First answer my question and I will address the Trump post. Exactly when did you become aware that Biden was incapable of running this country? Was it the debate? If not when?
With the polls clearly swinging in Harris's favor this week what does Trump need to do and not do to win.....
- Thread starter shonuff253
- Start date
...and I'll repeat myself: If any version of anything (even loosely) connected to Harris isn't potentially viewed as "extreme"...what does she have to worry about?
I'm using your logic, here. If you're saying the Republicans will treat it as extreme...aren't you subsequently admitting that the reaction to P2025 was politically motivated?
Make it make sense: Either her platform will not be viewed as extreme (and can thus be 'released' according to your own logic) or the only danger is politically-motivated attacks. Please explain another scenario that makes sense.
Lol OK, what's your post count for this thread the last couple of hours....just saying. It's always good to take a break from the Chat instead of getting too fired up.
If it's a smart move then why do you demeaning her for doing it?
Again my post is referring to Project 2025 being extreme which it is. I also didn't say Harris is worried that the GOP will say her platform is extreme...you words not mine. See no matter what she puts out the GOP is going to say it's extreme so that's not an issue.
I'll repeat myself here: Politically smart doesn't mean it's good for the electorate. Simply being "not Trump" shouldn't be enough. Where does she stand? How will she govern? What are her policies and/or plans for her administration?
We are WAY too late in the game for 'wait & see'. It's less than 100 days. Show us who you are.
She faced nothing tough via a primary process. I'm not 'demeaning' her...simply pointing out that everyone should be demanding more from her.
Sir, this is your quote (and I'm not debating P25 nor the 'unofficial' manner of it):
1. Dems are being disciplined. The GOP was "clobbered" because it was "extreme" & released too early. Are you seriously suggesting that anything posted by a conservative group or Trump affiliated group wouldn't be clobbered?
2. If any Harris platform ISN'T extreme, then what's the worry?
3. If the worry is that the GOP will paint any platform as extreme, then aren't you logically admitting treatment of P25 was politically motivated? Or is the GOP the only one capable of a politically-motivated attack?
I'm simply using the logic that you posted and I'm repeating myself...again: Explain the logic.
This is your overall question. And you answered yourself in an earlier post in this thread.
Why would she do something that's not politically smart with 86 days until election became the GOP doesn't like that...but at the same time her numbers have improved? What you want and what's politically smart don't align in this case.
No, it's my question to you. You said not putting a platform out is smart, because the GOP's (unofficial) platform was treated as extreme. What's the worry? If it's not extreme & defensible because it's good policy...political attacks shouldn't be a worry & expected.
Your point here is clear, please correct me if I'm wrong: "The GOP is extreme, so they released too early...but, anything the Harris campaign releases is righteous & NOT extreme...but, will be treated as such, so it's smart not to let anybody know what we believe or how we will govern...even though nobody knows anything about us, because we didn't campaign like literally every other POTUS campaign...but, no worry! It's not extreme at all. Only the GOP is capable of politically-motivated attacks."
Please note that the attacks towards Trump's platform are entirely focused on misplaced fear-mongering re: P25 versus what Trump's official platform actually is (exhibit A: all the talk/focus about P25 & silence on his actual, official platform...freely available to all)
Because it's not about what the "GOP" doesn't like? Because she owes it to voters who want to make an informed choice? Right now she has "I'm not Trump". What about people who...I don't know...actually want to vote on issues? Come on, man. How can you honestly dismiss this? Again: smart does not equal "good", unless you don't actually care about voters and/or have no fear you won't be called out by a media that has no desire to actually do their job.
What you're doing here is admitting that it's better for a campaign to have LESS known about a candidate, rather than let her speak for herself & convince people "I'm a good choice".
If she was a strong candidate, this wouldn't be an issue.
I didn't know "post count" was indicative of anything other than I have a foot injury & relegated to sitting in my recliner on my laptop 🤣 The Olympics are over!
I'm not fired up...but, you trying to make it a "point" to somehow diminish any point I've made says more about your lack of argument, here...imo. Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy for a reason.
It probably is tactical because Trump allows them to do that. A strong Republican candidate wouldn't be in a fight at this point considering what has happened on the Democratic side.
Incumbency is historically a huge advantage when running for the presidency. When an incumbent has had to run for the nomination, that's typically a sign of weakness and while they almost always win the nomination, they also almost always lose vs. the other party when the presidential election happens. History would tell them they were in real trouble if Biden wanted to run again and they went against him. As it turned out, he flopped in the moment he needed to assure the "money" he was capable of winning and the push back to his candidacy all but forced him into resigning. It should've been a nightmare and seemingly was for a few weeks. But I said all the time, the polling and voters talking about haven't had some seismic shift. It's much more understandable how the Democrats ended up with Harris running than the other side though.
