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.

 

[RobF]

I’m assuming then that you don’t support men playing women sports or taking women’s scholarships etc? Or are we allowed to pick and choose the rights that make them second class?

Again, here, is another example of people losing touch with reality when bombarded with misinformation.

How many examples can you give of women actually losing women's scholarships to men?

Because how ever many examples you can give - and I suspect it's 'none', but even if it isn't - I can guarantee I can give you more examples of women actually dying due to being denied healthcare because of abortion bans.

And you're focused on the either entirely hypothetical or incredibly rare scenario of a transgender woman - I assume that's what you mean by 'men' - taking a scholarship. Even allowing for the premise that transgender women should not be allowed to win scholarships, that's what you're focused on. Not women actually being denied healthcare and dying. No. Hypothetically. Losing. A. Scholarship.

You are not in touch with reality.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That was the first one, but now it's booming. In the worst economy since the great depression, if you hear Republicans talk about it. Weird.

Someone (Bill Maher?) made the comment that if Trump had won in 2020 and if everything about the economy was exactly as it is right now he and the GOP be crowing about how great and awesome it is, how incredible the post pandemic recovery is, how much better we're doing that the rest of world etc.

 

[Lapaz]

I’m assuming then that you don’t support men playing women sports or taking women’s scholarships etc? Or are we allowed to pick and choose the rights that make them second class?

First I'll say that I don't support transgender men playing in women's sports, but having said that, do you support imposing laws against private organizations? Would you support outlawing coed sports? I don't, and I don't support imposing such laws on private organizations. You and I are free to speak out against it, but that isn't a Democratic ticket issue.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Again, here, is another example of people losing touch with reality when bombarded with misinformation.

How many examples can you give of women actually losing women's scholarships to men?

Because how ever many examples you can give - and I suspect it's 'none', but even if it isn't - I can guarantee I can give you more examples of women actually dying due to being denied healthcare because of abortion bans.

And you're focused on the either entirely hypothetical or incredibly rare scenario of a transgender woman - I assume that's what you mean by 'men' - taking a scholarship. Even allowing for the premise that transgender women should not be allowed to win scholarships, that's what you're focused on. Not women actually being denied healthcare and dying. No. Hypothetically. Losing. A. Scholarship.

You are not in touch with reality.

I wish someone has said exactly this in an ad or debate or interview

 

[coldseat]

Again, here, is another example of people losing touch with reality when bombarded with misinformation.

How many examples can you give of women actually losing women's scholarships to men?

Because how ever many examples you can give - and I suspect it's 'none', but even if it isn't - I can guarantee I can give you more examples of women actually dying due to being denied healthcare because of abortion bans.

And you're focused on the either entirely hypothetical or incredibly rare scenario of a transgender woman - I assume that's what you mean by 'men' - taking a scholarship. Even allowing for the premise that transgender women should not be allowed to win scholarships, that's what you're focused on. Not women actually being denied healthcare and dying. No. Hypothetically. Losing. A. Scholarship.

You are not in touch with reality.

No matter what the polls will tell you, that "Trans issue" was the most motivating issue for the right in this country. That's all Cruz ran commercials about here in Texas and it worked. Many people in this country hate and are repulsed by transgendered people and scapegoat that community for every grievance they have.

 

[zztop]

I think I'll use this post to say I'll be stepping back from here. It's doing me no favors for my mental health. I'm not a woman or minority but fear what unfettered power will do to the people of this country. Even if some of it does not affect me directly, it will indirectly, all of us really. I just need to step away and try to distract myself from all this for a while

 

[efil4]

Yep, people don't understand economics.

here is a fantastic example:

The economic explanation :

Scarcity is what underpins all of economics, which is one interpretation of why economics is sometimes referred to as the dismal science. Humans are constantly making choices that are determined by their costs and benefits. On a personal level, scarcity means that we have to make choices based on the incentives we are given according to different courses of action. On a market level, the impact of millions of people making choices creates the forces of supply and demand.


Now i can say that a person votes on a "personal level because scarcity means you have to make choices based on the incentives you have according to different courses of action"

OR

i can say "they vote with their wallet"

They both MEAN the same in the end.

Shorter version is succinct and pointed. However, we just "Yada Yada Yada-ed" thru the entire explanation. Not taking the time to explain scarcity, incentives and the resulting outcomes on different courses of action ( save, spend, earn more, earn less etc )

we are undermining ourselves to limit info to 173 characters. UGH

 

[MT15]

Again, here, is another example of people losing touch with reality when bombarded with misinformation.

How many examples can you give of women actually losing women's scholarships to men?

