It's just weird. — Benkei

:smirk:

It’s all an opaque act, a virtual candidacy — NOS4A2

I watched 10 minutes of the Harris and Waltz chat just now and if it’s an act they’re good actors. They come off as warm, approachable, and down to earth. The script is on-brand too, with compelling ‘creation stories’ and showcasing their middle-class backgrounds. A masterclass in branding. Isn’t Trump supposed to be the branding expert?

It also presented a stark contrast to the cold elitist labor-hating and weird chat between Trump and Elon.

They’ve been doing it their whole lives. No doubt they’re good at it, if branding is your principle upon which to judge. With an army of campaigners and millions of dark money in your pocket, we wouldn’t expect anything less. But there is no better to hide your lack of interviews and lack of transparency behind such a fake exchange.

But there is no better to hide your lack of interviews and lack of transparency behind such a fake exchange. — NOS4A2

Why do you think it’s fake? I wouldn’t think that you would even watch it.

This doesn't work unless you're already partial to it. To someone like me, who is skeptical of taking any of it seriously, they come across saccharine in a cartoonish, "we;re really trying guys, don't cancel us" kind of way. They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense.

I thought the Fed was apolitical and does whatever it wanted? — Mr Bee

Yes. They still try to avoid screwing with the economy when an election is close.

I mean Trump and the Republicans will be mad at a booming economy if it helps their enemies but let's be honest Trump would be harassing the Fed every day to cut rates if he were president right now. — Mr Bee

He'd have to install mechanisms for overriding the chairman. I guess he'd give it his best shot.

I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine.

You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? That would be a moronic strategy.

So Harris and Biden appear at what amounted to a campaign event, I think in Washington? Anyway, the subject was Medicare reforms and rebates, making a list of important therapeutic drugs less expensive and more available. An actual policy achievement announcement!

While over in the clown car show that is MAGA, they’re pleading with Dear Leader to at least try and appear to be saying something policy-related and sensible, even if their party has wasted the last legislative session on wild-goose chases about impeaching Biden and advanced zero legislation.

But no - Dear Leader says he has every right to be ‘mean’ about Harris, because ‘she’s trying to put me in jail’ and then reverts to his stream-of-addled-consciousness rants. Business as usual.

I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine. — praxis

Well as one, that's how they come across. I couldn't give a squirt of piss who wins - I'm just calling it like I see it. They come across as cartoonishly saccharine and dishonestly bubbly.

You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? — praxis

Probably not in the sense that they've strategised in those terms, no(though, who knows - more brazen political horseshit has happened). But I didn't suggest that. I suggested that what comes across. I am not alone, and ths is not an unreasonable reading of such twaddle as they've used for their talking points imo. It boils down to this:

They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense. — AmadeusD

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. Unsure why this wouldn't apply to the ticket who had to pick up on a race they(i.e Biden/Harris) were sorely losing.

Nice little op-ed.

Election 2024 is again a basic IQ test: neoliberals (pols) versus neofascists (cons)? Hint: you don't have to be antifa, BLM, pro-woman, etc to demonstrate that you're intelligent (i.e. not a bleach-swilling, MAGA-moron, weirdo). :mask:

Roevember is coming! :fire:

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. — AmadeusD

So true. Campaigns are about "messaging", consisting of (distorted) narratives, and "defining" themselves (in an appealing way) and the opponent (in a negative way). It's show business.

I sometimes watch a daily show/zoom-call on youtube called "2-way". Mark Halperin hosts, and he usually has both a Democratic and Republican campaign strategist (Sean Spicer is on there frequently) with him. They evaluate the previous day's campaign action like a sports talk-show: what's working and not working, and opining about what each campaign should be doing. It helps give me perspective on the game that it is.

Yeah bang on.

please share a link. :smile:

Yes. They still try to avoid screwing with the economy when an election is close. — frank

Well I'd prefer it if they focused on not screwing over the economy because they're worried about the political optics. I suspect that that was the reason why Trump has been getting a pass legally for his multiple crimes. Both the Republicans and Democrats were too chicken to shut him down permanently after Jan 6 and now here we are.

He'd have to install mechanisms for overriding the chairman. I guess he'd give it his best shot. — frank

Trump has made it clear that if he is elected it will have to answer to him. — Fooloso4

Apparently he wants to override the Fed so yeah.

I still feel like this is an issue about Trump's policies that is underdiscussed. People seem to think that Trump will fix inflation somehow but he literally plans to implement a 20% tariff on all imported goods and unlike his other crazy ideas he probably has unilateral authority to do so:

Harris and Walz will turn the country communist “immediately, if not sooner.”

Just a very stable genius, with the best words.

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. — AmadeusD

Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.

Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.

It’s not about policy at all, is it?

It’s not about policy at all, is it? — NOS4A2

Democrats promised 6 trillion for Green New Deal. So far they have invested less than 20 billion in the green new deal, gave like 3 trillion on covid relief only, increased the US public debt to 35 trillion, plan to give 1.2 billion for student loan forgiveness and I heard Kamala Harris today stating that she is going to give 1.7 trillion in middle-class handouts (though I know very well she wasn't referred to me with "middle-class", but to her potential voters).

I am wondering who are more stupid now, those who vote for Trump or those who think that the evil in this country may come only from the "far-right", but never from the left?

