The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[Tom2112]

There was definitely an issue with the panel pushing back on Trump (fairly in cases) and not doing the same with Kamala. They were tougher on Trump which was to be expected. Kamala for the most part baited and then repeated her well prepared answers. She just seemed disingenuous though, all these dramatic emotional voice cracks, I think if anyone was listening and watching and didn't catch how fake that was then you are well and truly out there.

What did she truly answer though? She avoided all types of questions "are the people of America better off now than they were under Trump" she dodged this expertly going into what she hopes to do in the future,  which is something shevcould have tagged on the end after discussing the past 3 1/2 years, but she didn't. She's proud of her record, yet she doesn't talk about it? Maybe it's not so good after all.

[downzy]

22 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

There was definitely an issue with the panel pushing back on Trump (fairly in cases) and not doing the same with Kamala. They were tougher on Trump which was to be expected

CNN fact checkers said that Trump made 33 out right lies during the debate.

Kamala made one.

While I generally don't agree with moderators fact-checking on the fly, I also don't think it's that much of a stretch for moderators to make clear that the most outlandish claims aren't true. 

Kamala didn't claim people were eating pets and babies were being killed.  Her sins were more of exaggerations or issues with context.  Those types of issues are better left for the debaters to clear up otherwise the moderators would take over the debate.

25 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

She just seemed disingenuous though, all these dramatic emotional voice cracks, I think if anyone was listening and watching and didn't catch how fake that was then you are well and truly out there.

Something tells me you're predisposed to hear and see what you want with her.  I'm not sure most other people who are either supportive or neutral on Kamala saw it the same way.

[downzy]

36 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

What did she truly answer though? She avoided all types of questions "are the people of America better off now than they were under Trump" she dodged this expertly going into what she hopes to do in the future,  which is something shevcould have tagged on the end after discussing the past 3 1/2 years, but she didn't. She's proud of her record, yet she doesn't talk about it? Maybe it's not so good after all.

There were definitely openings for Trump to take, but he's a terrible debater from a technical standpoint. 

His only move is counter-punch.

His critique of asking why Harris didn't do all her great plans while in office should have been introduced at the beginning of the debate, not at minute 105 of the debate.  That said, if there is a second debate, I'm hoping Kamala has a prepared response to this (because I can think of several).

I don't think Harris wins the debate by spending 90 minutes talking about detailed policy plans (her campaign just released her policy platform a few days ago).  That's not what debates are about.  Generally they're won and lost on conduct and performance.

Someone online wrote about how for the last six weeks the media has been talking about Kamala wanting to bait Trump.  Kamala's own campaign talked about how this was their strategy.  And yet Trump still fell for it despite multiple warnings.  He can't help himself.  And I think that was the point of the debate; to illustrate how reactive and uncontrolled he is and by contrast, how controlled and prepared Kamala is.  Only one came off as prepared and with a strategy.

I've become less convinced debates matter (if they did, Trump wouldn't have won in 2016).  But in terms of further cementing the overall narrative, this debate hurt Trump and helped Harris.

And I had to laugh how Taylor Swift twisted the knife soon after the debate with her endorsement of Harris-Walz.  The fact that she did it minutes after the debate ended was a cold move on her part. 

[downzy]

6 hours ago, luciusfunk said:

I mean...

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws-2-years-after/story?id=111312220

 

 

 

 

 

https://x.com/captivedreamer7/status/1833540094453813394

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/where-did-donald-trumps-pet-eating-claims-come-from-13212808

"The Springfield Police Division said in a statement that they were aware of the "rumours" and had no information to support them.

"In response to recent rumours alleging criminal activity by the immigrant population in our city, we wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," the police said.

Springfield Mayor Rob Rue also said on Tuesday there were no documented cases of immigrants eating pets.

Speaking at a meeting of the city commission, Mr Rue said: "Rumours like these are taking away from the real issues such as housing concerns, resources needed for our schools and our overwhelmed health care system."

Mr Rue also explained that one alleged case of someone attacking a cat - falsely attributed to a Haitian immigrant in Springfield - occurred in Canton, Ohio, some 160 miles away, Sky News' US partner NBC News reported. The defendant in that case, charged with animal cruelty, has no known connection to Haiti, according to The Canton Repository newspaper."

 

As for the issue of babies surviving abortions, that headline is misleading.  Yes, eight "babies" survived abortion attempts, but three were pre-viable (i.e., would not have survived regardless of receiving medical attention), two had fetal anomalies, and three were given comfort care measures.  None of them survived.

Nobody was killing babies as a result of Minnesota law.  

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

There were definitely openings for Trump to take, but he's a terrible debater from a technical standpoint. 

His only move is counter-punch.

His critique of asking why Harris didn't do all her great plans while in office should have been introduced at the beginning of the debate, not at minute 105 of the debate.  That said, if there is a second debate, I'm hoping Kamala has a prepared response to this (because I can think of several).

I don't think Harris wins the debate by spending 90 minutes talking about detailed policy plans (her campaign just released her policy platform a few days ago).  That's not what debates are about.  Generally they're won and lost on conduct and performance.

Someone online wrote about how for the last six weeks the media has been talking about Kamala wanting to bait Trump.  Kamala's own campaign talked about how this was their strategy.  And yet Trump still fell for it despite multiple warnings.  He can't help himself.  And I think that was the point of the debate; to illustrate how reactive and uncontrolled he is and by contrast, how controlled and prepared Kamala is.  Only one came off as prepared and with a strategy.

I've become less convinced debates matter (if they did, Trump wouldn't have won in 2016).  But in terms of further cementing the overall narrative, this debate hurt Trump and helped Harris.

And I had to laugh how Taylor Swift twisted the knife soon after the debate with her endorsement of Harris-Walz.  The fact that she did it minutes after the debate ended was a cold move on her part. 

Agree 100% plenty of warnings and he walked into every trap. He didn't prepare at all, maybe that's arrogance? Who knows but he could have really gone after her in a smart way and impacted her campaign instead it was the same old shit. 

I heard someone say he should have just ignored the questions he didn't like and just focus on immigration/economy etc. That was what he did! He just didn't really succeed in making his points. I think he scored a few punches though, and people will like that he fought back when the panel weren't offering rebuttal time after Kamala's barbs. So it's far from over. Safe to say she looked better in the end, but  given what she was up against she should have had a definitive win.

I tend to agree about debates, it's just theatre and mudslinging. May as well be held at wrestlemania

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

CNN fact checkers said that Trump made 33 out right lies during the debate.

Kamala made one.

While I generally don't agree with moderators fact-checking on the fly, I also don't think it's that much of a stretch for moderators to make clear that the most outlandish claims aren't true. 

Kamala didn't claim people were eating pets and babies were being killed.  Her sins were more of exaggerations or issues with context.  Those types of issues are better left for the debaters to clear up otherwise the moderators would take over the debate.

Something tells me you're predisposed to hear and see what you want with her.  I'm not sure most other people who are either supportive or neutral on Kamala saw it the same way.

I just don't buy her act, and for the most part I don't buy the act of most politicians but she is so clearly regurgitating lines, she's almost waiting for the laughter track.

[ZoSoRose]

Duck Barbecue would make a good GNR album title

[-W.A.R-]

14 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Duck Barbecue would make a good GNR album title

Lana with another classic

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I think he scored a few punches though, and people will like that he fought back when the panel weren't offering rebuttal time after Kamala's barbs.

Trump spoke far more than Kamala did, plus he would often start his responses focusing on the traps she left for him rather than on the issue.  On the issue of immigration, one that Trump should have pounced on, he instead started his answer responding to her slight about crowds and how boring his rallies are.  That's not on the moderators; that's on Trump.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

it took Trump 45 minutes to go off the rails of the crazy train. The lies were flying but Harris stood there and smiled. I loved it.