The Republicans chose to run a guy that's extremely popular with their base. They probably had no choice either. So in the end it's your fervent Trump supporters that have to take the blame here. While they had "vetting" as you say, trump really never had to participate in it. He never debated. He never has laid out any real plan in some kind of structured way.
He talked about crypto currency, something he called very dangerous a few years back (speaking of flipping), and said we need to invest in it. Said he could use it to pay off the debt. Said it's a very good thing and we need to beat the Chinese by investing in it. But to be honest, I'm not even sure he understands what he is. Nothing in the interview would tell me he really knows how it works.
So, just my opinion given the circumstances, it makes much more sense that the Democrats ended up with a "bad" candidate that's never been vetted and isn't doing interviews right now, than it does the Republicans end up with Trump running again. But here we are. I've said for a year now, it makes no sense to say Biden (and now Harris) are going to ruin the country and take us to a place we'll never recover from and not take the easy win (almost any other Republican candidate). That's why I call BS on the drama of the conservative talking point of "liberal armageddon". If you believe in that BS, you don't screw around with Trump. You take the sure thing.
Last edited:
I think it's a bit strange that you're "blaming" Trump because Biden was so weak he had to be replaced in an unprecedented way...or that the DNC refused to even allow a "competition".
At least Trump won the nomination by earning votes...right or wrong. He "won" it, imo because he was literally vetted as POTUS, before. That's kind of a big difference between him & Harris.
I'm not sure of what else you're referring to...I've literally never heard of "liberal armageddon" as a talking point. Regardless...as I've already stated in this thread, I wish we had better choices. But, if ifs & buts were...nevermind
Where did I blame Trump?I think it's a bit strange that you're "blaming" Trump because Biden was so weak he had to be replaced in an unprecedented way...or that the DNC refused to even allow a "competition".
At least Trump won the nomination by earning votes...right or wrong. He "won" it, imo because he was literally vetted as POTUS, before. That's kind of a big difference between him & Harris.
I'm not sure of what else you're referring to...I've literally never heard of "liberal armageddon" as a talking point. Regardless...as I've already stated in this thread, I wish we had better choices. But, if ifs & buts were...nevermind
Liberal armageddon- The idea that we've lost the country and we'll never recover if my side doesn't win. Armageddon literally means "the end of things". Conservatives refer to the possibility of Democratic rule in almost every election cycle as the end of the US as we know it, as if it will never exist any more as a democracy, but will be "communist" etc. This is not new and has been going on for years.
Competition is a bad thing in this case and it shows weakness if you are making a sitting POTUS compete for reelection. You don't want to try that unless you know for sure you can't win with him as it's very unlikely you are gonna unseat a sitting president in the nominating process. Biden could've easily said I'm too busy to put up with this crap and debate just like Trump did and still be there. In all likelihood, you'll be running a sitting president that his own party has shown lack of faith in. That's a huge win for Republicans right there that they had to do nothing to get.
If you want to say they should've never elected Biden in the first place, well he won. I've never said the Republicans should have made Trump fight for the nomination in 2020. But Trump lost and it still didn't matter. He was treated by the masses as a sitting president as he never even had to fight for the nomination in 2024. I'm not blaming Trump. I'm saying that the Republican base nominated a bad candidate that wasn't really vetted. And he's a loser, so you should probably have asked what's he gonna do differently this time to win. That was never really a question.
yeah, because most of it wasn't real. I pay plenty of attention, but I don't live and die by gossip. I can do a search and find plenty of pro-Harris press just as easily.
I will address the "talk" you shared from your first post. In the second, you've cited several articles, most of which are behind paywalls, which means (I'm guessing) that you haven't read them either, though you expend a good deal of typing on the subject... but I don't feel obligated to dig in too deep, because most are from that same period where people with Presidential ambitions were disappointed that the DNC wasn't going to force Biden to participate in a "true" primary... which I don't disagree might have been a nice idea, but which didn't happen. Trump didn't debate his primary opponents. Can you blame either, looking back?
The "talk" you have cited in your first post:
1) the Newsweek article as you point out is to remove BOTH Biden and Harris... i.e. this particular article was part of the push for actual primaries, again by those with political ambitions of their own.
2) Similarly, the CNN article begins with this: "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has warned that some Democrats who want President Joe Biden to quit the presidential race also want Vice President Kamala Harris off the party's ticket."
