP decisions in the WH.

That could charitably be described as spin (her actual job was the southern border - oops) and if it was true, it shouldn’t be difficult to find a clear exposition of her FP views. Good luck with that, we can’t even draw on her performance in presidential primaries because she was knocked out immediately last time, and was parachuted in unopposed this time.

Harris is the definition of a paper candidate, and I think she’s getting mass endorsement from the NATSEC and FP community because the alternative is apocalyptic for their world view and America’s role in it. Can’t argue with that, but it wasn’t my initial point, which was that both candidates are dire. 

[nick76]

On 17/10/2024 at 10:16, villa89 said:

If you look at the betting markets he's going to win comfortably. However I don't know what the betting is really based on as I don't follow US politics closely. 

FWIW I think trump will win. Alot of people won't vote for a black woman once they get in an anonymous polling booth. Just like in the UK where people say in polls they won't vote Tory but get in a booth and it's a blue tick. 

 

[Wainy316]

That’s Undertaker scratched off my heroes list.  I already knew Kane was a dick.

 

[TreeVillan]

12 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

That’s Undertaker scratched off my heroes list.  I already knew Kane was a dick.

 

Sad that you would genuinely start to dislike somebody because they support a different candidate to the one you prefer. 

[limpid]

8 minutes ago, TreeVillan said:

Sad that you would genuinely start to dislike somebody because they support a different candidate to the one you prefer. 

I dislike anyone who sides with a adjudicated rapist. It's not related to politics.

[Rolta]

7 minutes ago, TreeVillan said:

Sad that you would genuinely start to dislike somebody because they support a different candidate to the one you prefer. 

When they support someone trying to overthrow elections and is so full of shit as Trump it definitely should have more sway. 

[Davkaus]

Is his list of celebrity endorsements restricted to men who've spent years taking metal chairs to the skull?

[sidcow]

49 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

That’s Undertaker scratched off my heroes list.  I already knew Kane was a dick.

 

Finally something Trump and I agree with. That is an easy choice. 

[Mr_Dogg]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

I honestly don’t recall a specific pre-election  speech made by Clinton, and we were all still high on our own farts with the ridiculous ‘end of history’ narrative in the 1990s anyway. 

Bush talked in depth about what his foreign policy would be before the hanging-chad election he ‘won’. The link below from C-Span hosts a 40 minute video of a Bush FP lecture at the Reagan Presidential Library from 1999. Was he right about everything in hindsight? No, 9/11 changed everything and the world turned upside down. It’s worth noting though, that speaking at length and in detail about foreign policy used to be the norm for presidential candidates.

Bush campaign speech

I do recall Obama’s campaign more clearly and he spoke/wrote with incredible clarity about what he thought the US should do. Like Bush he got a lot wrong in hindsight, but the coherence and depth of his thinking is beyond doubt. See for example the Op Ed piece linked below from the Guardian in 2008. Can you imagine either current candidate articulating the issues - or what should be done about them - so clearly? I can’t. 

Obama pre-election Op Ed in Granuiad 2008

For all of his buffoonery and subsequent treasonous behaviour Trump’s team actually got China spot on. That’s evidenced by the fact the changes he made gained cross-party consensus and have endured under Biden.

Today he wants to align the US with dictators, kill Ukrainian statehood, abandon NATO, and hates international trade. His views are barking mad, but we know what they are because he can’t contain himself from boastfully spouting them on TV (I don’t know whether he can actually write). 

So, what about Harris? Some people have written that she’s been to places, and a narrative reinvention has taken place since Biden dropped out placing her at the centre of FP decisions in the WH.

That could charitably be described as spin (her actual job was the southern border - oops) and if it was true, it shouldn’t be difficult to find a clear exposition of her FP views. Good luck with that, we can’t even draw on her performance in presidential primaries because she was knocked out immediately last time, and was parachuted in unopposed this time.

Harris is the definition of a paper candidate, and I think she’s getting mass endorsement from the NATSEC and FP community because the alternative is apocalyptic for their world view and America’s role in it. Can’t argue with that, but it wasn’t my initial point, which was that both candidates are dire. 

Her job was never the southern border, that is something the republicans have manufactured. She was assigned a role to identify the root causes of immigration into the US, which is a bit of a hospital pass, and a 25 year project, never mind 4 years.

[bickster]

So Trump's latest rally starts off with him talking about the size of golf legend Arnold Palmer's knob. Not at all strange in the slightest