General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (6 Viewers)

[SamAndreas]

Today it begins, Kamala has reached the point that she's the Democratic Party nominee:

There's video from today. this link has video from her first public appearance since Biden endorsed her:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/22/live-updates-harris-democrats-biden-drops-out-trump-campaign.html

She spent yesterday on the telephone for most of the day. I read that yesterday that she called the party leaders in all 50 states. That would take me three days.

She's renamed her YouTube channel, that's the where to go for video: https://www.youtube.com/@kamalaharris

This is her video on her channel from two hours ago:



To play it, start it, and then move it up to 5:47. This was one of those live videos which don't start at zero.

I've named this thread General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump

Trump needs an introduction post as well, a MAGA suporter ought to write it: @Farb, @SaintForLife , @Others, calling for someone to please introduce your GOP candidate for this 2024 general election thread.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Swifties on Twitter say her plane landed in Chicago this afternoon. But they may be just trying to wish it into existence.

I think the gap is a musical number by Beyoncé myself. Seems more likely, and some are saying that Swift was really spooked by the attempted attack in Europe.

Swift being spooked and making an appearance could explain why reporters were told by security that no one who leaves gets back in.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Dude is so flustered by Kamala he had to call into Fox after midnight to complain...

'Beep! Boop!' Trump's Fox News call-in fumble spurs social media uproar

Donald Trump's rebuttal to Vice President Kamala Harris packed quite the punch — on his telephone buttons. Trump's phone-in interview to Fox News Thursday night after Harris accepted the Democratic Party's presidential nomination was interrupted at least six times by the former president...

www.rawstory.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

Dude is so flustered by Kamala he had to call into Fox after midnight to complain...

'Beep! Boop!' Trump's Fox News call-in fumble spurs social media uproar

Donald Trump's rebuttal to Vice President Kamala Harris packed quite the punch — on his telephone buttons. Trump's phone-in interview to Fox News Thursday night after Harris accepted the Democratic Party's presidential nomination was interrupted at least six times by the former president...

www.rawstory.com

For those who want to hear it for themselves.

 

[efil4]

For those who want to hear it for themselves.

Ohhhh he wasnt done....after Fox he called into NEWSMAX. Apparently he wants to take the hosts to Caracas, Venezuela.

This is at 2am ( 1:48 am to be exact )

 

[Taurus]

Ohhhh he wasnt done....after Fox he called into NEWSMAX. Apparently he wants to take the hosts to Caracas, Venezuela.

This is at 2am ( 1:48 am to be exact )

Sentencing can't come soon enough.

 

[efil4]

This is only the beginning of this wave.

 

[UriUT]

This is such a good summary of the wealth distribution that I have to post. It puts into perspective how massive the inequality is. And we still advocate more tax breaks for the mega rich? There won't be investment if there aren't returns. Otherwise, they'll just move it abroad to where there will be or at the very least park their wealth somewhere safe. It is no surprise that those community with the well educated have the more concentrated investment. Sf, Irvine, austin, Boston.

As an example of conservative rule: the UK.

The Conservatives Have Run Britain for 14 Years. How Has That Worked Out?

The metrics that British voters say matter the most offer a portrait of decline.

www.nytimes.com

The new Conservative government, intent on reducing the deficit, cut deep and broad, slashing spending not just on party bugbears like welfare but also on public budgets for investment.

The Conservatives also positioned themselves as a party of low taxation, pledging to reduce taxes in every election manifesto since 2010. The opposite happened.

Fourteen years later, despite record debt and the highest tax burden in 70 years, many of Britain’s public services are greatly diminished.

The Conservative party long promised to reduce immigration, and the pledge to “take back control” of Britain’s borders was one of the top reasons many Britons voted to leave the European Union.

But legal immigration has soared in recent years. Net migration — the number of people who moved to Britain minus those who left — reached 764,000 in 2022, almost three times as high as when votes were cast for Brexit.

There are more in that article.

4.3%: Why has UK economy grown so slowly under the Tories?

Economic growth under Conservative government is lowest since 1826, experts say.

www.aljazeera.com

Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita grew just 4.3 percent from 2007 to 2023, compared with 46 percent growth over the previous 16 years, according to research released earlier this month by the Resolution Foundation think tank.

So why the low growth?? Low productivity due to low investment.

Above all, the UK’s economic troubles can be traced to its dismal record on productivity growth

The UK’s productivity gap has been widely attributed to years of chronically low investment relative to other developed nations.

The UK’s investment spending from 2017 to 2021 amounted to the equivalent of 18 percent of GDP compared with 25 percent of GDP in Japan, 23 percent in France and 21 percent in the US, according to a PwC analysis of World Bank figures.

I apologize. I meant only to highlight that video that I saw and got carried away. tl;dr of it, smart investment into the country via higher taxation on the mega rich.

 

[efil4]

This is such a good summary of the wealth distribution that I have to post. It puts into perspective how massive the inequality is. And we still advocate more tax breaks for the mega rich? There won't be investment if there aren't returns. Otherwise, they'll just move it abroad to where there will be or at the very least park their wealth somewhere safe. It is no surprise that those community with the well educated have the more concentrated investment. Sf, Irvine, austin, Boston.

