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.

 

[TampaJoe]

It was what you said literally "They can check your docs at a port of entry. Why would it be different at any other place on the border?"

So everyone who looks hispanic or middle eastern or anything not white, should be asked to provide their documents regardless of being 1000 miles from the border and with no other indications of them being illegals..

A few words here are critical “on the border”.

 

[brandon]

So comparing her to him doesn’t do anything to convince me to vote for her. Making a case against him doesn’t mean she is fit to be POTUS.

Fair point, but which third party candidate did you vote for, and what was your case for voting for that person, other than they weren’t Trump or Harris?

 

[TampaJoe]

You would have to give me an example. People who are anti-abortion dehumanize pro-choice people all the time. But the nature of pro-choice is to allow people to make their own choices. If they don’t believe in abortion nobody will force them to get one.

Now - my own opinion of anti-abortion politicians is that they don’t care about women’s lives. They have demonstrated this and women have died and will continue to die because of their policies and the laws they enact. Calling them out for being responsible for deaths of young healthy women isn’t the same as dehumanizing them in my book.

The rhetoric used to justify abortion is that the fetus isn’t human. That is the same rhetoric used to justify the Holocaust and slavery.

My point to you is that prochoice advocates aren’t National Socialists. The rhetoric may seem
similar but it ignores the circumstances and the times in which we live. There is more to all this than words. There is additional context to consider. So this whole attempt to equate or associate Trump with Nazis and Hitler is a false equivalence and the politics of fear.

And yes, the GOP does much the same thing. Trump does much the same thing. It’s all vitriolic, hateful rhetoric. It’s all the politics of fear. But it isn’t anywhere close to Nazism.

Think what you want.

 

[TampaJoe]

Fair point, but which third party candidate did you vote for, and what was your case for voting for that person, other than they weren’t Trump or Harris?

I didn’t vote for anyone for POTUS. I voted in the down ballot races.

 

[RobF]

The rhetoric used to justify abortion is that the fetus isn’t human. That is the same rhetoric used to justify the Holocaust and slavery.

Ummmm. No. Saying that a fetus isn't yet a human - the equivalent of saying "a fertilised egg isn't a chicken" - is not the same as saying people are "vermin" and "poisoning the blood of the nation."

Those are very different examples of rhetoric.

 

[RobF]

A few words here are critical “on the border”.

Aren't we taking about mass deportation of migrants already in the country? That isn't so much an "on the border" thing.

 

[TampaJoe]

Aren't we taking about mass deportation of migrants already in the country? That isn't so much an "on the border" thing.

That wasn’t what I was talking about. Seems to me the first step in reforming immigration is controlling the border in order to keep the problem from getting bigger by the day.

 

[MT15]

Reread what I wrote. That is not what I said.

I just saw this on Twitter and thought of you. IMO, you have a very biased view of the entire border situation due to listening to GOP spin.

 

[MT15]

The rhetoric used to justify abortion is that the fetus isn’t human.

This is a real stretch here. The embryo or fetus is a potential human life and nobody says otherwise. Nobody is “demonizing” fetuses or saying they are evil, or satanic. Nobody is saying they are “a poisoning the blood” of our nation.

The rhetoric used to justify abortion is that as long as the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving on its own, it is indeed subject to the will of the actual human being who is hosting it. That a clump of cells or even a fetus doesn’t have more rights than the actual human beings involved. Once a fetus is viable, then it should not be subject to whims, or personal decisions, but it should still be subject to medical decisions to save the life of the mother, or to mitigate suffering in the case of severe deformities that are incompatible with survival.

But MOST IMPORTANTLY, that the state has no right to take away a woman’s bodily autonomy. Women are full-fledged humans with every right inherent to that state.

This is about as flawed a comparison as I’ve seen on here in a while.

 

[MT15]

That wasn’t what I was talking about. Seems to me the first step in reforming immigration is controlling the border in order to keep the problem from getting bigger by the day.

We were discussing the Trump Admin plans, which are calling for mass deportations on day 1, calling up the military and having them construct huge camps for detaining said deportees.

 

[t_rav_82]

The problem was. you had to go looking for reasons to vote for her. Because the evidence around everyone, told you to steer clear. I truly think most don't like Trump, but they are confident in him as a leader. You may not like him or his style, but he's gonna lead. She exhibited 0 leadership qualities. Say what you want about Hillary, she's a no nonsense birch, and had leadership qualities. Opposite of Kamala. The "he's a nazi", "he's a threat democracy" all of the talking points have run their course. And that was so obvious this election.

Yeah I hate when you have to go looking for information on a politician. They should just know what’s important to me and tell me who to vote for. Nuts to this typing in a web address and reading. That’s too hard.

 

[Sendai]

Here's the text of the amendment - I trust you'll agree that it doesn't say that ^^

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

It doesn’t say that specifically. Given the intent of the framers of the 22nd amendment to limit an individual to two terms it wouldn’t be difficult for the court to develop a logical nexus that the election as VP is a conduit election to the presidency.

Doesn’t really matter though, a two term president is ineligible to be Vice President.

 

[Sendai]

He didn’t get a majority of the vote - so most didn’t vote for him.

He didn’t get an “ absolute majority”. He did get a “simple majority”.

And he did receive the “most” votes. So “most” did vote for him.

 

[superchuck500]

It doesn’t say that specifically. Given the intent of the framers of the 22nd amendment to limit an individual to two terms it wouldn’t be difficult for the court to develop a logical nexus that the election as VP is a conduit election to the presidency.

