General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (3 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.

 

[MT15]

I get it. It's hard to defend an undemocratic action like letting Obama and other party elites picking the new nominee. But this is how you defend it?

When you constantly have to say MAGA over and over you know you don't have much else to say.

People have given several thoughtful counterpoints to your diatribe and you have not addressed any of them. We see it. We all know.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The Willie Brown angle seems like an odd choice given their candidate's history.

Kamala Harris openly dated Willie Brown, who was still technically married but had been separate for a decade at that point and had dated other women before Harris, and it was widely reported that he and his wife were more friends at this point. Certainly not conventional, but hardly a scenario of "the other woman".

Compared with Trump who has been married 3 times and cheated on all his wives. Bragged about sleeping with women while married, and wrote/bragged about sleeping with married women.

The main theme seems to be - men can have sex and sleep around and cheat, and that's ok, but if a woman has sex at all, she's a whore. Seems like a bad strategy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I get it. It's hard to defend an undemocratic action like letting Obama and other party elites picking the new nominee. But this is how you defend it?

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Democratic party is free to choose their candidate any way they like, and the American electorate can vote for that candidate or not. What is undemocratic about that?

It might be a poor strategy, as it was when the DNC rammed Hillary through in 2016, but it isn't an attack on democracy.

 

[SaintRob]

I get it. It's hard to defend an undemocratic action like letting Obama and other party elites picking the new nominee. But this is how you defend it?

You mean undemocratic like asking your VP to overturn an election? Undemocratic like calling a state official to overturn an election? Undemocratic like organizing multiple states to have fake electors? Your cult is the expert at being undemocratic.

But wait... there was nothing undemocratic about the way Democrats selected Kamala. I dare you to prove that it was undemocratic. Triple dog dare you. Proof, now. I want proof. Not your lapdog fake talking point that your cult told you to say.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is what I mean by the spaghetti approach... SFL isn't mad that Biden isn't running any more because he believe his rights were violated that he is no longer able to vote for the candidate he really wants (even though he can still write Biden in if he really believes in him that much). The goal here is to try to make Democrats mad so they won't vote for Harris... it's political posturing.

It's also wasted energy here, since I don't think there are any undecideds left on this board.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you actually believe this? You really seem to be all over the place. Harris has been on the national stage for 8 years now, and has done plenty of solo interviews and has announced policy positions both before running for President and after. For those that care about policy, we already have a general sense of her positions and policies, and we can expect them to have some movement depending on circumstances and political realities.

Harris has been hiding from reporters and interviews since she was installed in the coup. Do you think her previous interviews when she was running for president or when she was a VP is relevant to her now being the Democrat nominee?

How do we know which policies she still supports or ones that she doesn't? That's pretty important for a presidential candidate right?

So, yes, I do find it interesting. She's trying to win an election - she's only had about a month as the actual candidate and not the vice president. Trump is not well liked at all. People were worried about Biden's age. Her goal will be to show she's not an butt crevasse like Trump, and look more presidential, and to be younger than Biden.

Her goal is to hide as long as possible, avoid specific policy questions as much as possible, and try not to make herself look like the idiot that she is like she did here:



It sounds like you are more concerned about the vibes.

I don't understand your protector of democracy comment. None of that is contrary to American rule of law.

The Democrats constantly say they must be elected to protect democracy from Trump. They claim democracy will end and we won't have anymore elections if Trump wins.

It's strictly a campaign slogan because Harris and Obama forcing Biden out through the threat of the 25 amendment is about an anti-democracy as you can get.

 

[Huntn]

I get it. It's hard to defend an undemocratic action like letting Obama and other party elites picking the new nominee. But this is how you defend it?

When you constantly have to say MAGA over and over you know you don't have much else to say.

MAGA says it all. It illustrates perfectly the hijacking of words to mean the exact opposite of their definition. It’s the creation of a traitor who wants a second chance to dismantle this Democratic Republic, and it’s supported by a group of people who support cheating and the subversion of our democratic, constitutional, and civil rights in a blatant power grab, which is ok by them, as long as they end up on top. I guess you also take exception when “Nazis” are mentioned over and over again too. It’s not as if these labels are unknowns. They are very well known and they are infamous, that is to anyone not drinking Trump’s it’s ok to be lawlwss, self serving Koolaid.

As far as the Democrats somehow cheating, that’s Bull shirt. You have no point, their rules were not only followed, but Harris was already on the ticket, and the approval of this change is practically earth shaking to everyone except, for the GOP throwing a tantrum. “Not fair!”, “A curveball!”, “Mommy!”

 

[fooferdoggie]

Imagine defending a President candidate hiding from reporters and interviews and when she finally agreed to one she had to have her support animal in Walz. She can't even do the interview by herself. You guys would be constantly making fun of Trump if he did that.

give it a pathetic break. Imagine voting for someone who stood on fallen soldiers graves and smile and gives thumbs up and pushes woman around.

 

[bird]

I get it. It's hard to defend an undemocratic action like letting Obama and other party elites picking the new nominee. But this is how you defend it?

When you constantly have to say MAGA over and over you know you don't have much else to say.

Nah, we have plenty to say. It is not our fault that you fail to understand the processes and SCOTUS cases regarding political parties. Go learn something. Do some reading.

As for saying MAGA over and over again? Well, we only need look at your false god and his use of the term. You do realize that you can be deprogrammed to get away from a cult? I strongly suggest it for you.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Harris has been hiding from reporters and interviews since she was installed in the coup. Do you think her previous interviews when she was running for president or when she was a VP is relevant to her now being the Democrat nominee?

How do we know which policies she still supports or ones that she doesn't? That's pretty important for a presidential candidate right?

Her goal is to hide as long as possible, avoid specific policy questions as much as possible, and try not to make herself look like the idiot that she is like she did here:



It sounds like you are more concerned about the vibes.

The Democrats constantly say they must be elected to protect democracy from Trump. They claim democracy will end and we won't have anymore elections if Trump wins.

It's strictly a campaign slogan because Harris and Obama forcing Biden out through the threat of the 25 amendment is about an anti-democracy as you can get.

The problem is I don't believe you actually believe any of this. It's like you're just stringing together words and hope some of them make sense.

 

[SaintRob]

When you constantly have to say MAGA over and over you know you don't have much else to say.

I agree with you! Trump says it over and over and the cult members wear it on hats! Such a profound statement from you! I'm actually shocked, but man, you nailed it!

 

[efil4]

The problem is I don't believe you actually believe any of this.

new here?

he does. Dont think for a second he doesnt. He absolutely does. This is about as close as you will get to meeting/seeing someone who is truly off the rails into conspiracy and cultism.

Sure, there will be glimpses of some minimal rational thought, but that is far and few between ( and the time between has increased ). Immediately followed by stuff you just quoted. ( which has become more and more frequent )

I understand the desire to engage and the attempt to rationalize. I myself tried many many months ago only to come to the conclusion that this one is too far gone.

 

[Huntn]

Do you actually believe this? You really seem to be all over the place. Harris has been on the national stage for 8 years now, and has done plenty of solo interviews and has announced policy positions both before running for President and after. For those that care about policy, we already have a general sense of her positions and policies, and we can expect them to have some movement depending on circumstances and political realities.

So, yes, I do find it interesting. She's trying to win an election - she's only had about a month as the actual candidate and not the vice president. Trump is not well liked at all. People were worried about Biden's age. Her goal will be to show she's not an butt crevasse like Trump, and look more presidential, and to be younger than Biden.

I don't understand your protector of democracy comment. None of that is contrary to American rule of law.

You mean undemocratic like asking your VP to overturn an election? Undemocratic like calling a state official to overturn an election? Undemocratic like organizing multiple states to have fake electors? Your cult is the expert at being undemocratic.

But wait... there was nothing undemocratic about the way Democrats selected Kamala. I dare you to prove that it was undemocratic. Triple dog dare you. Proof, now. I want proof. Not your lapdog fake talking point that your cult told you to say.

This (the post you both are replying to) is the typical smoke screen and projection that comes from the energetic supporters of Did We Fool Ya DJT.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Democratic party is free to choose their candidate any way they like, and the American electorate can vote for that candidate or not. What is undemocratic about that?

It might be a poor strategy, as it was when the DNC rammed Hillary through in 2016, but it isn't an attack on democracy.

Explain how letting the elites in your party pick the nominee with zero input from voters is supporting democracy.

Remember, the Democrats have rigged 3 straight Presidential primaries(2016 and 2020 against Sanders) and 2024 by not allowing anyone to run against Biden and now again with Obama picking Harris.

You think fixing the primary against sanders in 2016 was okay?

Why do the Democrats not trust their own voters?

 

[Optimus Prime]

my girlfriend made a good point about Arlington Cemetery

The ironic thing is he went there as a PR move to to pander to his military base

The ‘stolen valor’ line wasn’t sticking

He had the medal of freedom line that went over poorly

McMaster has a book out and his doing interviews reiterating comments he’s made about the military before

So he (or some staffer) says ‘I know what can fix this. Well go to Arlington!’

Oops

 

[SaintForLife]

The problem is I don't believe you actually believe any of this. It's like you're just stringing together words and hope some of them make sense.

Ah so you have no reply. Weak deflection attempt. I guess you aren't as principled as you claimed to be in the past.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump campaign is also claiming that they have footage proving that ‘altercation’ with the cemetery employee didn’t happen the way the media is portraying it

But won’t release that footage because reasons

 

[SaintRob]

Explain how letting the elites in your party pick the nominee with zero input from voters is supporting democracy.

The Constitution does not specify how presidential candidates are selected, leaving it to each political party to develop its own process. Historically, parties have used national nominating conventions to select their presidential and vice presidential nominees. At these conventions, state delegates, chosen through a series of primary elections and caucuses, cast votes to determine the party’s nominee.

The modern nominating process has developed over time, with the introduction of primary elections and caucuses in the early 20th century. Initially, party bosses and state legislators played a significant role in selecting delegates, but the widespread adoption of primary elections has since shifted the power to the voters.

Are you only mad at Democrats or are you also mad at Libertarians and other parties?

Now, you explain how it's not supporting democracy. (PS, you can't. I just explained how it is supporting democracy.)