As an example of conservative rule: the UK.

The Conservatives Have Run Britain for 14 Years. How Has That Worked Out?

The metrics that British voters say matter the most offer a portrait of decline.

www.nytimes.com

There are more in that article.

4.3%: Why has UK economy grown so slowly under the Tories?

Economic growth under Conservative government is lowest since 1826, experts say.

www.aljazeera.com

So why the low growth?? Low productivity due to low investment.




I apologize. I meant only to highlight that video that I saw and got carried away. tl;dr of it, smart investment into the country via higher taxation on the mega rich.

Trickle down economics worked, INITIALLY, until the CEOs/Entreprenuers realized they can increase their own personal wealth AND reinvest to increase shareholder wealth ( which acts to increase ownership/executive wealth )
So while it made sense, in the very beginning, it quickly devolved into a corporate wealth building scheme, disguised under the cloak of "we doing this for the shareholders- increasing their wealth". Yeah thanks for the $.25 quarterly dividend as you bank another $400,000,000.

Let me just add:

What you posted, the average citizen sees that and thinks that is as hard to understand as Chinese arithmetic. It might as well be because they arent looking to spend the time to understand just how economics work. Truthfully, its kinda boring and VERY interwoven with so many different facets and can directly and indirectly affect each other. And that leads to confusion. Folks want the path of least resistance ( and partly due to our new "social media news in 170 characters ).

Unfortunately, when it comes to real economics, its very hard to put into "laymans terms" if folks dont even grasp the basic concepts.

 

[fooferdoggie]

For those who want to hear it for themselves.

you know he is acting like she is the president. I mean she has no power but he is blaming her for not wielding presidential power. Of course, the orange Cheeto did none of what he claims.

 

[UriUT]

Trickle down economics worked, INITIALLY, until the CEOs/Entreprenuers realized they can increase their own personal wealth AND reinvest to increase shareholder wealth ( which acts to increase ownership/executive wealth )
So while it made sense, in the very beginning, it quickly devolved into a corporate wealth building scheme, disguised under the cloak of "we doing this for the shareholders- increasing their wealth". Yeah thanks for the $.25 quarterly dividend as you bank another $400,000,000.

Let me just add:

What you posted, the average citizen sees that and thinks that is as hard to understand as Chinese arithmetic. It might as well be because they arent looking to spend the time to understand just how economics work. Truthfully, its kinda boring and VERY interwoven with so many different facets and can directly and indirectly affect each other. And that leads to confusion. Folks want the path of least resistance ( and partly due to our new "social media news in 170 characters ).

Unfortunately, when it comes to real economics, its very hard to put into "laymans terms" if folks dont even grasp the basic concepts.

Trickle down economics only works when there are investments to be made....When their investment can realize profits. For example, post wwii, taxes were high for the top 10%. Jfk lowered taxes and the economy grew. What Reagan did was indiscriminately lowered taxes...and they were massive... caused a huge deficit. That huge deficit would imminently cause a recession so he quietly repealed them. I'll have to go back and refresh my memory on this part...he again tried it in 1986 or 1987...and it was not the gains he anticipated. What Reagan did wasn't a massive gain for the economy. It was impactful because he popularized lowering taxes. That a candidate can win by yelling lower taxes. Finally we have trump's massive tax for the wealthy. The economy was saturated. New investments weren't gonna yield net profits. That's why we saw buy backs and increased ceo pay.

Put it this way..in a smaller scale. Say a doctor opens a clinic. He initially hires...say 5 employees. Makes good money and he's burdened by more patients. He needed to hire and the government gives him a tax break to do so. And it pays off bc he had room to accomodate more patients. But up to a point, he cannot handle more. Physically impossible to see more patients. And further taxes breaks won't inspire him to hire more. He's saturated. It's the same with corporations. They aren't stupid. Why hire more when one additional worker nets a loss in profit?

Edit...yeah I agree economics and taxes are boring. We need to get politics back to that. As to understanding it, there should be a quick intro course in high school. We need a more educated populace.

 

[efil4]

.

Put it this way..in a smaller scale. Say a doctor opens a clinic. He initially hires...say 5 employees. Makes good money and he's burdened by more patients. He needed to hire and the government gives him a tax break to do so. And it pays off bc he had room to accomodate more patients. But up to a point, he cannot handle more. Physically impossible to see more patients. And further taxes breaks won't inspire him to hire more. He's saturated. It's the same with corporations. They aren't stupid. Why hire more when one additional worker nets a loss in profit?

and thats called law of diminishing returns in economics.

The thought process is open another clinic. But with that brings a whole new set of issues. Not in the least, now that DOCTOR is no longer a full time patient seeing doctor; he is part time with the other half of his time being an administrator ( which he doesnt want to do ). So he either brings in folks to handle that aspect ( more payroll, more overhead on 2nd clinic etc etc ) and quickly realizes that the 2nd clinic is literally just paying its bills, no real profit.