The article continues ... "If you think there is a consensus among the people who want Joe Biden to leave, that they will support Vice President Harris, you would be mistaken," Ocasio-Cortez said during an Instagram Live on Friday morning."
I think any fears that the party would not rally around Harris can be said to have been misplaced. I have edited this to remove any attempt to discern AOC's motives.
Anyway,
You seem impatient.
I am not.
I am just fine for less drama more policy. I think we will get it from the Democrats. Good luck with your candidate.
Last edited:
You said you hadn't heard any of the "talk". It was absolutely there...whether you call it "gossip" or not, that's an intellectually dishonest dismissal. Would a strong VP have had any of that "gossip/talk"? No, which was my point that you claimed you hadn't "heard".
Sure, you can find a lot of "pro-Harris" stuff. Why wouldn't you? But, literally everything I linked was definitively from Dem-friendly sources.
1. There are plenty of easy ways to avoid paywalls.
2. Everything I quoted was from the portions you could read.
What is it w/ you & shonuff trying to "post-shame" me because I chose to spend a portion of my night posting here? Again, engaging in ad hominem attacks are a reflection of a lack of substance to actually debate the subject-at-hand.
I am on crutches due to a sports injury. I have way more time on my hands tonight than I normally do, sitting in my recliner. Have I ever "gone after" somebody because they "post too much"? If I wasn't hitting close to home, I wonder if you guys would be "calling me out"? This is a useless line of "attack" on the points I've made.
My 'good deal of typing' is probably because I regularly type a lot at my job & am able to post my thoughts both quickly & coherently in a fast manner. This isn't new for me...I've made plenty of long posts. Why "go after" me tonight?
No, both were/are a former POTUS. Harris isn't. There's a difference...
You said you hadn't "heard" any of the talk. I quickly found a couple of examples. I then quickly found a few more. Your point seemed to have been that there wasn't any "real" talk. I think it's laughable to ignore that there was real concern about Harris & there was real (even if it didn't stand a chance of happening) desire to remove her from the ticket, to improve Biden's chance at beating Trump.
Let's not get into a pedantic debate about the articles. Again...their existence proves that this was a legitimate concern for some & there was "enough" talk to solicit articles from Dem-friendly media.
Why am I impatient? I simply think she's not doing her potential electorate any justice. Her best bet is to remain undefined, because the more she's exposed, the worse she becomes. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of pretending that her lack of exposure was somehow "good" for anything other than getting her elected. More information/exposure is always good for people that want to make smart choices...unless that information/exposure makes a candidate look worse.
I get it...it's "anybody but Trump" for many. But, be careful what you wish for, I guess.
You said "Trump allows it" & isn't a strong candidate. I think we're potentially splitting hairs on the use of the word "blame". It's a choice the Harris campaign has made. I'm not convinced that the same choices would be made if, for example, Obama was magically allowed to be the candidate again.
That's a lot of words for saying what both sides have claimed for several election cycles that "this is the most important election, ever!" I guess I don't really pay attention to that, but is it any different than the Left saying that "Democracy is on the Ballot" or that if Trump wins, he'll "end Democracy", etc. We must listen to different sources, as that's not a theme I've been exposed to on any significant level.
I generally immune from breathless, ridiculous framing...from either side.
I'm not sure how you got all that out of my relatively short response to you. Right or wrong, people voted for Trump during the primary process. Why? Known commodity? Something else?
I think you're projecting a lot of things I never said or implied.
This entire thread has generally been about Harris & her lack of exposure to any real vetting. That's it. I'm not really interested in how Biden or Trump got the nomination.
There was never any "real" talk from Biden or his administration or within his administration that he would consider not running with Kamala Harris, or kicking her to the curb and choosing a new running mate.
The articles you shared indicate that you were referring to "talk" of removing the ticket, or that should Biden not run she was not guaranteed anything (fair! but not what happened), which was part of the push for primaries, which certainly I do remember, and which most people dismissed even at the time as gossip/pressure politics, because it was quite clear that Biden intended to run.
Most if not all in the party have a high degree of respect for her, as you now see.
My original point was that if she was as strong a candidate as she's now being projected as...none of this "talk" would have ever occurred. She's weak. Pretending like this was a nothing burger is self-delusion. She literally had/has the lowest VP approval rating ever. Biden was trailing. There was (as I provided) talk about ways to strengthen the ticket, which obviously included getting rid of her. Would they have? Clearly not. But, that's not nor was it ever my point.
Now, she's simply the perfect candidate? Come on, man.
Are you saying that no gossip would ever be promulgated against a "strong" candidate by people of the same party?