Doesn’t really matter though, a two term president is ineligible to be Vice President.

The number 1 rule of legal interpretation is that unambiguous terms are given their understood meaning. Where a law is unambiguous, there is no process to determine intent - especially when the law is a modern one passed by Congress. The 22A was passed in 1947 and ratified in 1951 - that was less than 20 years before the Beatles broke up.

The rule is that Congress says what it means to say and when it doesn't say something, that was also intentional. The 22nd Amendment unambiguously says "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." It doesn't say anything about the vice president and based on that clear language, intent is presumed. I wholly disagree that the court would fashion some 'logical nexus' to rule that Congress intended something completely different than what it passed in 1947, and the states then ratified in its express terms.

The question about whether a two-term president could be elected to be vice president is really interesting. I'll agree with you, I don't have an opinion about it except to note that there is a fairly persuasive counterpoint on the basis that Article II provides the eligibility for president that is contemplated by the 12th Amendment . . . and the 22nd Amendment, coming much later, limits how many times an eligible person can be elected, but does not otherwise alter Article II's eligibility requirements. Pretty interesting stuff. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2011&context=fac_artchop

 

[MT15]

He didn’t get an “ absolute majority”. He did get a “simple majority”.

And he did receive the “most” votes. So “most” did vote for him.

Nope. You’re just wishcasting. He got less than 50% of the vote. He doesn’t have anything near a mandate. Sorry.

 

[SamAndreas]

I don’t disagree that the law makes it a place. And we have those laws for a reason. I’m not one for ignoring the law. So we should either change the law or enforce the law. We should not just ignore the law. JMHO.

The reason we have those laws is discussed at length in the novel Moby Dick. You might think Moby Dick is a novel about whaling at sea. No, it's not a children's whales tail, it's actually is a treatise on the subject on White Supremacy and empire. The real intent is shown in the subtext. Herman Melville had to write his real story in subtext because of censorship during that period. They would have thrown him in jail had he addressed that topic during that time in the open.

One has to learn to read subtext in order to get the point of those stories. They are usually set as children's stories, to entertain children, while presenting an acute political criticism for adults.

Many authors of that period had to use subtext to say what they wanted to say without being imprisoned by the government.

Authors such as Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Jack London, in addition to Herman Melville. And many more.

Later authors have also spoken when they have to in subtext. Catch 22 is an example, it deals with religion during a time when that was a forbidden topic, it's an allegory in subtext on the biblical book, Numbers, chapter 22. GOD in that work of fiction is the old man in the whorehouse who Yorassaran speaks to about the subject of war. The voice of GOD is the old man who lives in the whorehouse for crying out loud.

See what I mean, subtext is used to deal with topics which are forbidden in our society to talk about.

 

[SamAndreas]

If you are crossing the border someplace other than a port of entry, it’s reasonable for law enforcement to stop someone and check them out. Let’s start there

Anyone crossing the border anywhere other than a port of entry regardless of race or ethnicity is subject to being stopped. It is reasonable to question someone crossing the border. They stop you at the port of entry. They can check your docs at a port of entry. Why would it be different at any other place on the border?

Joe, this is a good point in time for me to express that you are becoming an outstanding member of this board. You are adding a lot to the political discourse here. It's difficult to present the opposing side on a board which tends to be liberal. I usually post on a conservative board doing the opposite of what you are doing here, It's difficult I know from my own experience on the opposite kind of boards.

Thanks, Joe for coming here. We really needed you here.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A thousand miles from the austere buildings where Washington runs, Donald Trump’s transition team in his Mar-a-Lago resort has begun what a close ally calls a hostile takeover of the federal government.

Since his victory, Trump has ignored many of the rules and practices intended to guide a seamless transfer of power and handover of the oversight of 2.2 million federal employees. Instead, the president-elect, who has pledged to fire thousands of civil servants and slash billions of dollars in spending, has so far almost fully cut out the government agencies his predecessors have relied on to take charge of the federal government.

Trump has yet to collaborate with the General Services Administration, which is tasked with the complex work of handing over control of hundreds of agencies, because he has not turned in required pledges to follow ethics rules. His transition teams have yet to set foot inside a single federal office.

In calls with foreign heads of state, Trump has cut out the State Department, its secure lines and its official interpreters.

As his team considers hundreds of potential appointees for key jobs, he’s so far declined to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation check for potential red flags and security threats to guard against espionage — instead relying on private campaign lawyers for some appointees and doing no vetting at all for others. Trump’s transition team is considering moving on his first day in office to give those appointees blanket security clearances, according to people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations.

At the root of this unprecedented approach, say those close to Trump’s transition, is an abiding distrust and resentment of federal agencies that the president-elect blames for blocking his agenda in his first term, leaking his plans to the press, and later sharing his documents with investigators and bringing criminal charges against him.

For Trump, who campaigned on radically reshaping the federal government by moving entire departments out of Washington, closing others and replacing scores of civil servants with political loyalists, fulfillment of that vision begins with a privately run transition from Palm Beach and nearby offices.

“The American people rendered their verdict by putting him back in the White House,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a nonprofit group that has defended Trump against the criminal charges brought against him. “He should not trust the politicized and weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies that hobbled his presidency the first time. It’s a hostile takeover on behalf of the American people.”..............

MSN

Trump ignores transition rules. It’s a ‘hostile takeover,’ ally says​