General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (13 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.

 

[Optimus Prime]

will they end up going after Vindman?



Vindman’s Response



Full Text:

Elon, here you go again making false and completely unfounded accusations without providing any specifics. That’s the kind of response one would expect from a conspiracy theorist. What oligarch? What treason?

Let me help you out with the facts: I don’t take/have never taken money from any money from oligarchs Ukrainian or other otherwise.

I do run a nonprofit foundation. The HereRightMattersFoundatiom.org to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s unprovoked attack on Feb 24, 2022.

I served in the military for nearly 22 years and my loyalty is to supporting the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

That’s why I reported presidential corruption when I witnessed an effort to steal an election. That report was in classified channels and when called by Congress to testify about presidential corruption I did so, as required by law.

You, Elon, appear to believe you can act with impunity and are attempting to silence your critics. I’m not intimidated.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

will they end up going after Vindman?



Vindman’s Response



Full Text:

Elon, here you go again making false and completely unfounded accusations without providing any specifics. That’s the kind of response one would expect from a conspiracy theorist. What oligarch? What treason?

Let me help you out with the facts: I don’t take/have never taken money from any money from oligarchs Ukrainian or other otherwise.

I do run a nonprofit foundation. The HereRightMattersFoundatiom.org to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s unprovoked attack on Feb 24, 2022.

I served in the military for nearly 22 years and my loyalty is to supporting the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

That’s why I reported presidential corruption when I witnessed an effort to steal an election. That report was in classified channels and when called by Congress to testify about presidential corruption I did so, as required by law.

You, Elon, appear to believe you can act with impunity and are attempting to silence your critics. I’m not intimidated.

I would wager that Elonia's actions abroad has crossed the line of treachery more so than any allegation he has thrown at Vindman.

 

[Huntn]

will they end up going after Vindman?



Vindman’s Response



Full Text:

Elon, here you go again making false and completely unfounded accusations without providing any specifics. That’s the kind of response one would expect from a conspiracy theorist. What oligarch? What treason?

Let me help you out with the facts: I don’t take/have never taken money from any money from oligarchs Ukrainian or other otherwise.

I do run a nonprofit foundation. The HereRightMattersFoundatiom.org to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s unprovoked attack on Feb 24, 2022.

I served in the military for nearly 22 years and my loyalty is to supporting the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

That’s why I reported presidential corruption when I witnessed an effort to steal an election. That report was in classified channels and when called by Congress to testify about presidential corruption I did so, as required by law.

You, Elon, appear to believe you can act with impunity and are attempting to silence your critics. I’m not intimidated.

End justifies the means, lie his arse off billionaire, to win the game, nothing more dangerous. He’s so happy to be in bed with Trump on the grandest of Fool’d Ya schemes to take down the US as a Democratic Republic for the Oligarchs. The morons who support MAGA Fascism will deserve everything they get. The rest of us won’t.

 

[MT15]

Did Vindman win his election? If he is a sitting US Representative that may slow their roll a bit in going after him. Maybe.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Did Vindman win his election? If he is a sitting US Representative that may slow their roll a bit in going after him. Maybe.

His brother ran and won a seat.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Thought this was a very interesting article
=======================

In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail.

Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond.

That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.

The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years.

We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown.

Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.

So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.

To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal.

This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries.

For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality.

For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low…….

Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation.

A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.

By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.

Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase.

As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia.

In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system.

As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines.

The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within…….

The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

Our research shows that political breakdown, from the Roman Empire to the Russian revolution, follows a clear pattern: workers’ wages stagnate, while elites multiply

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lapaz]

Thought this was a very interesting article
=======================

In the days since the sweeping Republican victory in the US election, which gave the party control of the presidency, the Senate and the House, commentators have analysed and dissected the relative merits of the main protagonists – Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in minute detail.

Much has been said about their personalities and the words they have spoken; little about the impersonal social forces that push complex human societies to the brink of collapse – and sometimes beyond.

That’s a mistake: in order to understand the roots of our current crisis, and possible ways out of it, it’s precisely these tectonic forces we need to focus on.

The research team I lead studies cycles of political integration and disintegration over the past 5,000 years.

We have found that societies, organised as states, can experience significant periods of peace and stability lasting, roughly, a century or so. Inevitably, though, they then enter periods of social unrest and political breakdown.

Think of the end of the Roman empire, the English civil war or the Russian Revolution. To date, we have amassed data on hundreds of historical states as they slid into crisis, and then emerged from it.