Politicians tend to be ambitious.
I don't know this to be true and neither do you.
If you want to presume that she will be the same candidate she was four years ago, that's your prerogative.
I am willing to wait and see, and so far I have been impressed (and not particularly surprised TBH, though I do remember 2020).
I am not sure there's such a thing as a "perfect candidate."
She's met the moment thus far, and that is often to good enough for a candidate to win, cf. Trump in 2016.
That's not blaming Trump. Trump is who he is and always will be. They knew who he was when they ran him again. I'm saying the weak candidate from the other side allows the Democrats to be closing polls, flipping states, etc. without having to speak to the press. If Haley were nominated, they'd likely be in such bad shape they would be trying to get any air time they could. Why should a team throw the football if they can win running it? Think you are thinking too hard on this one. The choice they have made and continue to make is because it is working at the moment. That would be smart.
I have friends on both sides. I would say closer to the same number than most on here as I've lived outside of the South for the majority of my life now. Have lived in cities. Have worked with people involved in compassionate ministries in the inner city. Have worked on staff where almost half of my coworkers were gay. Many of them are totally liberal. I can honestly say until Trump I've never heard one that felt like the US as we know it could come to an end if a Republican were elected. I've also never heard them say once their candidate was elected that "God has given us one last chance" or act like we just dodge total destruction. I just can't say the same about the other side. Trump is different, and while I am an independent, I totally agree on that one candidate. But I've never heard them say that about W, HW, Dole, McCain, Romney. Didn't happen.
I'm just saying right now Harris doesn't have to be vetted and doesn't have to speak. She may need to and probably will at some point. If we're talking about vetting her personal life, that should already have been done in the last campaign. Vetting is usually done by the opposition by the way. Kind of like what we're seeing with Walz and going after his military service. Not really a smart move when the Republican no. 1 on the ticket got a doctor to say he had bone spurs and didn't serve.
Personally, most of this thing about Harris and her not speaking reeks of worry. Not saying for you, but most of what I see on TV and from Trump's Trump Twitter Social. Most wanting to hear what she has to say today have no intention of voting for her and would not be swayed by her at all. It's just that they think she may slip up and say something that will sound stupid. Like attacking the popular Democratic Governor Shapiro, or saying she has bigger crowds than MLK or saying Vance's kids should delclare themselves as white or Asian. Something like that.
I'm sure you've noticed how the goalposts have moved on this subject.
No talk about replacing her
Well, no "real talk"
No BIDEN talk
Pretending Harris wasn't extremely unpopular is just denying reality.
Ok. I’ve never said he can’t run the country right now. I’ve said he can’t run the country and campaign at the same time and he sure as hell can’t be effective for another four and a half years. Now about those crazy Trump posts today…
Trump finished his presidency with the second worst approval rating ever, second only to Nixon. Shit changes I guess or approval ratings only matter when they help make an argument. Her current approval ratings compare well to Trumps, so here we are.
Regarding the current Harris strategy, I think it was Sun Tzu who said “never distract your opponent when they insist on repeatedly stepping on their own genitalia ”. Or something like that.
Trump’s posts today are concerning, are they not? He’s obsessed with crowd size and suggesting that Harris is pulling NO crowds and it’s all AI is beyond delusional. Or do we get to hear excuses for why it’s not insane and sad and he should get the Trump being Trump free pass as always.
And I’m not sure where this idea comes from that we have zero idea of what Harris’s policy positions are. I believe everything I’m listing below is accurate.
- Expanding access to affordable housing.
- Increasing the minimum wage.
- Paid family leave.
- Tax credits for working families.
- Insuring that the super-wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.
- Gun reform, including an assault weapons ban, universal background check and red-flag laws.
- Expanding healthcare access under the ACA.
- Investing in green infrastructure.
- Strengthening voting rights.
- Criminal justice reform.
- Lowering prescription drug costs.
- Pushing for more consumer protections.
- Re-Establishing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.
- Push for tribal self-determination.
- Go after price gouging.
- Stop landlords from charging unfair rents.
- Getting a ceasefire deal done in Gaza.
You can hate it, that’s your right, but it’s not like we are totally blind at this point regarding what we are getting from Harris.
She also has the advantage of not being a seventy eight year old who seems to be going through a deeply troubling existential crises.
The key word there is "wasn't". The other thing is she was linked to Biden and wasn't really well known by a lot of people.
I don't really understand what the problem is here. She's being killed on Fox, NewsMax, OAN, Epoch Times, The Federalist Papers, Gateway Pundit, Ben Shapiro's pod, etc. etc. etc. Surely the word is getting out how bad she is.
