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.

 

[faceman]

I don't think the Supreme Court would overtly choose not to enforce the Constitution. But I do think there's question there of just how convoluted, twisted, or even nonsensical a reading of the Constitution they would make in order to support the agenda represented by Trump.

The extent to which that's possible depends on the subject, but language being what it is, it's usually possible to find a way to read something as saying something other than what it clearly means.

For the 22nd amendment, for example, that's very clear. But even then I think it's technically possible to read it as allowing a third term where the candidate isn't elected to the position directly. rt would do by the way, just as an example of how these things can be warped. I think/hope it'd be entirely moot, because I don't think Trump is going
I think the amendment itself only refers to being "elected to the office". On the face of it, the 12th amendment would then prevent a two-term President running for Vice President, for example, ("no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"), but then that wouldn't apply to a two-term President if the stance taken is that they are eligible to the office, they're just not eligible to be elected to the office, which opens up all kinds of spurious reasoning which could, at a stretch, allow someone to de facto run for a third term.



I'm not saying that as something the Supreme Cou
to get to that even if he wants to (I think one of many things like his age, health, infighting finally boiling over, etc., will catch up with him)

how so?

The 22nd amendment is pretty clear Imo.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/

Section 1​

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Trump is 78 years old and looks more and more fatigued -- he's not running again in 4 years, even if he could get away with it.

 

[Sendai]

I’ve seen this sentiment elsewhere and it just doesn’t hold up to the historical record - you’re clearly making arbitrary, bias-confirming choices here.

You have suggested that the economy was the key issue - so did you just ignore that multiple economic institutions including the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (a nonpartisan think tank) and Goldman Sachs (a major investment bank) provided highly detailed analysis of why Harris’s policies were substantially better for the economy than Trump’s, especially for low to middle income families? Did you ignore the reports from the Peterson Institute, Moody’s, and a letter signed by 16 Novel laureate economists that Trump’s policies will increase inflation? Or the numerous institutional reports about how Trump’s policies will blow up the deficit by a multiplying factor over Harris’s?

She talked about these policies, a lot. She talked about solutions like new small business tax credits and homeownership plans based on stimulating new housing. She dominated him on policy in the one debate they had.

I’m just curious how this can be a common sentiment (that she didn’t give a reason to vote for her) when it is so contrary to the record on what happened. It would be one thing if there was a similarly persuasive body of analysis that favored Trump’s policies but apart from an obviously partisan source here and there, there just wasn’t.

The only logical explanation is that you saw what you wanted to see and chose to ignore meaningful substance about the very same things you claim motivated you.

That’s fine, it’s human nature but the record is still the record and it will remain obvious when people who look for these sorts of pseudo-explanations to defend what was basically predisposition and confirmation-bias. OR this talk about the economy as the key factor is all just fluff and the real motivation was cultural: we’re going to stop giving our country to immigrants, homos, and non-Christians, and we’re willing to just Trust in Trump on the rest of it. (Not saying that’s you, specifically, just speaking more generally about this sentiment).

What makes you think these economic forecasts are in any way accurate?

“Forecasters reported 53% confidence in the accuracy of their forecasts, but were correct only 23% of the time, the researchers found.”

Why economic forecasts are so often wrong | Haas News | Berkeley Haas

Forecasts about inflation, growth, and unemployment by senior economists at big banks drive critical decisions by businesses, investors, and the Federal

newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu

 

[faceman]

Trump is 78 years old and looks more and more fatigued -- he's not running again in 4 years, even if he could get away with it.

He may not make it 4 more years. His father passed due to Alzheimers . That's a disease that tends to run in families.

'Overweight...never smoker': 5 things to know about Donald Trump's health - Times of India

US News: Donald Trump is 6 feet 3 inches tall, according to records. His weight is 244 pounds (110 kg). He is medically obese. However, there are many records

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[RobF]

how so?

The 22nd amendment is pretty clear Imo.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-22/

Section 1​

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,

Er... in the way I just described?

I'm honestly not sure what the confusion is. The point I was making is that 'the amendment itself only refers to being "elected to the office"'. But as it's possible to ascend to the office without being directly elected to it, it it's possible to interpret the wording as allowing someone to be President for a third term, as long as they weren't directly elected to it.