So we’re in a good position to identify just those impersonal social forces that foment unrest and fragmentation, and we’ve found three common factors: popular immiseration, elite overproduction and state breakdown.

To get a better understanding of these concepts and how they are influencing American politics in 2024, we need to travel back in time to the 1930s, when an unwritten social contract came into being in the form of Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal.

This contract balanced the interests of workers, businesses and the state in a way similar to the more formal agreements we see in Nordic countries.

For two generations, this implicit pact delivered an unprecedented growth in wellbeing across a broad swath of the country. At the same time, a “Great Compression” of incomes and wealth dramatically reduced economic inequality.

For roughly 50 years the interests of workers and the interests of owners were kept in balance, and overall income inequality remained remarkably low…….

Welcome as the extra wealth might seem for its recipients, it ends up causing problems for them as a class. The uber-wealthy (those with fortunes greater than $10m) increased tenfold between 1980 and 2020, adjusted for inflation.

A certain proportion of these people have political ambitions: some run for political office themselves (like Trump), others fund political candidates (like Peter Thiel). The more members of this elite class there are, the more aspirants for political power a society contains.

By the 2010s the social pyramid in the US had grown exceptionally top-heavy: there were too many wannabe leaders and moguls competing for a fixed number of positions in the upper echelons of politics and business. In our model, this state of affairs has a name: elite overproduction.

Elite overproduction can be likened to a game of musical chairs – except the number of chairs stays constant, while the number of players is allowed to increase.

As the game progresses, it creates more and more angry losers. Some of those turn into “counter-elites”: those willing to challenge the established order; rebels and revolutionaries such as Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads in the English civil war, or Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia.

In the contemporary US we might think of media disruptors such as Tucker Carlson, or maverick entrepreneurs seeking political influence such as Elon Musk alongside countless less-prominent examples at lower levels in the system.

As battles between the ruling elites and counter-elites heat up, the norms governing public discourse unravel and trust in institutions declines.

The result is a loss of civic cohesiveness and sense of national cooperation – without which states quickly rot from within…….

The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win

Our research shows that political breakdown, from the Roman Empire to the Russian revolution, follows a clear pattern: workers’ wages stagnate, while elites multiply

www.theguardian.com

The article says that we got out of a similar situation in the early 1900s with the New Deal, and it could take something similar to reverse the “popular immiseration” and “elite over-production”. I think Democrats have been proposing programs to reverse those trends, so I don’t think that’s the main problem, but it does appeal to a portion the Republican coalition that Democrats used appeal to. The Republican party is comprised of cultural conservatives, anti-establishment elites, racists, mysogynists, wacko conspiracists, and people that want to upset trends of growing cost of living. Democrats should only try to win back the latter. If Trump goes through with his tariff and deportation plans, I think the effects of his actions win them back. It doesn’t have to be a grand new deal, but Democrats should continue to advocate for plans that will reverse “elite overproduction”.

 

[J-DONK]

The article says that we got out of a similar situation in the early 1900s with the New Deal, and it could take something similar to reverse the “popular immiseration” and “elite over-production”. I think Democrats have been proposing programs to reverse those trends, so I don’t think that’s the main problem, but it does appeal to a portion the Republican coalition that Democrats used appeal to. The Republican party is comprised of cultural conservatives, anti-establishment elites, racists, mysogynists, wacko conspiracists, and people that want to upset trends of growing cost of living. Democrats should only try to win back the latter. If Trump goes through with his tariff and deportation plans, I think the effects of his actions win them back. It doesn’t have to be a grand new deal, but Democrats should continue to advocate for plans that will reverse “elite overproduction”.

The reason why people are doomers though is the Democratic party is NOT FDR types.

FDR is the opposite of the neoliberalism of the current DNP.

The greatest fear in the DNP is not losing to Trump. It's that an FDR type will come and destroy the neoliberal base of the party.

It's also the correct division to view the DNP through. It's why the AOC/Bernie wing is attacked, and looked at as outsiders.

It's why names like Rahm Emanuel are being floated for DNC chair.

I agree it will take a FDR figure, but that person will have to take over the DNP. The same way Trump took over the RNP.

 

[SamAndreas]

The reason why people are doomers though is the Democratic party is NOT FDR types.

FDR is the opposite of the neoliberalism of the current DNP.

The greatest fear in the DNP is not losing to Trump. It's that an FDR type will come and destroy the neoliberal base of the party.

It's also the correct division to view the DNP through. It's why the AOC/Bernie wing is attacked, and looked at as outsiders.

It's why names like Rahm Emanuel are being floated for DNC chair.