First of all Trump is a felon, so why is the government even allowing him to run for President. What the hell is going on in America? Harris may not be perfect, but Trump is only out for himself. He wants the power to pardon himself and allow his friends like Putin and Kim to do whatever the hell they want to do. If anyone is going to start WW 3 it'll be him.

I hope Americans are smart enough to see a liar and would be King and vote Harris.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

Trump spoke far more than Kamala did, plus he would often start his responses focusing on the traps she left for him rather than on the issue.  On the issue of immigration, one that Trump should have pounced on, he instead started his answer responding to her slight about crowds and how boring his rallies are.  That's not on the moderators; that's on Trump.

Did yo notice how he lied about what he said on January 6? He never answers the question. He was posted online for the two months after Biden won how the election was fixed and how he and his minions have to "take back the government". In the audience that day were his minions with guns just waiting for the word which he gave. He is responsible for those morons trying to take over the government and kill innocent people, which they did. He also said he would pardon them.

Trump is a danger to America more so than ever before. I would rather have anyone in the White House but him.

Also he waited over 2 hours before sending in the National guard to help those people and blames the Mayor of Washington DC and Nancy Pelosi. if they had gotten to Nancy or Mike they would have hanged them on the spot. America has to do better than this. I have never seen such a horrible display of insanity in my life.

[Graeme]

 

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Trump spoke far more than Kamala did, plus he would often start his responses focusing on the traps she left for him rather than on the issue.  On the issue of immigration, one that Trump should have pounced on, he instead started his answer responding to her slight about crowds and how boring his rallies are.  That's not on the moderators; that's on Trump.

But that wasn't my point, they asked Kamala a question she nuked Trump and then they didn't give the rebuttal space, wanting to move on. That's on the moderators. 

Absolutely agreed that he fell into the traps and the crowd size thing was dumb he can't help but try and blow his own trumpet. That is 100% on Trump

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

it took Trump 45 minutes to go off the rails of the crazy train. The lies were flying but Harris stood there and smiled. I loved it.

First of all Trump is a felon, so why is the government even allowing him to run for President. What the hell is going on in America? Harris may not be perfect, but Trump is only out for himself. He wants the power to pardon himself and allow his friends like Putin and Kim to do whatever the hell they want to do. If anyone is going to start WW 3 it'll be him.

I hope Americans are smart enough to see a liar and would be King and vote Harris.

Let's hold all politicians equally accountable. Who will run foe president then😀 

Friends like Putin and Kim. Listen to yourself? It's a good thing to talk to these people. He nailed the Biden/Harris administration on that. Haven't spoken to Putin in 2 years (maybe not the actual timeline, but she didn'tpush back so...). Exactly how are they planning to create peace and security when they don't talk to the person capable of making it a reality? What's the benefit from bot having a dialogue? I'm waiting

Edited September 11 by Tom2112

[evilfacelessturtle]

14 hours ago, luciusfunk said:

I mean...

Literally the next sentence after your highlight:

"And we haven't really seen any of that"

Your own source disproves the hoax.

[evilfacelessturtle]

I can't help but notice how some "impartial" people only criticize Trump on technique, never substance, and only attack Kamala on subjective character interpretations...

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Friends like Putin and Kim. Listen to yourself? It's a good thing to talk to these people.

Talking is not the same as being friends and "writing each other love letters" in Trump's own words.

And both are a far cry from being an easily manipulated fool like Trump.

Trump literally took Putin at his word over our own intelligence officials that Russia didn't meddle in the 2016 election. How fucking dumb can he get?

Putin has convinced Trump's entire base to just let him take Ukraine without a fight, by directly funding some of the biggest online right wing personalities like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.

 

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Exactly how are they planning to create peace and security when they don't talk to the person capable of making it a reality? What's the benefit from bot having a dialogue? I'm waiting

You obviously have no clue about Putin. There is no negotiating with him, and if there were, Ukraine would be doing it. They have tried multiple times and Putin repeatedly demonstrates that he is not actually interested in negotiating.

This is like asking why we didn't negotiate with Hitler.

Edited September 11 by evilfacelessturtle

[Sweersa]

5 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

If anyone is going to start WW 3 it'll be him.