Because how ever many examples you can give - and I suspect it's 'none', but even if it isn't - I can guarantee I can give you more examples of women actually dying due to being denied healthcare because of abortion bans.

And you're focused on the either entirely hypothetical or incredibly rare scenario of a transgender woman - I assume that's what you mean by 'men' - taking a scholarship. Even allowing for the premise that transgender women should not be allowed to win scholarships, that's what you're focused on. Not women actually being denied healthcare and dying. No. Hypothetically. Losing. A. Scholarship.

You are not in touch with reality.

It’s a choice to ignore the actual deadly harm and focus on the theoretical.

 

[SFIDC3]

State politics are not national politics. That much I'll say.

But being a female candidate absolutely matters to more than a few people I personally know. You'll have to ask them why it matters.

Yup, maybe Steve can enlighten on how in my state of NC we elected mostly Dems to the local elections but Trump won the state.....how does that make any sense at all? Unless.....

 

[coldseat]

Someone (Bill Maher?) made the comment that if Trump had won in 2020 and if everything about the economy was exactly as it is right now he and the GOP be crowing about how great and awesome it is, how incredible the post pandemic recovery is, how much better we're doing that the rest of world etc.

And the "Republicans are better at the economy" crowd would be pushing that narrative full stop and people would believe it.

 

[B4YOU]

Trump won by energizing his base.

As an experiment I would love to see a Democrat run a similar policy.

Unapologeticly M4A, huge taxes on rich, free childcare, and college.

None of this dancing with Liz Cheney.

This might be better said, “Trump won because Dems failed to energize their base.”

Trump won 74M in 2020 and will be about there in 2024. Biden won 81M votes in 2020 and Harris may not break 71M. Dems lost 10M votes while Trump held his numbers.

Need a better salesman. Biden was too old and Harris wasn’t it. Trump campaigned for 4yrs while Biden was in the background.

 

[SFIDC3]

2 things can be true at the same time... not a terribly hard concept... For example - Saying 2 +2 = 4 is a true statement.... But also 2 x 2 = 4 is also a true statement.... Different... but both true. You're welcome.

No one was arguing or even remotely suggesting that Trump is / was not a severely flawed candidate - That's not in dispute at all... The comment was about people portraying Harris as the Mother Teressa of candidates... which if you have any sort of ability to not lie to yourself... Is also laughable.

It's the same logic that caused the media to completely flip out when Biden made the slightest gaffe but that same media ignored way, way worse when Trump did so......

You aren't convincing anyone that Michelle Obama would have done any better.....in my state (NC) most of the important local election were won by Dems, but Trump won the state rather easily, explain that one?

Your lame attempt at gaslighting is noted.....

 

[DaveXA]

That part right there. All we heard when it was Trump v. Biden from all of the electorate was, "We wish it was anybody else! These two are too old. " Democrats go and change their candidate to a younger, intelligent, competent, woman that has plans to help then, and then voters are like, "Oh, sike. We'll vote for the 80-year old senile candidate." Lol.

Well, when you have a large majority of Trump voters worshipping the guy, no amount of arguing or rationalization is gonna change their minds.

Ultimately though, the independents and on the fence voters broke for Trump.

 

[SFIDC3]

I’m assuming then that you don’t support men playing women sports or taking women’s scholarships etc? Or are we allowed to pick and choose the rights that make them second class?

Are you really that brain dead?

 

[DaveXA]

I wish someone has said exactly this in an ad or debate or interview

I mean, yeah, but I doubt it makes any difference.

 

[B4YOU]

No matter what the polls will tell you, that "Trans issue" was the most motivating issue for the right in this country. That's all Cruz ran commercials about here in Texas and it worked. Many people in this country hate and are repulsed by transgendered people and scapegoat that community for every grievance they have.

“Harris is for they/them. Trump is for us.”

It’s a simple but effective message. It plays to scared suburban parents worried about their kids. It also reminds everyone of their DEI HR class were someone tells you what you can say and how you can say it.

I think the 4 issues were:
1) Biden Ginsberg’ed the Presidency and Harris was a terrible pick.
2) Economy
3) Men’s issues
4) LGBT issues

 

[MT15]

This is what is being discussed on Trump’s discount Twitter. Nobody in the GOP is going to say shirt about it either. The pure blood lust of MAGA should have been enough for decent people to not vote for Trump.

 

[DaveXA]

Yup, maybe Steve can enlighten on how in my state of NC we elected mostly Dems to the local elections but Trump won the state.....how does that make any sense at all? Unless.....

You got it. And NC wasn't the only split ticket state. In multiple states the local/state Democrat candidates outperformed Harris' numbers, some by a significant margin.