I agree it will take a FDR figure, but that person will have to take over the DNP. The same way Trump took over the RNP.

What on Earth are you talking about, neoliberalism relates to Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher for crying out loud.

Democrats are liberal, more classically liberal than that middle right set of policies they call neoliberalism.

In a way I feel set upon, put down, my views devalued,,, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Democrat is what I am. Liberal, not neoliberal. Republicans are neoliberal, Democrats are liberal.

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[J-DONK]

What on Earth are you talking about, neoliberalism relates to Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher for crying out loud.

Democrats are liberal, more classically liberal than that middle right set of policies they call neoliberalism.

In a way I feel set upon, put down, my views devalued,,, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Democrat is what I am. Liberal, not neoliberal. Republicans are neoliberal, Democrats are liberal.

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are both neoliberals with Clinton being a literal textbook defintion.

Private healthcare expansion, TPP/NAFTA, big on free markets with massive M&A, much smaller budget deficits.

Those are all neoliberal policies. There are college text books, and classes taught on Clinton's specific brand.

I'm not going to argue the point. You can find plenty of material on it.

Also read your own link dude:

Unrelated to the economic philosophy described in this article, the term "neoliberalism" is also used to describe a centrist political movement from modern American liberalism in the 1970s. According to political commentator David Brooks, prominent neoliberal politicians included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States.[48] The neoliberals coalesced around two magazines, The New Republic and the Washington Monthly,[49] and often supported Third Way policies. The "godfather" of this version of neoliberalism was the journalist Charles Peters,[50] who, in 1983, published "A Neoliberal's Manifesto".[51]

 

[SamAndreas]

Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama are both neoliberals with Clinton being a literal textbook defintion.

Private healthcare expansion, TPP/NAFTA, big on free markets with massive M&A, much smaller budget deficits.

Those are all neoliberal policies. There are college text books, and classes taught on Clinton's specific brand.

I'm not going to argue the point. You can find plenty of material on it.

Also read your own link dude:

Out of that whole wikipedia article you quoted part by David Brooks?

 

[J-DONK]

Out of that whole wikipedia article you quoted part by David Brooks?

What does that have to do with Bill Clinton being a neoliberal?

I won't argue this. You can go to google, and search "Bill Clinton neoliberal", and get thousands of hits with a wide range of sources.

Sam, can you name the president that deregulated banking, and allowed the 2008 crash to happen?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Gabrielle Ludwig of Reno, Nevada was not blindsided when images of herself playing basketball 12 years earlier at community college suddenly appeared on her TV screen during the ad break in a Philadelphia Eagles.

That's because friends and co-workers across the country had already tipped off the 62-year-old that she was one of several transgender Americans unwillingly conscripted into a massive Republican advertising blitz, depicting Democrats as woke extremists for supporting trans rights.

"I was hoping it would just go away," Ludwig told The Washington Post in an interview. "But it snowballed. It got bigger and bigger every hour."

According to data from the ad tracking firm AdImpact, Republicans spent a total at least $215 million on anti-trans TV ads at various levels of politics, with the most prominent coming from the Trump campaign itself.

"Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you," Trump's ads declared, highlighting a 2019 interview where Harris backed taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery for trans people in federal prisons.

These ads were central to Trump's electoral strategy. During one fortnight in October, journalist Erin Reed calculated that his campaign spent more on messages about trans rights than housing, immigration, and the economy combined.

Consequently, Trump's victory has set off a fiery debate among Democrats over whether they should take a more conservative stance on trans rights.

But did the ads actually work? That is, in an election where high consumer prices and an unpopular incumbent provided major tailwinds to any opposition candidate, were voters actually moved by this specific issue?……

Trump’s anti-trans ad blitz probably worked – but not for the reason you might think

Republicans spent at least $215 million on attack ads about transgender rights. The question is, did it actually move voters?

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Lapaz]

The reason why people are doomers though is the Democratic party is NOT FDR types.

FDR is the opposite of the neoliberalism of the current DNP.

The greatest fear in the DNP is not losing to Trump. It's that an FDR type will come and destroy the neoliberal base of the party.

It's also the correct division to view the DNP through. It's why the AOC/Bernie wing is attacked, and looked at as outsiders.

It's why names like Rahm Emanuel are being floated for DNC chair.

I agree it will take a FDR figure, but that person will have to take over the DNP. The same way Trump took over the RNP.