I have, throughout my 30 year career as a commercial insurance agent, seen this play out time and time again. I have clients that BLEW UP overnight ( relative term- usually over a span of a year or 2- but in business, it can feel like overnight ). Went from 2 employees to 20 and found themselves completely underwater. For every 5 of those clients, 1 stayed because they figured out how to navigate and profits werent their driving force and the other 4 returned to a more manageable 3-5 man operation.

 

[efil4]

BTW Powell - head of Fed- just announced that "time has come to start to cut interest rates"

and the market is responding in kind.



Trump is going to be apoplectic today. ( this doesnt help him in his bid in any way )

 

[UriUT]

and thats called law of diminishing returns in economics.

The thought process is open another clinic. But with that brings a whole new set of issues. Not in the least, now that DOCTOR is no longer a full time patient seeing doctor; he is part time with the other half of his time being an administrator ( which he doesnt want to do ). So he either brings in folks to handle that aspect ( more payroll, more overhead on 2nd clinic etc etc ) and quickly realizes that the 2nd clinic is literally just paying its bills, no real profit.

I have, throughout my 30 year career as a commercial insurance agent, seen this play out time and time again. I have clients that BLEW UP overnight ( relative term- usually over a span of a year or 2- but in business, it can feel like overnight ). Went from 2 employees to 20 and found themselves completely underwater. For every 5 of those clients, 1 stayed because they figured out how to navigate and profits werent their driving force and the other 4 returned to a more manageable 3-5 man operation.

Right. I was trying to keep the example simple and limited. He can always open new clinics or hire another md/np whatever. But there is a point of saturation...for example the population. That goes with any firm was my point...up to a point lowering taxes will be counter productive. And there is a point when taxing too greatly would be a burden.

 

[efil4]

Right. I was trying to keep the example simple and limited. He can always open new clinics or hire another md/np whatever. But there is a point of saturation...for example the population. That goes with any firm was my point...up to a point lowering taxes will be counter productive. And there is a point when taxing too greatly would be a burden.

and thats where the "tightrope" comes in- the balancing act of an economy with ever-moving parts that requires intricate solutions to keep toeing the line without falling too far either side of that line.

Its a mind-numbingly complicated system that any one of those moving parts slows or comes to a halt, depending on where it lies in the system, can cause massive cascading effects across the entire economic spectrum.

so complicated, that a lot of our "economic success" is literally based on feeling/sentiment. Thats it - lol.

 

[MT15]

I will say that Harris has impressed me as someone willing to work with people - not an ideological purist who won’t compromise. That may be Biden’s influence, idk. But she comes across as pragmatic, unwilling to burn everything down over a principle, which is exactly what we need in these times where we are so divided. Someone has to be the adult - it certainly isn’t the GOP right now. But, being the adult means hard choices and being willing to change your stance to make the larger goal attainable.

 

[SFIDC3]

BTW Powell - head of Fed- just announced that "time has come to start to cut interest rates"

and the market is responding in kind.



Trump is going to be apoplectic today. ( this doesnt help him in his bid in any way )

Powell, despite his right leanings, has been a very steady, disciplined Chair IMO.....I don't think he is partisan at all, he has been a good one IMO

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Ohhhh he wasnt done....after Fox he called into NEWSMAX. Apparently he wants to take the hosts to Caracas, Venezuela.

This is at 2am ( 1:48 am to be exact )

his version of If Harris wins, I'm leaving the country.. lol
of course he'll have to to avoid jail time..

 

[Optimus Prime]

interesting article
=============

A close election may come down to persuadable Americans, those who don’t currently intend to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump but don’t flatly rule it out. But bringing them aboard is no simple task, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.

Persuadables are few and far between, especially among registered and likely voters; less favorably inclined toward Harris and Trump alike; and notably disengaged from the election.

Indeed the question is not simply for whom they vote – but whether they vote at all.

Twelve percent of people in the poll are open to changing their minds. This includes 7% who don’t currently support Harris but say they’d consider voting for her, and an identical 7% who don’t currently support Trump but would consider voting for him, with a slight overlap of 1% who would consider both.

But those numbers shrink among registered and likely voters. Just 4% of registered voters and 2% of likely voters don’t support Harris now but say they’d consider her. It’s a similar 5% of registered voters and 3% of likely voters for Trump. This analysis, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, indicates slim pickings among persuadables, even though in a close race, every vote counts.

In results among all adults (for adequate sample sizes), persuadables are relatively disengaged. Only about four in 10 are closely following the election, compared with two-thirds of adults overall. Only about a quarter say they’re certain to vote in November, compared with 63% of Americans overall.

Indeed, roughly half of persuadables say they won’t vote given a choice between Harris and Trump, compared with 14% of all adults. And fewer report being registered to vote or say they voted in 2020, additional strong indicators of voting this fall.

Persuadables are less likely than other people to align with either major party and more apt to be independent or pick another party. They’re also more apt to be political moderates – 64% of those who are open to voting for Harris and 62% of those who are open to supporting Trump, vs. 42% of Americans overall.............

Voters open to changing their mind are few and far between, but potentially important: ANALYSIS

A close election may come down to persuadable Americans, those who don’t currently intend to vote for Harris or Trump but don’t flatly rule it out.

abcnews.go.com