Again, I'm not saying that's my interpretation, or an interpretation the Supreme Court would make, I'm just pointing it out as a possible interpretation.

 

[faceman]

Er... in the way I just described?

I'm honestly not sure what the confusion is. The point I was making is that 'the amendment itself only refers to being "elected to the office"'. But as it's possible to ascend to the office without being directly elected to it, it it's possible to interpret the wording as allowing someone to be President for a third term, as long as they weren't directly elected to it.

Again, I'm not saying that's my interpretation, or an interpretation the Supreme Court would make, I'm just pointing it out as a possible interpretation.

Trump has been directly elected twice. I just don't see how Scotus could override that

 

[superchuck500]

What makes you think these economic forecasts are in any way accurate?

“Forecasters reported 53% confidence in the accuracy of their forecasts, but were correct only 23% of the time, the researchers found.”

Why economic forecasts are so often wrong | Haas News | Berkeley Haas

Forecasts about inflation, growth, and unemployment by senior economists at big banks drive critical decisions by businesses, investors, and the Federal

newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu

First of all, if anyone was saying “I decided that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy got this wrong”, then fine - but come on, that’s not what happened.

But more importantly, what does “accuracy” mean in this analysis? According to this source, “Moore and Campbell analyzed 16,559 forecasts; comparing them to actual indicators, they found the forecasters got it right less than a quarter of the time” - they’re looking at specific forecasts of key economic metrics for investors and market participants to rely on in the near term (next quarter or year) and deciding that something is a miss based on not being precisely right.

But how is that really relevant here? A forecast of 3% GDP growth is wrong when growth was actually 2% - but when the analysis shows large disparities between two proposal sets, does that degree of inaccuracy really matter?

If the analysis is that Trump’s policies are likely to be nearly 2x deficit-accruing than Harris’s, does it really matter that much if the final number is 1.75x? In a world of economic forecasting for near-term, that’s a miss by 12.5% and it’s significant for that purpose. But that’s hardly a basis to dismiss numerous reports by well-established economic institutions looking at long-term impacts and being in relative agreement.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump has been directly elected twice. I just don't see how Scotus could override that

He’s supposing that Trump could be elected as Vice President and the president then resign.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I wonder who they voted for?
====================

Ohio officials have denounced a small contingent of neo-Nazis who paraded Saturday afternoon through a Columbus neighborhood – waving flags featuring swastikas and shouting a racist slur – in the latest public demonstration by White nationalists in recent years across the United States.

Around a dozen people in black pants, shirts and head coverings – their faces obscured by red masks – marched along the street near downtown Columbus as three carried black flags emblazoned with red swastikas, footage provided to CNN affiliate WBNS shows.

At least one person yelled, “N***er,” again and again, according to the video that’s garnered online attention far beyond Ohio’s capital. The group strode past low-rise brick buildings housing a salon and a clothing boutique, along with cafés serving tacos, coffee, cookies and bar grub, as its leader shouted through a black bullhorn.

Columbus public safety dispatchers got 911 calls around 1:30 p.m. reporting a group marching in the Short North area, the dispatchers told the station.

Columbus’ mayor condemned the “cowardly display” and asserted the city’s commitment to standing against “hatred and bigotry.” “We will not allow any of our neighbors to be intimidated, threatened or harmed because of who they are, how they worship and whom they love,” Mayor Andrew Ginther, a Democrat, wrote on social media.........

With swastika flags and bellowed slurs, neo-Nazi marchers strode through Columbus. Ohio’s governor and officials condemn it | CNN

Ohio officials have denounced a small contingent of neo-Nazis who paraded Saturday afternoon through a Columbus neighborhood – waving flags featuring swastikas and shouting a racist slur – in the latest public demonstration by White nationalists in recent years across the United States.

www.cnn.com

 

[SamAndreas]

I’m not sure I agree that all these folks are undocumented Native Americans. We have border laws.

Joe you're mischaracterizing what I said. What you did was to misapply a universal quantifier, the universal quantifier ALL.