I think the Republican Party is more nei-liberal than Democrats. I think AOC and Bernie represent a substantial portion of the Democratic party and they get criticized just like everyone else, but people that advocate for bigger changes always face the most criticism. FDR level changes are needed when there are huge problems. I don’t think we’re there yet, but what policies do you think Democrats should advocate for? They advocate to raise taxes on higher incomes, expanding Obamacare, adding a public option, to name a couple. What else would attract people that have joined the Republican coalition in larger numbers than would be lost?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

The reason why people are doomers though is the Democratic party is NOT FDR types.

FDR is the opposite of the neoliberalism of the current DNP.

The greatest fear in the DNP is not losing to Trump. It's that an FDR type will come and destroy the neoliberal base of the party.

It's also the correct division to view the DNP through. It's why the AOC/Bernie wing is attacked, and looked at as outsiders.

It's why names like Rahm Emanuel are being floated for DNC chair.

I agree it will take a FDR figure, but that person will have to take over the DNP. The same way Trump took over the RNP.

So glad to read @J-DONK 's post. Using his post as a springboard I'll be going well beyond what he said. I will say this: Progressive values are not in vogue.
The "values" of San Francisco and Los Angeles and Hollywood were rejected.
Lengthy articles (@Optimus Prime )that offer or try to look for some other explanation are a waste of time.
Our democracy not collapse. We are not on the path of Ancient Rome.
Our society will not collapse.
We will prosper.

 

[SamAndreas]

What does that have to do with Bill Clinton being a neoliberal?

I won't argue this. You can go to google, and search "Bill Clinton neoliberal", and get thousands of hits with a wide range of sources.

Sam, can you name the president that deregulated banking, and allowed the 2008 crash to happen?

This is now the second time you've insisted that you won't argue that which you appear to be arguing.

I've not been insisting that you argue this. What good would that do?

Besides, I'm not sure I remember what we've not been arguing about for the last couple of days.



Now I remember, you were name calling. Calling reasonable mainstream liberals like Obama, neo-liberals.

Which is like calling them Republicans. It seemed neo-nutty to me. Neo-madness.



I looked there's a Neo-madness movie:



Fortunately I don't have to watch it. You don't have to watch it either.

 

[J-DONK]

I think the Republican Party is more nei-liberal than Democrats. I think AOC and Bernie represent a substantial portion of the Democratic party and they get criticized just like everyone else, but people that advocate for bigger changes always face the most criticism. FDR level changes are needed when there are huge problems. I don’t think we’re there yet, but what policies do you think Democrats should advocate for? They advocate to raise taxes on higher incomes, expanding Obamacare, adding a public option, to name a couple. What else would attract people that have joined the Republican coalition in larger numbers than would be lost?

I think of it as you have to attack the systematic issues.

Wealth taxes in all its forms should, and I would argue must exist for our democracy to survive. Elon dropped 150 million into this election. That's the danger of this kind of wealth inequality. Also, Elon has destroyed every talking point about CEO's earning it. That dude is addicted to social media has spent 16-18 hours a day tweeting for years now.

Second, We need some kind of public option for healthcare. Forget all the other stuff, it would be a huge boon to a lot of people who want to take a shot on a small business but can't because they have kids, and need employer healthcare.

Third, would be housing. We need to ban any, and all corporations from owning SFH. We should limit a single person to only owning 3 houses, married couples to 5. We should give max tax breaks to private equity to build MDUs. We should give grants to cities that create zoning for MDUs. Giving people money to buy a house was only going to drive up prices even more. It did nothing to fix the core issue.

Fourth, break up consolidated markets that are no longer competitve, ala meat packing.

Fifth, ban social media algo's that are brain rotting, and divisive. The Biden plan of creating some kind of ministry of truth would accomplish nothing. It only showed they have no real clue how to combat apps like TikTok.

Sixth, pass the freaking minimum wage hike. How hard is this?

Biden did 1 or 2 of these, and was close on the minimum wage. He was more liberal then Obama, or Clinton.

 

[RobF]

So glad to read @J-DONK 's post. Using his post as a springboard I'll be going well beyond what he said. I will say this: Progressive values are not in vogue.
The "values" of San Francisco and Los Angeles and Hollywood were rejected.
Lengthy articles (@Optimus Prime )that offer or try to look for some other explanation are a waste of time.
Our democracy not collapse. We are not on the path of Ancient Rome.
Our society will not collapse.
We will prosper.

Great to hear this, because by this "reasoning" the "values" of Trump and MAGA became not in vogue and rejected when they lost in 2020, so they can't possibly have won now.

Unless you "think" electoral defeat is only a definitive rejection of the party's values when it's not your side that loses.

Which you do, obviously.