2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

[Raoul]

Losing that NBC deal sent her over the edge, it’s funny how desperate she is to ingratiate herself back to the right.

She's more comfortable as a right of center provocateur than a journalist, which is why she struggled to hold down a mainstream job.

 

[Raoul]

Na all these podcasts are very right leaning
Kamala on Joe Rogan isn’t possible.

I few years ago he used to be a bit more “undecided” by since Covid he’s been heavily Republican.

And it’s true for most of the famous non political podcasts.

Another thing that's happened to him since the pandemic is he is now worth $200m, and as many wealthy and powerful people do, he is gravitating towards politicians who will help him preserve his wealth and power. If whoever they support also happens to check the cultural box, then all the better.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Rogan is definitely a right wing libertarian who will always vote Republican because he likes their policies, but I also get the sense that he thinks Trump is an idiot and backs him reluctantly because he can't stomach Democratic policies.

More specifically he can't stomach Democratic policies as they exist in his head. Joe Rogan is extremely gullible when it comes to "Democrats bad" or conspiracy type stuff. Like when he actually believed Biden's last State of the Union wasn't live, before he was gloriously fact checked in real time.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

‘It’s the economy, stupid’.

This should kill the idea of moderation, it’s political malpractice in this environment not to run for the base, and demonise the other side as much as possible to scare independents into voting for you, not that there are many of them left.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

She's more comfortable as a right of center provocateur than a journalist, which is why she struggled to hold down a mainstream job.

She was never this vile even when she was at Fox, black Santa and all. Being shunned from the mainstream and having to earn her bread in the right wing podcast circle means she has to be as or even more incendiary than her peers.

At this point she’s basically a younger version of Coulter.

 

[Raoul]

She was never this vile even when she was at Fox, black Santa and all. Being shunned from the mainstream and having to earn her bread in the right wing podcast circle means she has to be as or even more incendiary than her peers.

At this point she’s basically a younger version of Coulter.

She's always been like this. If you saw some of her rants when she had her own Fox show, they had the same energy. And of course she got canned at NBC after her blackface remarks in 2018. So this is not new for her. The only thing all of this has revealed is that she was her NBC was completely fake, and that she's most comfortable in her own skin as an anti-woke crusader in podcast world.

 

[calodo2003]

It's 0300 zulu

You metric system people are weird.

 

[The Firestarter]

You metric system people are weird.

He typed that with a 5g and 6mm in his pocket.

 

[calodo2003]

‘It’s the economy, stupid’.

This should kill the idea of moderation, it’s political malpractice in this environment not to run for the base, and demonise the other side as much as possible to scare independents into voting for you, not that there are many of them left.

Disappointed that money is going into that steel plant after reading that.

 

[ManUtd1999]

They have to get Kamala on before 1000P tonight.

I agree. No need for another long night telling us for hours that Harris was a prosecutor. She needs to finish her speech before people in the east Coast go to bed. I suggest that she takes the stage no later than 9:30 pm Eastern.

 

[VorZakone]

She was never this vile even when she was at Fox, black Santa and all. Being shunned from the mainstream and having to earn her bread in the right wing podcast circle means she has to be as or even more incendiary than her peers.

At this point she’s basically a younger version of Coulter.

She seema to be well-off financially (allegedly a millionaire). My guess is she doesn't actually need to grift to make money.

 

[Abizzz]

Right wing talking head known for being a stunner becomes increasingly extreme with advancing age!? What a coincidence.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

She seema to be well-off financially (allegedly a millionaire). My guess is she doesn't actually need to grift to make money.

People like her don’t stop making money however they can just because they are well off. Besides the fact that they have a lifestyle to maintain, it’s also very much a status thing to keep building that wealth.

Obama lamented the transient pursuits of modern life like money and fame and social media likes, yet he took millions of dollars from Netflix deal/speaking circuit. Getting the bag is very much an accepted cultural thing in the US, it’s only bad if you are running for office (mostly as a liberal).

 

[The Firestarter]

Right wing talking head known for being a stunner becomes increasingly extreme with advancing age!? What a coincidence.

So we talking head...

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Obama lamented the transient pursuits of modern life like money and fame and social media likes, yet he took millions of dollars from Netflix deal/speaking circuit. Getting the bag is very much an accepted cultural thing in the US, it’s only bad if you are running for office (mostly as a liberal).

All ex-presidents do this.

 

[Sir Matt]

I’m losing my mind.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

‘It’s the economy, stupid’.

This should kill the idea of moderation, it’s political malpractice in this environment not to run for the base, and demonise the other side as much as possible to scare independents into voting for you, not that there are many of them left.

There are actually, many more than people might get the impression if they only have Twitter and news networks where you really only see about 20% of the most vocal on the right and left then, especially if you don't live in the US so don't come across them in person since they aren't the types to engage in twitter or online political discussions because it just isn't something they do.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

All ex-presidents do this.

Jimmy Carter spent his time building houses for the poor. What little money he makes in speaking fees he donates to charity, it’s a choice.

It’s not really a criticism anyway, it’s just an observation of the average American mindset.

 

[berbatrick]

 

[WI_Red]

good. They should keep up the pressure. It's disgraceful that the DNC will not allow for Palestinian American voices to be heard, especially in light of allowing the family of one of the hostages to speak yesterday. Its damning that the most vocal and authentic voice of the people of Gaza at the DNC has been those parents.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Jimmy Carter spent his time building houses for the poor. What little money he makes in speaking fees he donates to charity, it’s a choice.

It’s not really a criticism anyway, it’s just an observation of the average American mindset.

And Obama has donated upwards of $2MM to programs for low income youth in Chicago. Granted, his fees are far beyond what Carter was ever offered.

Bill Clinton would have been a better example. He has the highest fees, or GW Bush who has had the most engagements. Both have said they're doing it to "pay the bills" (Clinton) & "replenish the coffers" (Bush).

But yeah, Americans want to get paid, same as everyone.

 

[Hamnat]

People are already complaining about the volume of speakers and the speeches going over time. I don't see why every single issue anyone in the Democratic party is interested in has to have its own speaker for said issue. It isn't like that specific cause is being ignored. And I believe Kamala herself in her remarks tonight absolutely should have a clear section on her intention of pressuring a ceasefire etc and further solutions in that regard.

I get the "pressure campaign" and wanting to have your "own specific cause" rep speak but I completely disagree that it is disgraceful in any way.

We all know that the Democrats are the big tent party and try to carry the load of the majority of Americans concerns and values. It would have to be a 2 week convention to give everyone and every value the spotlight they think they deserve. And even then some will still complain.

 

[WI_Red]

People are already complaining about the volume of speakers and the speeches going over time. I don't see why every single issue anyone in the Democratic party is interested in has to have its own speaker for said issue. It isn't like that specific cause is being ignored. And I believe Kamala herself in her remarks tonight absolutely should have a clear section on her intention of pressuring a ceasefire etc and further solutions in that regard.

I get the "pressure campaign" and wanting to have your "own specific cause" rep speak but I completely disagree that it is disgraceful in any way.

The volume of speakers has nothing to do with addressing what is a significant global issue. The majority of the speakers have not been up there spouting different issues, instead it has been a steady stream of various forms of "Kamala was a prosecutor and Trump is a bad man". Now, I love me a good rah rah rally but lets not pretend that all issues are created equal. I might even agree with you except that by inviting the family of a hostage to speak they introduced the war as a priority at the convention. To only allow the voice of the Jewish Americans whose family is being ripped apart by the savagery in Gaza/Israel but yet silence the voice of Palestinian Americans whose families are likewise suffering is a disgrace.

 

[Hamnat]

The volume of speakers has nothing to do with addressing what is a significant global issue. The majority of the speakers have not been up there spouting different issues, instead it has been a steady stream of various forms of "Kamala was a prosecutor and Trump is a bad man". Now, I love me a good rah rah rally but lets not pretend that all issues are created equal. I might even agree with you except that by inviting the family of a hostage to speak they introduced the war as a priority at the convention. To only allow the voice of the Jewish Americans whose family is being ripped apart by the savagery in Gaza/Israel but yet silence the voice of Palestinian Americans whose families are likewise suffering is a disgrace.

The convention absolutely HAS to sell the public on Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. They need the family segments, they need the personal stories. They need these character stories and moments. Is it overkill in some points sure yeah. But if you hear the story from a person you like or connect with then that matters. You might dismiss Senator Klobuchar talking about Tim and her personal connection and history for whatever reason. But maybe Gov. Wes Moore got to you. Same with Kamala praise and rah rah. 10 different people with maybe non intersecting constituencies telling you trust me this is why she's great vote for her while still excessive. I think it has value.

The same reason I think having all those influencers be personally invited. They need to reach as many people as possible immediately get them excited and get them working on their friends and co workers as well.

I completely agree and am not being dismissive of the issue itself of Gaza and what's happening. Which is why I think kamala directly must have some comment on it in her speech. I think what she would say is more important anyway. Since she is the one that would in this case be implementing an actual policy or putting whatever proposals and pressure on Israel/Netanyahu/Hamas. And they still wont be happy anyway if she doesn't come out and flat out say day one I will never sign for more arms to Israel.

 

[Hamnat]

The convention absolutely HAS to sell the public on Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. They need the family segments, they need the personal stories. They need these character stories and moments. Is it overkill in some points sure yeah. But if you hear the story from a person you like or connect with then that matters. You might dismiss Senator Klobuchar talking about Tim and her personal connection and history for whatever reason. But maybe Gov. Wes Moore got to you. Same with Kamala praise and rah rah. 10 different people with maybe non intersecting constituencies telling you trust me this is why she's great vote for her while still excessive. I think it has value. There have been more ex Republicans, or current GOP but hate Trump that spoke than I would have liked but I get the reasoning.

The same reason I think having all those influencers be personally invited. They need to reach as many people as possible immediately get them excited and get them working on their friends and co workers as well.

I completely agree and am not being dismissive of the issue itself of Gaza and what's happening. Which is why I think kamala directly must have some comment on it in her speech. I think what she would say is more important anyway. Since she is the one that would in this case be implementing an actual policy or putting whatever proposals and pressure on Israel/Netanyahu/Hamas. And they still wont be happy anyway if she doesn't come out and flat out say day one I will never sign for more arms to Israel.

 

[WI_Red]

The convention absolutely HAS to sell the public on Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz. They need the family segments, they need the personal stories. They need these character stories and moments. Is it overkill in some points sure yeah. But if you hear the story from a person you like or connect with then that matters. You might dismiss Senator Klobuchar talking about Tim and her personal connection and history for whatever reason. But maybe Gov. Wes Moore got to you. Same with Kamala praise and rah rah. 10 different people with maybe non intersecting constituencies telling you trust me this is why she's great vote for her while still excessive. I think it has value.

The same reason I think having all those influencers be personally invited. They need to reach as many people as possible immediately get them excited and get them working on their friends and co workers as well.

I completely agree and am not being dismissive of the issue itself of Gaza and what's happening. Which is why I think kamala directly must have some comment on it in her speech. I think what she would say is more important anyway. Since she is the one that would in this case be implementing an actual policy or putting whatever proposals and pressure on Israel/Netanyahu/Hamas. And they still wont be happy anyway if she doesn't come out and flat out say day one I will never sign for more arms to Israel.

I think there is zero chance this happens. While she is the candidate for the next POTUS she is the current VP, which means she will not undermine Biden. I am guessing we might get some brief mention of Gaza tonight, but it will be no more than "I will work hard to get a ceasfire". God forbid we are still hoping for a ceasfire on January 20th.

 

[Hamnat]

I think there is zero chance this happens. While she is the candidate for the next POTUS she is the current VP, which means she will not undermine Biden. I am guessing we might get some brief mention of Gaza tonight, but it will be no more than "I will work hard to get a ceasfire". God forbid we are still hoping for a ceasfire on January 20th.

I completely agree I edited to make sure I wasn't saying there would still be a ceasefire deal being pursued. I think a main point to think about in this is electing Donald Trump is NOT going to advance the Palestinian American issues at ALL. That this is even a topic of discussion for the Democratic agenda and the DNC is a testament to the Democrats at least give a damn and want to consider the issue and resolve it. The entire point of the DNC is getting Kamala and Tim elected in what will be a tight race. With any one slip up being blown out of proportion and potentially shifting to Trump.

So getting democrats elected absolutely matters. That does NOT mean that they should not do exactly what they are doing and pressure Dems. Pressure having a voice.

 

[WI_Red]

I completely agree I edited to make sure I wasn't saying there would still be a ceasefire deal being pursued. I think a main point to think about in this is electing Donald Trump is NOT going to advance the Palestinian American issues at ALL. That this is even a topic of discussion for the Democratic agenda and the DNC is a testament to the Democrats at least give a damn and want to consider the issue and resolve it.

So getting democrats elected absolutely matters. That does NOT mean that they should not do exactly what they are doing and pressure Dems. Pressure having a voice.

I don't disagree, and that has been my position all along. However, I think the DNC made a major "error" by inviting the family of the hostage to speak. Up until that point they could make a valid argument that they were doing as you said, focusing on introducing us to Harris/Walz, laying out basic policy positions, and attacking Trump, all while leaving controversial issues to the side for a later day. Empowering one group while publicly sidelining another is, in and of itself, staking a policy position and it is by its nature a much more tangible stance than the 20 or so words Harris may or may not say tonight. Actions always speak louder than words.

 

[gaffs]

Na all these podcasts are very right leaning
Kamala on Joe Rogan isn’t possible.

I few years ago he used to be a bit more “undecided” by since Covid he’s been heavily Republican.

And it’s true for most of the famous non political podcasts.

And? So is Fox news, but Pete is on it all the time.

If Kamala is confident enough in herself, her policy and her message, she will move outside of her comfort zone. This is how you change opinions. You go on there and people actually think "oh, she is actually a pretty reasonable sounding person and i like the sound of her policies".

It is not like Joe Rogan is Jonathan Swan. He isn't someone who is well researched and brings the tough questions. He lets he guests waffle on, which is the issue with his shows. He lets people talk crap because he doesn't have the knowledge or will to push back. His response is normally "woooaaahhhh, that's unbelievable".

If Kamala wont, send Tim Walz. He is probably far more relatable to that audience anyway. Hasnt he been picked to reach out to the white working class male voter?

 

[berbatrick]

good. They should keep up the pressure. It's disgraceful that the DNC will not allow for Palestinian American voices to be heard, especially in light of allowing the family of one of the hostages to speak yesterday. Its damning that the most vocal and authentic voice of the people of Gaza at the DNC has been those parents.

I think it's a good strategy in that the demand has gone from policy change (ceasefire/stop sending bombs) to "please i'm begging you we're homo sapiens too and love you kamala, let us sing your praises for 5 minutes, then do whatever you want."

Pressure having a voice.

can you explain what this means?

 

[berbatrick]

Agreed. The enthusiasm surge, including among young voters, has blown away the issue except among die-hards. Therefore I think the dnc made an electrically risky but brave choice.

I also think a successful future for Israel, once it has completed its genocide, looks like America, where the genocide is lamented in academic liberal circles and ignored by the rest of the world... So this reaction seemed fitting. Other things are a lot more important!

E - there's two serious polls showing an advantage to Democrats if they are less pro-Israel. But the language used in those polls is already the language used by the party (duplicitously, since their "ceasefire" includes no end to the war and continued Israeli occupation of Gaza.) The current strategy of claiming to work towards a ceasefire, lying that Hamas is the obstacle, and continuing to bomb Gaza, might be good enough.

So I misremembered, one of the polls was specifically about halting weapons.



Oh well. Probably not worth the risk.

 

[Hamnat]

I think it's a good strategy in that the demand has gone from policy change (ceasefire/stop sending bombs) to "please i'm begging you we're homo sapiens too and love you kamala, let us sing your praises for 5 minutes, then do whatever you want."



can you explain what this means?

They want a speaking spot. There is nothing wrong with asking for that is what I mean. Nothing wrong with keeping up pressure to listen to their viewpoint. Only thing I disagree with is that every issue needs to have the individual of their choice get a prime speaking spot. That's all.

 

[berbatrick]

They want a speaking spot. There is nothing wrong with asking for that is what I mean. Nothing wrong with keeping up pressure to listen to their viewpoint. Only thing I disagree with is that every issue needs to have the individual of their choice get a prime speaking spot. That's all.

Usually "having a voice" is so that you can eventually affect something with that voice. It seems the current demand is to just have that voice, and pledge support as the genocide continues. It's really good for the Democrats that their voters are tolerant of genocide! But I'm a little surprised they can't give this token gesture.

 

[Hamnat]

Yes of course all of us democrats clearly want genocide and have no other reasons to not want trump to win.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Probably an account worth keeping an eye on. He’s updating registration number post drop-out in every state.

 

[berbatrick]

Yes of course all of us democrats clearly want genocide and have no other reasons to not want trump to win.

Some clearly do, all others (by definition) are ok with it continuing as long as Trump remains out of office.

 

[WI_Red]

Some clearly do, all others (by definition) are ok with it continuing as long as Trump remains out of office.

By definition someone is going to assume that role, and barring some mythical and magical event it is going to be Harris or Trump.
So, how would you complete the following sentence:

"On January 20th, 2025 I, @berbatrick , want ______________ to take the oath of office as POTUS"

I am not asking you who you are or would vote for, just who, of the 2 current choices, you would prefer to see as POTUS.

 

[ManUtd1999]

Some clearly do, all others (by definition) are ok with it continuing as long as Trump remains out of office.

This is very offensive to many people like myself. It’s offensive to individuals who have been heartbroken by what’s going on Gaza, but we can’t let Trump win because of all the consequences of a second Trump term.

We are torn apart, but we have no choice but to support Harris.

 

[berbatrick]

By definition someone is going to assume that role, and barring some mythical and magical event it is going to be Harris or Trump.
So, how would you complete the following sentence:

"On January 20th, 2025 I, @berbatrick , want ______________ to take the oath of office as POTUS"

I am not asking you who you are or would vote for, just who, of the 2 current choices, you would prefer to see as POTUS.

Jill Stein? I think she wants to stop weapons sales or something like that.

Again, about 140 million Americans have collectively decided that the genocide they are helping carry out is either good, or irrelevant to their politics.

This is very offensive to many people like myself. It’s offensive to individuals who have been heartbroken by what’s going on Gaza, but we can’t let Trump win because of all the consequences of a second Trump term.

We are torn apart, but we have no choice but to support Harris.

I'm not judging (some of you, at any rate!). Especially, I don't think you're being insincere.
But I think it's not good to hide, especially to yourself, what a vote for this party is.

I don't even think Americans voters are unique in this regard. Most voters (logically) don't care about other places. The only unique thing is the power of the US, which means American voters do control the lives of millions, in this case, pretty directly.

 

[Hamnat]

I mean I just completely dismiss sweeping generalizations like you clearly support genocide as an American or Democrat.

It's absurd on its face and it is just a low level base allegation that I don't need to defend. I am a black gay man living in the South, I have many issues that I need to navigate and worry about and work for personally and for everyone I care about. That includes having a general empathy for human beings in general. Being able to see that for most of the goals, policies, and quality of life issues I care about. I need to not have Republicans in charge of ANYTHING.

I don't worship any politician or think any of them are beyond reproach, or criticism. But, I also recognize that for anyone trying to get their policy or movement, or one issue pushed forward. Is their cause helped at all by a republican in charge? Putting pressure to do more, go farther, get more done is all fine. But, if you are at the point where what you are doing just gets more Republicans elected then you are hurting your own cause. And not just for 4 years. We are already at decades of damage by trump policies and judicial appointments specifically. It is insane to even contemplate allowing him more room and power for harm.