This wasn't a one-off article. There were clearly concerns about her. Again, everything I linked was from left of center publications.
If this is as commonplace as you imply, feel free to provide even two similar articles about any other sitting VP during a reelection campaign, from supposedly "friendly" sources.
Pence? Biden? Cheney? Gore? Provide one, even.
Well, all evidence points to her not being strong. Can you provide a shred of evidence she somehow became stronger while VP? Her approval rating was a steady ride down to the worst ever.
All I can do is presume since she's not provided any evidence to the contrary. Stump speeches from a teleprompter ain't it.
Impressed with what, exactly?
How? What has she done? Read speeches?
That's a pretty low bar for leader of the free world.
Is this the right place to point out that we are a representative republic and not a democracy? I know those on the right love to point that out when it supports their argument.
I've only brought up Harris, as VP, since she's not a former POTUS. VPs (like back up QBs) tend to not have low numbers. Yet, she consistently (i.e. not using cherry picked polls) performed below Biden.
Yet, here we are 😞
I've already said I think it's smart. But, that's not a compliment.
Did you not see the non-Trump tweets on this issue? This isn't a Trump generated topic. He simply referenced the discussion. Whatever, not an important deal.
Not my point, nor had it ever been. But, she's not articulating any of that. Her campaign is free from any details. Again...a normal candidate would have already discussed and debated and had legitimate discussions on all of that at this point in the campaign.
Instead... not even a gushing, friendly sit down on The View. She should be able to articulate (not read a speech) her vision as POTUS.
I get it... some would argue its not necessary. From what I've seen of her, she struggles mightily when communicating as evidenced by her time as VP.
Her own former staff (of which there are plenty) claim she has no interest in background prep. It's why she struggles and often rambles incoherently.
Ok.
You're ignoring the links to left-leaning publications I provided previously. This isn't a "vast right wing conspiracy", no matter how much sarcasm you employ.
I'm not disagreeing with you. She was polling as unfavorable as second on the ticket. I didn't say she was not.
My point is that her favorability has gone up and it doesn't make sense since those reputable sources of information are killing her now.
Women couldn't vote when the primary process started, either. I'm not sure what your point is here.
The primary process, like we do today, started in the fifties. Women could vote.
We scontinually seem to miss our marks here. Even in the DMs I don't think you understand what I'm saying and I likely don't understand yours either. I'm calling it a day. Go Dawgs.
You have effectively fact-checked me a number of times and you tend to be precise in what you post, but this one is a total fail.
Trump did not do his usual “people are saying and I don't know but people are saying” approach to spreading BS. He stated as fact that there was no one at a scene with thousands of people who were documented in photos and video. Read the post again. It’s unhinged that he is so obsessed with crowds at all and super
unhinged that his insecurities have resulted in him directly spreading wild, unfounded and easily disproven conspiracy theories.
He also contends that the crowds we are seeing at her other events aren’t real either. Really?
My bigger concern is that he’s so broken that he actually believes what he is saying.
And of course, he’s also laying the groundwork for similar election denial efforts as we got in 2020 with the accusations.
Last edited:
Who did the maintenance worker turn her in to? His supervisor?
Update: Now there is evidence of Trump bribing the maintenance worker.
Last edited:
Nothing.
If poll data influences people who were not polled then those people are stupid and deserve what they get.
The first ptesedential primary was in 1912 in North Dakota. But, I still don't understand your point.
The initial discussion I saw was a tweet of a crowd that had no reflection. Some claimed it was CGI. I have no idea, I made a joke about it and even provided the tweets discussing it, none of which were by Trump.
So, Trump then references it....ok. As silly as it is for Trump to care (did he post more than once about it?) It's even sillier to care that he did and imply some deeper meaning or insight about it.
What more has been said? I've seen references, but no links. If there is more, I haven't seen it.
It's "silly" when Trump does it (and he does this kind of thing almost daily). If Biden had done it, it would be "he is losing his mind", and I would agree.
Have "friends" on FB now that are totally convinced it's true only because Trump posted it.
Heck, probably some on here do. I think someone said on here the other day that people were being paid to show up at Dem rallies.
It's the closest thing I have ever seen to a cult in politics in my lifetime.
Saw the "my pillow guy" at some right-wing rally in Vegas last night.
They all had their hands up in the air just saying "Trump" over and over like they were in a trance.
Almost like one of those old tent revivals from years past.......beyond out-there.
Yeah, the Democrats would NEVER have such goings on, in their party.
Believing the home team?
False messaging about opponents?
Hero worship that makes no sense?
Nah only Republicans.