Some think we are already in the early stages of a world war. If that ends up being the case, which I hope is not so, it certainly wouldn't be on Trump, unless he escalates the current situation, should he win the US presidency. 

America has long been criticized for getting involved in wars it shouldn't, and being the "world police". If the United States significantly reduced its military presence around the world, I believe parts of Europe and Taiwan would be very uncomfortable, to say the least. With that being said, Russia has embarrassingly under-performed in their invasion of Ukraine. Poland has been amassing military strength for decades, between them and Germany, I believe they could handle Russia along with the UK in a conventional war without the US. (Though the US would of course assist due to NATO obligation, but in my example let's assume NATO doesn't exist)

I have a question for Europeans here, as my few European friends are fairly right-leaning, and I'd appreciate a different or fresh perspective. It is my understanding parts of Europe are having an immigration crisis with immigrants from Arab countries. I am told, and in some cases have been shown, that many of these immigrants are younger males, and they largely do not assimilate into western society, and have committed crimes of varying severity against Europeans.  Is there any truth to this? Or is it as serious as a problem as I've been lead to believe? I've seen riots in Ireland and England where it appears people are marching to preserve their culture from been further corrupted from 3rd world countries.

[janrichmond]

5 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

I have a question for Europeans here, as my few European friends are fairly right-leaning, and I'd appreciate a different or fresh perspective. It is my understanding parts of Europe are having an immigration crisis with immigrants from Arab countries. I am told, and in some cases have been shown, that many of these immigrants are younger males, and they largely do not assimilate into western society, and have committed crimes of varying severity against Europeans.  Is there any truth to this? Or is it as serious as a problem as I've been lead to believe? I've seen riots in Ireland and England where it appears people are marching to preserve their culture from been further corrupted from 3rd world countries.

Yes, we do have a big issue with illegal immigrants and the crimes they commit, they mainly appear to be young men coming across the channel in small boats from France. However, this is the American politics thread so I will say no more. 

[Sweersa]

8 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

Yes, we do have a big issue with illegal immigrants and the crimes they commit, they mainly appear to be young men coming across the channel in small boats from France. However, this is the American politics thread so I will say no more. 

I appreciate the response, and I’m sorry Europe is being afflicted by such scum. I hope and pray for a real solution. (My Slovakian friend seems to have a good solution he and others are actively employing but it’s not appropriate to share)

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, Sweersa said:

I have a question for Europeans here, as my few European friends are fairly right-leaning, and I'd appreciate a different or fresh perspective. It is my understanding parts of Europe are having an immigration crisis with immigrants from Arab countries. I am told, and in some cases have been shown, that many of these immigrants are younger males, and they largely do not assimilate into western society, and have committed crimes of varying severity against Europeans.  Is there any truth to this? Or is it as serious as a problem as I've been lead to believe? I've seen riots in Ireland and England where it appears people are marching to preserve their culture from been further corrupted from 3rd world countries.

Yes, there has been too much immigration to some countries in Europe, or perhaps assimilation and integration haven't worked. I mean, immigration without integration is bound to become a problem. In Norway the problem is not so much lone male immigrants committing crimes, as you describe, but children of immigrants in larger cities who live outside of society, form gangs, and get involved in crimes. And they are mostly Pakistani and not Arab. 

I can't answer to whether the problem is "as serious as a problem" as you've been lead to believe since you don't describe the seriousness of it, but if I were to wager I would say it is likely less of a problem. That being said, in some areas of Europe immigration is causing substantial problems.

[Rindmelon]

6 hours ago, Sweersa said:

Some think we are already in the early stages of a world war. If that ends up being the case, which I hope is not so, it certainly wouldn't be on Trump, unless he escalates the current situation, should he win the US presidency. 

America has long been criticized for getting involved in wars it shouldn't, and being the "world police". If the United States significantly reduced its military presence around the world, I believe parts of Europe and Taiwan would be very uncomfortable, to say the least. With that being said, Russia has embarrassingly under-performed in their invasion of Ukraine. Poland has been amassing military strength for decades, between them and Germany, I believe they could handle Russia along with the UK in a conventional war without the US. (Though the US would of course assist due to NATO obligation, but in my example let's assume NATO doesn't exist)

I have a question for Europeans here, as my few European friends are fairly right-leaning, and I'd appreciate a different or fresh perspective. It is my understanding parts of Europe are having an immigration crisis with immigrants from Arab countries. I am told, and in some cases have been shown, that many of these immigrants are younger males, and they largely do not assimilate into western society, and have committed crimes of varying severity against Europeans.  Is there any truth to this? Or is it as serious as a problem as I've been lead to believe? I've seen riots in Ireland and England where it appears people are marching to preserve their culture from been further corrupted from 3rd world countries.

No problems like that where I live at all. At least not as far as I'm aware, I live in a racially diverse area and the vast majority of violence/crime is by young English piss heads who live to drink. Knife crime mostly, In the last 10 years I have known 3 people who have been stabbed, one of which died. It is normally violence from men to women. The violence tends to be worse in cities however (though I think that's the same in all countries) 

[Sweersa]

Thank you both, and I’m sorry for the loss of your friend, Rindmelon. 
That’s certainly true with cities in the US as well. I think it’s the volume of people crammed into a smaller space that drives some over the edge, and they also seems to attract nefarious types. I’ve been through and briefly stayed at some “bad” US cities over the years. Sometimes it was shockingly so. I live in a rural area, so I’m shielded from a lot of these types of issues. I prefer a peaceful country life. There’s some diversity out here as well, most folks here are similarly minded and enjoy the pace of life and peace the country offers. 

[downzy]

16 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

But that wasn't my point, they asked Kamala a question she nuked Trump and then they didn't give the rebuttal space, wanting to move on. That's on the moderators. 

Trump had far more speaking opportunities and time speaking than Harris.

Also, Trump doesn't get to respond to every burn by Kamala.  That's not how debates work.  

[Tom2112]

49 minutes ago, downzy said:

Trump had far more speaking opportunities and time speaking than Harris.

Also, Trump doesn't get to respond to every burn by Kamala.  That's not how debates work.  

Of course you can't respond to everything.

Trump had more speaking time because he took it, not because they offered it. 

Example of unequal pushback was the abortion question (which i'm more left than right on to be clear). How many times did the panel ask him to say yes or no? They didn't push Kamala for answers when she was ducking and diving on the economy, she gave her non response and they moved on. And that might be how some debates work, but it's not exactly balanced. Now the onus is on Kamala to step into the right leaning debate and show if she can hold her own. Although, Trump is saying he won the debate (he didn't), so he's not sure he'll do another.

[downzy]

57 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Of course you can't respond to everything.

Trump had more speaking time because he took it, not because they offered it. 

Example of unequal pushback was the abortion question (which i'm more left than right on to be clear). How many times did the panel ask him to say yes or no? They didn't push Kamala for answers when she was ducking and diving on the economy, she gave her non response and they moved on. And that might be how some debates work, but it's not exactly balanced. Now the onus is on Kamala to step into the right leaning debate and show if she can hold her own. Although, Trump is saying he won the debate (he didn't), so he's not sure he'll do another.

Hence he had more opportunities to respond to her attacks, regardless of whether he took the time or was given it.

Kamala was asked why her positions have changed on gun restrictions and fracking.  They didn't need to pushback on those instances because they were baked into the moderator's questions. 

There were many instances where Trump avoided questions posed but did not get push back from the moderators.

On the issue of abortion, the only pushback was on the discrepancy between Trump's answer and that of his running mate's, who claimed that Trump would veto a national abortion ban.  It wasn't a "you once said this, and now you're saying this" kind of question. 

I'm not sure why a follow up question that attempts to discern any discrepancy between Trump and his running mate on an important issue is grounds for accusing the moderators of being biased.  If Walz had spoken for Harris on a policy issue that differed with her stated position in the debate, I'm sure they would have asked Harris for clarification on that as well.