I stand for social justice, gun laws and environmental protections (things that Trump never takes into consideration), but if Democrats bankrupt this country the only sure thing is that progressives won't see any of their plans/dreams realized, and they will deserve to be blamed for failures which they often use to charge their opponents with.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13751313/Kamala-Harris-rolls-economic-plan-1-7-TRILLION-handouts-bungles-revealing-ban-grocery-store-price-gouging.html

Maybe stop reading — and regurgitating — the Daily Mail.

Several of your numbers are wrong, and it’s obvious to any reader that you’ve bought into the tired right-wing talking point about debt and spending — which you’ll only hear about when it’s a Democrat in office. Never mind that Trump jacked up the debt as well — by trillions.

For me no big difference between democrat politicians and republicans, apart from appearance (republicans dress and look trendier than democrats, democrats are better orators).

Trump reduced taxes in order to satisfy his voters. Harris says she will give handouts to those in need. Is it not the same thinking, with different targets? Trump targeted businessmen and self-employed people, Harris is targeting those in need, mostly single mothers and minorities (though she uses the word "middle-class" for promotional purposes).

In contrast with republicans, I believe in government spending and government intervention. But I don't see why there are no other ways of doing it, apart from just giving money to people.

Trump did that too (he told people "vote me, so you save money" and he kept his word). Most of my friends were happy for saving from their taxes during Trump's presidency, and Biden did something similar in a time of urgency.

It is not an accident that 2020-2022 coincide with the US cryptocurrency craze. Just from the people I know, I may tell you that many of these relief paychecks ended up in crypto investments (wasted money, which in one or another way our children will have to repay).

But you should see it that Kamala Harris is doing the same thing with Trump: vote me, so I give you money. I, Kamala, speak about USA and Americans, but in the way and in the moment I do it, I don't care for the future or the role of this nation, I just want you (my potential voter) to know that money is coming for you.

We have some moral dilemmas now:

Should the voter consider money and personal benefit as the foremost criterion in casting his vote? Democrats and republicans will say yes. (Truth does not matter to them.)

Should our generation borrow money that the next generation will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say yes. (The only future they know is from one election to the next.)

How should we use the money that our children will have to repay?
Democrats and republicans will say these money should be used in the way that satisfies best those voters which brought us to power. (Again, the only future they know are those periods from one to the next election.)

To conclude, we are not talking only about debt and sums here. We are talking about the morality of doing politics and spending money in this way. You don't blame your neighbor who takes a loan to upgrade his old house and buy a car, but you will definitely blame you neighbor if he takes loans to pay sex-workers, buy drugs, go to see Dubai, etc. In this country so much money is paid, but the results are poor and some people will always pay the bill (without a detailed receipt). I can't vote republicans when they reject science, but I have lost faith in democrats too. Either they have to be frank with Americans and tell them some big sacrifices are needed to save our country and/or the whole world, or they just will keep satisfying their voters every four years and always will blame their opponents for that never-happening-revolution.

Except for abortion. Pro-choice referendums pass in places like Ohio. The cat ladies Women are pissed.

Yeah, I don’t get it. Now abortionists get to vote for the policies they want.

By the way, why every time I open Youtube I see ads from democrats only?

I just removed my party affiliation with democrats, and I never plan to vote climate-change deniers (republicans), but I am just trying to better understand how democracy works in this country and within the social media. This is why I am asking about Youtube.

Thank you.

No doubt he is stupid and very anachronistic (in order to balance the cost of foreign tariffs, he thinks to reduce the prices of local energy, through making coal and oil cheaper, at a time when the rest of the world is trying to free itself from carbon emissions and countries like South Korea and China are leading all other nations in batteries and electrical devices), but Kamala is not better.

Price gouging is not coming only from big companies, is coming mostly from small and medium businesses. Many of these businesses will close or file for bankruptcy if the government tells them how to limit prices. (Walmart and Amazon will profit again.)

This is going to be a very difficult election. You have to choose one of the two extremists. The one is the extremist of the rich and evangelicals, the other the extremist of the poor and identity politics.

If Kamala wins that will happen only because many Americans hate Trump. In other circumstances she would have been the worst choice for the democrats. In conclusion, whoever wins the only sure thing is that this country will become more divided.

Depends on the details of her actual policy, though based on what I've read it sounds like antitrust enforcement. Maybe when she sits for an actual interview we'll find out more.

That being said I do think that alot of Harris' policies won't be done at all if only because congress (especially if Republicans keep the Senate as they look likely to do) won't allow it. The issue with Trump's plans on deporting millions of immigrants and imposing a 20% tariff on all imports is that he can do it unilaterally. I'm not worried about him gutting Obamacare because the GOP congressmen are smart enough to not play along with his schemes. He would do it if he had a big red button on his desk to press, but he can't, however such a button does exist for starting a trade war like he did in his first term.

It’s not about policy at all, is it? — NOS4A2

Policy ought to be a big part of it, but it doesn't capture everything. Better: we predict a future that is entailed by each candidate, and choose the candidate that we believe will deliver the better future.

You can find by searching youtube for "Mark Halperin 2-way". Named as such because there's a degree of audience participation. Here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/live/alKit5q7iVU?si=-80UJ08luJm5v1Y0

It's typical of the ones labelled "morning meeting" that discuss what I was talking about. Other episodes have different sorts of topics, all related to some aspects of politics.

This one features a Jordan Peterson interview: https://www.youtube.com/live/Tgy4bsS3tM8?si=GnvRCOefpTF9WQAK
Peterson makes a ton of debatable claims, but still much food for thought.

Here's one featuring a panel discussion of media bias: https://www.youtube.com/live/k0xCB1J0SOk?si=s2xyYWlfjwklM9fj
Very interesting.