General Election 2024 Harris vs Trump (2 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.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And someone whose defense denying the allegations was basically “she’s not hot enough to sexually assault”

A woman he confused for his own ex-wife, as well. If I am not mistaken.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

He wasnt the only President to be so accused. I‘m not saying there is no there there. The alleged incident happened in the 90’s and was never charged. It was one of a number of cases many of which were politically motivated. So to some folks they all looked political. Did Trump use that? Yes. Most certainly. Did it resonate with some voters? Who knows?

Did it distract from Harris‘s message? I think so. It may have been a reason not to vote for Trump but it also wasnt a reason to vote for Harris.

Convicted by a jury. Bragged on tape about doing similar things to other young women. Name one president that is in this same ballpark.

 

[TampaJoe]

Convicted by a jury. Bragged on tape about doing similar things to other young women. Name one president that is in this same ballpark.

Clinton.

But here is the deal. What now? Election is over. Where to go from here. You got a few weeks to figure that one out. You arent going to have to run against Trump again. So what should the strategy be?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Clinton.

But here is the deal. What now? Election is over. Where to go from here. You got a few weeks to figure that one out. You arent going to have to run against Trump again. So what should the strategy be?

Bill Clinton is a piece of shirt, and even he didn't openly brag about grabbing women by the arse- the same thing Trump was found to have done to E. Jean Caroll. So no, your comparison is bullshirt.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[DaveXA]

Clinton.

But here is the deal. What now? Election is over. Where to go from here. You got a few weeks to figure that one out. You arent going to have to run against Trump again. So what should the strategy be?

That you're making excuses for who will become the p*ssy grabber in chief says all I need to know.

As for what their strategy should be, I don't know and don't really care. I'm not a Democrat.

 

[DaveXA]

Hi Dave,

He wasnt convicted of sexual assault. He was sued related to an incident that happened in the 90‘s. Other Presidents have been similarly accused.

The other convictions were ticky tack convictions on questionable charges. Campaign finance reporting errors and reporting “fraud” with no victims. Not treason. Not collusion. Not sedition. It looked political to me.

I don't give a sheet what he was convicted of. I believe the woman who accused him. She sued him for defamation and won and the jury proceeded based on the assumption that what the woman accused him of was true. That's good enough for me.

He's a pervert, admitted on tape that he grabs women by the p*ussy and he's been accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and assault. Don't care what else did. If you still support him after all of that, then that's on you. He's a disgusting human and I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting him.

 

[TampaJoe]

That you're making excuses for who will become the p*ssy grabber in chief says all I need to know.

As for what their strategy should be, I don't know and don't really care. I'm not a Democrat.

I didnt vote for him and I am not affiliated with either party. Im not making excuses. It is what it is. People are all aware of Trumps various character flaws and they ignored them and voted for him anyway.

You cant unring that bell.

 

[MT15]

I didnt vote for him and I am not affiliated with either party. Im not making excuses. It is what it is. People are all aware of Trumps various character flaws and they ignored them and voted for him anyway.

You cant unring that bell.

What you did is the very definition of making excuses, though. It’s certainly your right to do so.

At least be aware of it.

 

[SamAndreas]

Good to see you.

We made it thru the hurricane with minimal damage although many of our favorite hangouts got hammered pretty hard. We count ourselves lucky in that regard.

Hope all is well with you.

I was never a Trump man. The criminal convictions were politically motivated IMO and I think that did more harm than good for those folks who were hoping for the other team.

Here is to hoping that the country figures out a way to move on from this.

That's good news Joe.

I'm sitting in a catbird seat up here in these mountains. I may ignore the world, and there isn't much the world can do about that.
I'm not one to conspiracy theory much. I also have something new/old to occupy my time. I now have a FORD 8N tractor.

Mine looks a bit better than this one I found a photo of on the internet.

But not as nice as this one:

75 years old, 27 HP.

 

[coldseat]

When you have NY politicans running for office promising to get someone and then they charge him with 4 misdemeanor reporting violations blown into 34 felony counts. Thats “looks” political to me. When you charge someone with business fraud and cant produce a single victim or explain the damages, that looks political.

I didn't ask about that case but regardless of how you saw that, a jury still had to convict him of the crime. That part isn't political.

In my book, if you think he committed treasonor encouraged sedition, then charge those crimes. Those things happened 4 years ago and should have been tried long before now. Waiting so long looked political.

You dont have to agree. It may have looked different to you.

Telling that you didn't answer my question. But you're right, we don't have to agree.

 

[DaveXA]

I didnt vote for him and I am not affiliated with either party. Im not making excuses. It is what it is. People are all aware of Trumps various character flaws and they ignored them and voted for him anyway.

You cant unring that bell.

You pointing to others saying they do the same thing is the definition of making excuses. Don't care what anyone else did. Trump is the person we're discussing, not anyone else.

 

[TampaJoe]

You pointing to others saying they do the same thing is the definition of making excuses. Don't care what anyone else did. Trump is the person we're discussing, not anyone else.

Carry on then.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Carry on then.

Can you even admit that what Trump has done and has been accused of is far and away beyond what any other president has done or been accused of?

 

[TampaJoe]

I didn't ask about that case but regardless of how you saw that, a jury still had to convict him of the crime. That part isn't political.



Telling that you didn't answer my question. But you're right, we don't have to agree.

My apologies.

As to the documents case, there is a loose standard for such things when it comes the chief executive. They should tighten those going forward. But no to criminal charges. Not for Trump. Not for Biden.

As for Jan 6. I thought Trump should have conceded when he last state certified. I also think everything he did thereafter did nothing but undermine confidence in our election system. IMO Jan 6 shoud never have happened. That said, he had a legal right to press his case by whatever legal means were available to him. So the protests were legal. Unwise. Reckless. But to extent they were protests, not illegal.

If it went beyond legality, that needs to be proven by professional law enforcement in a court of law. I havent seen that case be made.

As far as the riots, I have no sympathy for people who do violence. Let the law handle them accordingly.

 

[MT15]

If it went beyond legality, that needs to be proven by professional law enforcement in a court of law. I havent seen that case be made.

Several states are prosecuting the fake electors - they have been indicted. Our justice system is way too ponderous and slow, but it is proceeding. Several of Trump’s lawyers have either been disbarred, fined or disciplined. Some are also under indictment.

I don’t see how anyone can honestly make the case that the attempt to overturn the 2020 election didn’t go beyond legality.

Jack Smith will be releasing all his evidence, both from the Jan 6 and the documents case. Trump acted criminally in both. The only reason he is escaping justice is that he won the election. He rightly deserves to be in jail.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

 

[Optimus Prime]

A friend recently asked: “Do you think the United States will survive the anger of white men?”

As blunt as the question is, the core element is not so far-fetched. In fact, the majority of white men (and women) who voted in the presidential election in 2024 have rallied around a man who has called for the “termination of the constitution”, vowed to be a “dictator”, and threatened to deploy the US military against Americans.

They support a man who is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a proven liar, who has been fined nearly half a billion dollars for fraud, who incited an insurrection that injured 140 police officers, and who mismanaged the Covid-19 pandemic causing hundreds of thousands to die needlessly.

The fact that Donald Trump’s candidacy was even viable, given that horrific track record, was because of the support of white men. White men, whose anger was on full display at Madison Square Garden as they spewed racist, misogynistic venom.

White men who attacked poll workers and also voters of Kamala Harris. White men who chafed at the thought that their wives and girlfriends would not vote for the man who thought it was “a beautiful thing” that reproductive rights had been destroyed.

And, as the New York Times reported, the downwardly mobile, frustrated “white men without a degree, [who] have been surpassed in income by college-educated women”.

And let’s be clear. Trump has laid out an agenda that will provide the “wages of whiteness” to his male supporters but very little else. The racist hate that undergirds Maga can only provide threadbare comfort.

The planned enormous tariffs, the rollback on workplace, food and environmentalsafety regulations, the dismantling of labor protections, the planned deportation of tens of millions of undocumented people and naturalizedcitizens, the assault on reproductive rights and alignment with dictators – all of this will destroy the economy, explode the deficit and leave the United States severely isolated and weakened……

This is nothing new. White male anger, especially at the nation’s inclusion of African Americans, has repeatedly privileged white supremacy over the viability of the United States.

During the war of independence, when the nation was fighting to become the United States, South Carolina’s government fumed at Congress’s request to arm the enslaved and give them their freedom in exchange for fending off a British force that was more than 10 times the size of what those in Charleston could muster.

Government officials flat out refused and barked that they weren’t sure that the US “was a nation worth fighting for” and would rather take their chances with the king of England.

In short, enslaving those of African descent was infinitely more important than the United States.

Later on, during the subsequent battles over drafting the constitution, far too many white slaveholding men were willing to hold the United States hostage unless they got their way.

That meant reinforcing slavery and the power of slaveholders, despite the document’s language about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. They threatened. They raged. They schemed. And they succeeded…….

In 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik, a satellite, which proved that the USSR unexpectedly had the capabilities to launch its nuclear arsenal across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The US was no longer safe. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by proposing the National Defense Education Act, which would pump hundreds of millions of dollars into universities so the US would have the “brainpower to fight the cold war”.

The bill was shepherded through Congress by two Alabama legislators, the representative Carl Elliott and the senator J Lister Hill. Both wanted the money but neither wanted what came with it.

In other words, they wanted to continue to deny admission to African Americans to their racially exclusive universities, such as Ole Miss, LSU, the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama. If this was about educating those who could give the US an edge in the cold war, then limiting that access by race was folly.


Yet Elliott and Hill, both signatories to the virtually insurrectionist Southern Manifesto, which vowed to use every weapon at the congressional membership’s disposal to stop Brown v Board of Education from darkening their states’ doorsteps, refused to move the bill forward.

They demanded, instead, that Eisenhower provide assurances that those hundreds of millions of dollars would be as whites-only as their universities.

Faced with the dilemma of Jim Crow or possible nuclear annihilation, the angry white men chose to protect Jim Crow, not the United States.…….

Will the American project survive the anger of white men? | Carol Anderson

At key moments throughout US history, white male anger has been privileged over national security, progress or basic welfare

www.theguardian.com