By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2024 US Presidential Election

Ryuu96 said:

PA is so important to the election but can't Shapiro still win it for Harris by remaining as Governor but campaigning his ass off for her behalf in PA during the election? I feel like Shapiro has baggage which may hurt Harris in outside states (like Michigan) but I know how important he is for PA and whoever wins PA likely wins the election.

I really want Walz and I'm trying to justify why he would be a better pick than Shapiro. Walz will probably get automatic credit for being a former teacher (coach) and highest ranking ex-military in Congress. He may be in a blue state but he represented a largely rural (red) district and beat a six-term Republican incumbent, Walz may be able to speak to rural folk better than some, his charm and way with words may get through to them, they can kiss goodbye to Florida but they were never winning Florida anyway so who cares about that.

I also recall polls showing that despite support dropping among young & minority voters, Biden was seeing some gains with older voters.

Maybe Walz looking and talking like a grandpa will help retain those voters? I know him & Kamala are basically the same age but he definitely looks and acts older than her.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
zorg1000 said:
firebush03 said:

yep, that’s me. :) And if that’s too much for you, then you can ignore my remarks. However, I hope you all may be able to acknowledge and appreciate the exerted effort on my end to be better. It seems some of you have already taken notice to this effort (as indicated by the fact one of you have confessed to having “mistook me for somebody else”…when I am “somebody else”), so I guess that’s a good sign lol.

What exerted effort to be better? You were constantly called out in the last thread for saying both sides are the same and here you are doing it again.

My opinion is that both sides are only marginally different. If it's disrespectful for me to express my opinion, then I don't know what to say. Just stay silent if you have an opinion that isn't mind? Again, I'm happy to have a conversation, and I hope you are as well. (which you seeminlgy were up until I confirmed my identity...to which you resort to prejudice. If it's too much, leave me alone. I will talk with others here.)



zorg1000 said:
Ryuu96 said:

PA is so important to the election but can't Shapiro still win it for Harris by remaining as Governor but campaigning his ass off for her behalf in PA during the election? I feel like Shapiro has baggage which may hurt Harris in outside states (like Michigan) but I know how important he is for PA and whoever wins PA likely wins the election.

I really want Walz and I'm trying to justify why he would be a better pick than Shapiro. Walz will probably get automatic credit for being a former teacher (coach) and highest ranking ex-military in Congress. He may be in a blue state but he represented a largely rural (red) district and beat a six-term Republican incumbent, Walz may be able to speak to rural folk better than some, his charm and way with words may get through to them, they can kiss goodbye to Florida but they were never winning Florida anyway so who cares about that.

I also recall polls showing that despite support dropping among young & minority voters, Biden was seeing some gains with older voters.

Maybe Walz looking and talking like a grandpa will help retain those voters? I know him & Kamala are basically the same age but he definitely looks and acts older than her.

Yeah, Biden was having strong support amongst older voters IIRC.

I don't think people dislike old looking candidates automatically, I think they just dislike when they act old (or are literally, super old, like in their 80s). Walz though is "only" 60 and while he looks older than Harris (it's funny they're only 1 year apart) he still has tons of energy, he has these young Bernie vibes, Imo. There's nothing about him that looks like he's mentally or physically declining (and does anyone care if that happens to the VP?). He just has the old look. Maybe people who think Kamala is "inexperienced" (aka idiots) will also be reassured by an older looking dude on the ticket with her. He has these "adorable grandpa" vibes to me but also has a strong bite to him, he would make Vance look like a tool.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 05 August 2024

It's probably more fair to say Walz looks his age and Harris looks like 10+ years below her age

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 05 August 2024

firebush03 said:

(yeah I should prolly avoid this forum lol.) Not a big fan of either Trump or Harris. Foreign policies are identical, domestic policy is marginally different. Economic policies are the difference of solidification versus furthering corporate power. Immigration policies are identical. Local-level courts don’t hold grand amounts of sway and no Democrat US Supreme Court justice is leaving anytime soon (and any Repub justice is still young enough to wait another 4y before dropping down). Dems choose to use abortion as a political football, refusing codification at all costs, and repubs will only re-enforce minor executive orders. Not much to comment on…it’s the election of white bread versus white bread with one extra gram of fiber.

mk, so we'll just go quick and easy. 

Foreign policy: Ukraine and NATO

Domestic Policy: Education and LGBT issues

How are these either identical for foreign policy or marginally different for the domestic ones. 



...

Around the Network
firebush03 said:
zorg1000 said:

What exerted effort to be better? You were constantly called out in the last thread for saying both sides are the same and here you are doing it again.

My opinion is that both sides are only marginally different. If it's disrespectful for me to express my opinion, then I don't know what to say. Just stay silent if you have an opinion that isn't mind? Again, I'm happy to have a conversation, and I hope you are as well. (which you seeminlgy were up until I confirmed my identity...to which you resort to prejudice. If it's too much, leave me alone. I will talk with others here.)

You’re missing the point, we already tried to have this conversation in the previous thread and you repeatedly ignored my posts and would only engage with people who wanted to talk about foreign policy.

If you actually choose to address the multitude of examples I give of how the parties are different then I’m more than happy to have that discussion but your track record says you don’t want to do that.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

sundin13 said:
firebush03 said:

"I hope you won't be waiting with bated breath for my responses like you seemed to have been with this post." bub, I was waiting with baited breath for the reason you can see...I only had until like 12/12:10pm to give a sufficient response lol. Wanted to respect your time.

In any case, I'll give something quick: Foreign policy? Okay. What are your understanding of Trump and Harris' foreign policy positions? Are we talking about Ukraine? Are we talking about NATO? Are we talking about the genocide in Gaza? Taiwan? More specifics, please. Tell me where you're at, and we'll start from there. I'll get back to you later today.

Hey, you're the one who made the claim. I am expecting you to make decisions on how to back it up. For the record, I think there are substantial policy differences in every single one of those things you listed: Ukraine, NATO, Gaza, Taiwan.

Okie doke. I guess can start. What are the policies of Trump and Harris when it comes to Gaza? (I will avoid Ukraine and NATO for obvious reasons.) Here's what I have percieved:

>>Kamala Harris -> Rheotorically, she is far more sympathetic toward the innocent Palestinians than Biden and (especially) Trump. To see this, here are some immediate examples: https://x.com/VP/status/1731404365695528980, https://x.com/VP/status/1719858212134891738, https://x.com/VP/status/1779349618813235542, https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kamala-harris-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself-against-hezbollah-6227644). Observe, however, that admist all this relatively sympathetic speaking, Kamala is very clear in expressing her interest in ensuring that "Israel has the right to defend itself", as can be seen by almost every example I've pulled up (and if you believe i have cherry-picked, which is a fair critique, then I suggest you do your own research).

Looking past rheotic (or as far as we can look past this), consider the outcome of Harris' meeting with Netanyahu a few weeks prior. The following statement would be released by the White House concerning this meeting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/25/readout-of-vice-president-harriss-meeting-with-prime-minister-netanyahu-of-israel/. You could argue, again, this is all for spectics (i.e., my favorite word: rhetoric); however, this is all we've really got when it comes to Harris' relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel. It's filled with the empty words of "I want a two-state solution" and "We have a solution! Now HAMAS needs to agree.", and continues to insist that Israel does in fact have the "right to defend itself" (...might I ask, defend itself against what? What are the Palestinians even doing? All I can recall is October 7th...but this is beside the point.)

In short, seeing that the DNC has pledged their full support in nominating Kamala as the Democratic Presidential Nominee, there should be no question as to what her true stance on Israel will be: To continue the Biden policy of not only remaining complicit in a genocide, not only neglecting the usage of America's leveraging power to stop Israel from its abuse of force against innocent Palestinians, but also sending over "secret" executive military packages worhts hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (https://truthout.org/articles/report-us-has-secretly-sent-israel-over-100-weapons-shipments-in-last-150-days/) and "finishing the job".

>>Donald Trump -> This is pretty cut-and-dry, and I don't think anyone will disagree when I say this: Donald Trump does not care to play this game of rhetoric. He is not afraid to say the quiet part out loud: Finish Them. If you want additional sources, I'm happy to provide. Though knowing this forum, I think y'all probably know Trump = bad.

>>Net difference? Both sides seem to support Israel's right to defend itself, just one side is far less explicit about it. But besides rheorhic, what is the true difference? I'm no foreign polciy expert, I can't give you specifics. In any case, the damage has already been done with 2% of the total population of Palestinians having been killed in direct combat. And any difference between the two will *likely* be marginal, as Israel will finish the deed in either case. Maybe y'all could enlighten me on the specific policies of their differences? (Though i have no idea why I would expect a VG forum to have people informed on military strategy lol.)



firebush03 said:
sundin13 said:

Hey, you're the one who made the claim. I am expecting you to make decisions on how to back it up. For the record, I think there are substantial policy differences in every single one of those things you listed: Ukraine, NATO, Gaza, Taiwan.

Okie doke. I guess can start. What are the policies of Trump and Harris when it comes to Gaza? (I will avoid Ukraine and NATO for obvious reasons.) Here's what I have percieved:

>>Kamala Harris -> Rheotorically, she is far more sympathetic toward the innocent Palestinians than Biden and (especially) Trump. To see this, here are some immediate examples: https://x.com/VP/status/1731404365695528980, https://x.com/VP/status/1719858212134891738, https://x.com/VP/status/1779349618813235542, https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kamala-harris-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself-against-hezbollah-6227644). Observe, however, that admist all this relatively sympathetic speaking, Kamala is very clear in expressing her interest in ensuring that "Israel has the right to defend itself", as can be seen by almost every example I've pulled up (and if you believe i have cherry-picked, which is a fair critique, then I suggest you do your own research).

Looking past rheotic (or as far as we can look past this), consider the outcome of Harris' meeting with Netanyahu a few weeks prior. The following statement would be released by the White House concerning this meeting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/25/readout-of-vice-president-harriss-meeting-with-prime-minister-netanyahu-of-israel/. You could argue, again, this is all for spectics (i.e., my favorite word: rhetoric); however, this is all we've really got when it comes to Harris' relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel. It's filled with the empty words of "I want a two-state solution" and "We have a solution! Now HAMAS needs to agree.", and continues to insist that Israel does in fact have the "right to defend itself" (...might I ask, defend itself against what? What are the Palestinians even doing? All I can recall is October 7th...but this is beside the point.)

In short, seeing that the DNC has pledged their full support in nominating Kamala as the Democratic Presidential Nominee, there should be no question as to what her true stance on Israel will be: To continue the Biden policy of not only remaining complicit in a genocide, not only neglecting the usage of America's leveraging power to stop Israel from its abuse of force against innocent Palestinians, but also sending over "secret" executive military packages worhts hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (https://truthout.org/articles/report-us-has-secretly-sent-israel-over-100-weapons-shipments-in-last-150-days/) and "finishing the job".

>>Donald Trump -> This is pretty cut-and-dry, and I don't think anyone will disagree when I say this: Donald Trump does not care to play this game of rhetoric. He is not afraid to say the quiet part out loud: Finish Them. If you want additional sources, I'm happy to provide. Though knowing this forum, I think y'all probably know Trump = bad.

>>Net difference? Both sides seem to support Israel's right to defend itself, just one side is far less explicit about it. But besides rheorhic, what is the true difference? I'm no foreign polciy expert, I can't give you specifics. In any case, the damage has already been done with 2% of the total population of Palestinians having been killed in direct combat. And any difference between the two will *likely* be marginal, as Israel will finish the deed in either case. Maybe y'all could enlighten me on the specific policies of their differences? (Though i have no idea why I would expect a VG forum to have people informed on military strategy lol.)

It is true that broadly the political parties are identical if you ignore the differences. But that's basically tautological and pointless to state. 



...

firebush03 said:
sundin13 said:

Hey, you're the one who made the claim. I am expecting you to make decisions on how to back it up. For the record, I think there are substantial policy differences in every single one of those things you listed: Ukraine, NATO, Gaza, Taiwan.

Okie doke. I guess can start. What are the policies of Trump and Harris when it comes to Gaza? (I will avoid Ukraine and NATO for obvious reasons.) Here's what I have percieved:

>>Kamala Harris -> Rheotorically, she is far more sympathetic toward the innocent Palestinians than Biden and (especially) Trump. To see this, here are some immediate examples: https://x.com/VP/status/1731404365695528980, https://x.com/VP/status/1719858212134891738, https://x.com/VP/status/1779349618813235542, https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kamala-harris-says-israel-has-right-to-defend-itself-against-hezbollah-6227644). Observe, however, that admist all this relatively sympathetic speaking, Kamala is very clear in expressing her interest in ensuring that "Israel has the right to defend itself", as can be seen by almost every example I've pulled up (and if you believe i have cherry-picked, which is a fair critique, then I suggest you do your own research).

Looking past rheotic (or as far as we can look past this), consider the outcome of Harris' meeting with Netanyahu a few weeks prior. The following statement would be released by the White House concerning this meeting: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/25/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-following-meeting-with-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-of-israel/, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/25/readout-of-vice-president-harriss-meeting-with-prime-minister-netanyahu-of-israel/. You could argue, again, this is all for spectics (i.e., my favorite word: rhetoric); however, this is all we've really got when it comes to Harris' relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel. It's filled with the empty words of "I want a two-state solution" and "We have a solution! Now HAMAS needs to agree.", and continues to insist that Israel does in fact have the "right to defend itself" (...might I ask, defend itself against what? What are the Palestinians even doing? All I can recall is October 7th...but this is beside the point.)

In short, seeing that the DNC has pledged their full support in nominating Kamala as the Democratic Presidential Nominee, there should be no question as to what her true stance on Israel will be: To continue the Biden policy of not only remaining complicit in a genocide, not only neglecting the usage of America's leveraging power to stop Israel from its abuse of force against innocent Palestinians, but also sending over "secret" executive military packages worhts hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (https://truthout.org/articles/report-us-has-secretly-sent-israel-over-100-weapons-shipments-in-last-150-days/) and "finishing the job".

>>Donald Trump -> This is pretty cut-and-dry, and I don't think anyone will disagree when I say this: Donald Trump does not care to play this game of rhetoric. He is not afraid to say the quiet part out loud: Finish Them. If you want additional sources, I'm happy to provide. Though knowing this forum, I think y'all probably know Trump = bad.

>>Net difference? Both sides seem to support Israel's right to defend itself, just one side is far less explicit about it. But besides rheorhic, what is the true difference? I'm no foreign polciy expert, I can't give you specifics. In any case, the damage has already been done with 2% of the total population of Palestinians having been killed in direct combat. And any difference between the two will *likely* be marginal, as Israel will finish the deed in either case. Maybe y'all could enlighten me on the specific policies of their differences? (Though i have no idea why I would expect a VG forum to have people informed on military strategy lol.)

See! You’re doing it again, someone asked for your opinion on 4 topics and you chose to single out one specific topic.

It always comes back to Gaza with you, is that the one and only issue you care about? Or does it just happen to be the only issue that “both sides are the same or marginally different” can be considered somewhat true?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Torillian said:

mk, so we'll just go quick and easy. 

Foreign policy: Ukraine and NATO

Domestic Policy: Education and LGBT issues

How are these either identical for foreign policy or marginally different for the domestic ones. 

Avoiding Ukraine and NATO for now, I can discuss Education and LGBTQ.

>>Kamala -> I won't discuss rhetoric, this is pretty obvious. As far as legislation is concerned, I point to a few resources:

...https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/kamala-harris-education-policy/#:~:text=Atlanta%20Journal%2DConstitution.-,She%20also%20has%20completed%20programs,offered%20by%20the%20D...&text=Vice%20President%20Kamala%20Harris%20has,investments%20in%20colleges%20and%20universities. As unreliable as "dot com" websites may be, they are not wrong in expressing how the Biden administration has *tried* to do a lot of things which (inevitably) get stalled in congress. The article specifically mentions how the "College For All Act" failed each time it was introduced. Additionally, the articles discusses how the Biden administration has forgiven a total of $168.7bil in student loans. This is certainly a step in the right direction!...but why not forgive it all? (This is my biggest complaint: When the ensuing recession takes full-force, then would be a perfect time to pump money into the economy via forgiving all remaining public student loans & making public education free for all. Only $2tril, which is like two years worth of military spending.) Regardless, they've got good optical excuse for why they haven't done more: Just look at what they've already done!

...tbf (Education is a very lengthy one to research. I'll get to this eventually...)