I said "lion's share," you changed that to ALL. I also didn't say anything about their documentation.



Since you mentioned it I will point out that a border is little more than a law. By that I mean it can also be a place, but it is the law that makes it a place. A border is not a natural concept, or place.

 

[TampaJoe]

Joe you're mischaracterizing what I said. What you did was to misapply a universal quantifier, the universal quantifier ALL.

I said "lion's share," you changed that to ALL. I also didn't say anything about their documentation.



Since you mentioned it I will point out that a border is little more than a law. By that I mean it can also be a place, but it is the law that makes it a place. A border is not a natural concept, or place.

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.

 

[Sendai]

First of all, if anyone was saying “I decided that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy got this wrong”, then fine - but come on, that’s not what happened.

But more importantly, what does “accuracy” mean in this analysis? According to this source, “Moore and Campbell analyzed 16,559 forecasts; comparing them to actual indicators, they found the forecasters got it right less than a quarter of the time” - they’re looking at specific forecasts of key economic metrics for investors and market participants to rely on in the near term (next quarter or year) and deciding that something is a miss based on not being precisely right.

But how is that really relevant here? A forecast of 3% GDP growth is wrong when growth was actually 2% - but when the analysis shows large disparities between two proposal sets, does that degree of inaccuracy really matter?

If the analysis is that Trump’s policies are likely to be nearly 2x deficit-accruing than Harris’s, does it really matter that much if the final number is 1.75x? In a world of economic forecasting for near-term, that’s a miss by 12.5% and it’s significant for that purpose. But that’s hardly a basis to dismiss numerous reports by well-established economic institutions looking at long-term impacts and being in relative agreement.

It’s simply that these economic forecasts are majorly iffy. For any side.

 

[Dragon]

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 ignore the law.

We must also uphold laws against unreasonable stops and ensure the protection of individuals from being profiled based on the color of their skin or their ethnic origin.

 

[Sendai]

He’s supposing that Trump could be elected as Vice President and the president then resign.

Then the third in line gets the job. In order to be vp he would have to be elected. It’s possible the Supreme Court could rule a two term president can’t run as vp.

 

[TampaJoe]

We must also uphold laws against unreasonable stops and ensure the protection of individuals from being profiled based on the color of their skin or their ethnic origin.

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.

 

[RobF]

Then the third in line gets the job. In order to be vp he would have to be elected. It’s possible the Supreme Court could rule a two term president can’t run as vp.

It is possible, but the point here is to consider what a Supreme Court would do if it, hypothetically, wouldn't explicitly rule against the Constitution but also wanted to enable someone to, essentially, ignore the 22nd amendment. In that scenario, it would, of course, not rule that a two term president couldn't run as VP, on the basis outlined previously.

To reiterate, I'm not predicting anything, I'm just saying that I think the most likely crisis scenario isn't the Supreme Court simply ruling against the Constitution, or the Supreme Court making a ruling that's essentially ignored (although I wouldn't rule out the latter in particular), I think it's more likely that the Supreme Court makes a highly contrived reading of the Constitution to support an act that would otherwise be seen as unconstitutional. This is just a hypothetical example.

 

[Dragon]

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.

What does that have to do with the rights of Americans across the country who happen to look different or speak with an accent? You can’t cherry-pick which laws to uphold while ignoring others. These people should not be subjected to suspicion or harassment solely because of their ethnic origin. They have the same rights as everyone else to go about their daily lives without interference from overzealous police or racist ignoramuses who assume anyone who looks different must be an illegal immigrant.

 

[RobF]

On deportation, I don't think it's at all debatable that a draconian approach in a hostile environment inevitably results in legitimate citizens being caught up in it. During 'Operation Wetback', US citizens were reportedly removed (https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation). More recently, in the UK, we had the Windrush Scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal), where people, mostly from Carribbean countries who'd arrived in the UK before 1973, were wrongly deported.

I don't think it's at all plausible to suggest this isn't inevitable in the current environment in the US, where the President-elect has explicitly and repeatedly talked about mass deportations using pretty extreme rhetoric and referred to legal migrants (e.g. the Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio).