EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4321
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
farvacola
United States18822 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7288 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On August 03 2024 19:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Signs are pointing that way, though I don't think there's been an official announcement yet. He's the best chance of beating Trump, as he locks in PA, even if I don't personally agree with him on everything he's done or all his political positions. Remember, the goal is to win the election. Locking PA sounds like a very good plan. The state is absolutely crucial, and she is currently behind. The election game has stupid rules and incentives, but if you want to win, you have to play the game as it is. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On August 04 2024 02:40 Slydie wrote: Locking PA sounds like a very good plan. The state is absolutely crucial, and she is currently behind. The election game has stupid rules and incentives, but if you want to win, you have to play the game as it is. Agreed. I've also heard that he's a reasonably strong speaker, although I haven't really watched many of his speeches. Being an energetic, effective orator who doesn't make many gaffs would be nice. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17959 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On August 04 2024 05:16 Acrofales wrote: The Guardian had a piece today on Tim Waltz. He seems like a guy who could help win the rust belt. He's also old and white. I know he'll be on the campaign tour anyway, but wouldn't that also be someone who can win Pennsylvania but is more useful in Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin as well? If he's as popular as they make him sound, he might even make Ohio seem competitive if Vance is as unpopular in his home state as he's making himself nationally. Maybe! Harris definitely has a few solid choices who can all positively affect her chances of securing swing states. Looking forward to learning about the pros and cons of whoever is ultimately chosen over the next few days. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On August 04 2024 07:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Maybe! Harris definitely has a few solid choices who can all positively affect her chances of securing swing states. Looking forward to learning about the pros and cons of whoever is ultimately chosen over the next few days. It's funny you should ask, as I have this handy link that just came up, serving as a good sum up of who each of the possibilities are, and what their pros and cons are. To me, I found it to be useful to get some idea on the lesser-known candidates, but it still seems like Kelly and Shapiro are the clear top choices, being broadly appealing options that help secure an important swing state. The cons against them are real, and I think the biggest problem comes from the fact that I think Shapiro's cons, for me at least, are bigger, but he also basically seals up Pennsylvania after winning in a landslide, and that's the most important swing state at the moment. It's hard for me to armchair say who I think is actually the best choice. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On August 04 2024 08:59 NewSunshine wrote: It's funny you should ask, as I have this handy link that just came up, serving as a good sum up of who each of the possibilities are, and what their pros and cons are. To me, I found it to be useful to get some idea on the lesser-known candidates, but it still seems like Kelly and Shapiro are the clear top choices, being broadly appealing options that help secure an important swing state. The cons against them are real, and I think the biggest problem comes from the fact that I think Shapiro's cons, for me at least, are bigger, but he also basically seals up Pennsylvania after winning in a landslide, and that's the most important swing state at the moment. It's hard for me to armchair say who I think is actually the best choice. Thanks for that link! Very useful  | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany903 Posts
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5127086/donald-trump-congratulates-putin-prisoner-swap-vp-harris-low-iq Calls Kamala Harris a "even more left wing than crazy Bernie low IQ individual" I mean.. this guy has the style, grace and interlect of a 5 year old playground bully. | ||
KwarK
United States42497 Posts
Trump subsequently attempted to renege on his deal, sued, and lost. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
"Former President Donald Trump said Saturday he would not debate Vice President Kamala Harris at all if she did not agree to attend a new Fox News debate next month ... Trump’s declaration comes after the former president on Friday night backed out of a planned September 10 debate hosted by ABC News. Trump committed to that event in May, after he and President Joe Biden agreed to move up the debate calendar and exchanged barbs about being willing to debate each other any time, any place." https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/03/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-debate/index.html | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
Trump wanted the debates because he wanted to get Joe Biden out in public and speaking without a teleprompter. We saw why at the first debate. Trump didn't even have to say anything to really win that debate, the entire goal was to just get Joe talking and let Joe sink himself. It worked too. There's no way to get anything like that out of Harris. Even if he could beat her in a debate (which I doubt) there's no chance she absolutely embarasses herself the way Biden did. And then there's the fact that even when Biden had that terrible of a debate performance last time, the polls hardly moved. If he couldn't get the polls to move much with Biden's last performance, there's zero chance debating Harris will do anything positive for him. I don't blame him for ducking this last debate. It seems cowardly and it is, but it's also the smart thing for his campaign to do. If Harris had been the candidate from the start he probably would have never agreed to the debates in the first place. There's nothing to be gained for him from them. On the other hand, having an official presidential debate makes Kamala Harris look a lot more legitimate as a presidential candidate than she would without them. That's the absolutely last thing that the Trump campaign wants, especially if they're going to keep attacking her as an illegitimate candidate. The last thing they want to do is validate her by giving her a formal debate. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On August 05 2024 00:50 Vindicare605 wrote: I don't blame him for ducking this last debate. It seems cowardly and it is, but it's also the smart thing for his campaign to do. If Harris had been the candidate from the start he probably would have never agreed to the debates in the first place. There's nothing to be gained for him from them. Do you not think the American people generally deserve chances to see what the candidates' policy positions are, straight from their own mouths (without someone else writing the teleprompter speech so to speak)? While I do think the debate process in recent years hardly even counts as being true "debates," letting a candidate off easy here because the debate would go badly for them (e.g., they have no good answers to legitimate questions about what the U.S. should do on major issues) is giving them undue cover to hide their own weaknesses as a candidate from undecided voters (granted there may not be many at this point). Shouldn't there be a price (in image) to be paid for bowing out of the debates because they will go poorly for a given candidate? Biden went even though it clearly would have been more strategic for his own candidacy to skip. I'm not saying you're wrong that it may be strategically preferable for him to bow out, but your eplicity statement that you don't blame him is what rubbed me the wrong way. It's like saying "I don't blame the candidate for not releasing his tax returns (which he's technically not required to do) because it would probably show he skirted lots of tax laws." Of course I blame him for hiding his weaknesses as a candidate, even if I agree strategically he's more likely to get elected if he doesn't release those tax returns. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44158 Posts
On August 05 2024 00:50 Vindicare605 wrote: I don't think it has anything to do with being afraid of Harris or not although that's definitely a catchy headline. Trump wanted the debates because he wanted to get Joe Biden out in public and speaking without a teleprompter. We saw why at the first debate. Trump didn't even have to say anything to really win that debate, the entire goal was to just get Joe talking and let Joe sink himself. It worked too. There's no way to get anything like that out of Harris. Even if he could beat her in a debate (which I doubt) there's no chance she absolutely embarasses herself the way Biden did. And then there's the fact that even when Biden had that terrible of a debate performance last time, the polls hardly moved. If he couldn't get the polls to move much with Biden's last performance, there's zero chance debating Harris will do anything positive for him. I don't blame him for ducking this last debate. It seems cowardly and it is, but it's also the smart thing for his campaign to do. If Harris had been the candidate from the start he probably would have never agreed to the debates in the first place. There's nothing to be gained for him from them. On the other hand, having an official presidential debate makes Kamala Harris look a lot more legitimate as a presidential candidate than she would without them. That's the absolutely last thing that the Trump campaign wants, especially if they're going to keep attacking her as an illegitimate candidate. The last thing they want to do is validate her by giving her a formal debate. That's fair, although it's a bad look for him to hide behind Fox News. Trump may as well insist that JD Vance moderate a debate between Trump and Harris lol. Like, he can't have it both ways: either he avoids debating Harris entirely or he agrees to a neutral moderator. It's even worse, optically, to run away from the debate and also admit that he needs Fox News "moderating" for him to get on stage with Harris. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On August 05 2024 01:00 micronesia wrote: Do you not think the American people generally deserve chances to see what the candidates' policy positions are, straight from their own mouths (without someone else writing the teleprompter speech so to speak)? . Of course they do, but since when have Presidential elections been about what the American people deserve? I think we deserve to have a proper primary process to decide who gets to replace Biden, who shouldnt have been running in the first place. But we're not going to get that. Also since when has Donald Trump been about anything except advancing his own interests? He only agreed to debate Joe Biden because it helped him. He didn't do it because it was what the American people deserved, that's just the soundbyte you use to pressure the opponent to take your challenge. I'm agreeing with the logic of the Trump campaign that ducking these debates is the best thing for them to do. I'm definitely not saying I like that Trump is doing it. I want Trump to debate Harris 10x so that he makes himself look worse and worse in each one but that's obviously not something he's ever going to agree to do. The fact is, he made the agreement to have 2 debates when Joe Biden was his opponent. He agreed to debate him because it was beneficial for him politically. That's the only reason he did. Now that Biden isn't his opponent, there's no benefit for him to have the second one, and if you wanted to LEGALLY challenge that, there isn't a court in the United States that would force him onto that podium with her. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21621 Posts
This election will be decided by turnout and I doubt Republicans will stay home because Trump is a coward, all they will hear in the Fox bubble is how Harris is refusing to debate Trump on Fox. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On August 05 2024 01:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's fair, although it's a bad look for him to hide behind Fox News. I agree with you, but anyone that thinks like us wasn't going to vote for him anyway. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On August 05 2024 01:19 Gorsameth wrote: Trump has nothing to gain by having another debate, and I question if he has anything to lose either. With how little the polls moved after the first debate, nor the assassination attempt you can question if there are any actual swing voters left. This election will be decided by turnout and I doubt Republicans will stay home because Trump is a coward, all they will hear in the Fox bubble is how Harris is refusing to debate Trump on Fox. Most politicians would love a debate if they have any faith in what they stand for. Trump is no politician, but still! Not showing up is a sign of weakness, and it is used against him a lot already. I don't think it is a given that he has more to lose than to gain from a debate, but after seeing Biden pull out after seeming old, I can understand it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23136 Posts
On August 05 2024 02:18 Slydie wrote: Most politicians would love a debate if they have any faith in what they stand for. Trump is no politician, but still! Not showing up is a sign of weakness, and it is used against him a lot already. I don't think it is a given that he has more to lose than to gain from a debate, but after seeing Biden pull out after seeming old, I can understand it. Worth remembering the plan for Democrats was not to have debates (like they didn't for their pseudo-primary) and Biden only called for Trump to have them out of desperation. It makes sense for Democrats to rip on Trump if he doesn't debate, it's just insincere as shit and anyone even considering voting for Trump recognizes that. The only way Trump takes a hit for skipping debating Harris, is if she agrees to do it on Fox (maybe paired with a commitment for an MSNBC debate or something), and he bails out of the Fox debate he's proposing. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42497 Posts
On August 05 2024 01:00 micronesia wrote: Do you not think the American people generally deserve chances to see what the candidates' policy positions are, straight from their own mouths (without someone else writing the teleprompter speech so to speak)? While I do think the debate process in recent years hardly even counts as being true "debates," letting a candidate off easy here because the debate would go badly for them (e.g., they have no good answers to legitimate questions about what the U.S. should do on major issues) is giving them undue cover to hide their own weaknesses as a candidate from undecided voters (granted there may not be many at this point). Shouldn't there be a price (in image) to be paid for bowing out of the debates because they will go poorly for a given candidate? Biden went even though it clearly would have been more strategic for his own candidacy to skip. I'm not saying you're wrong that it may be strategically preferable for him to bow out, but your eplicity statement that you don't blame him is what rubbed me the wrong way. It's like saying "I don't blame the candidate for not releasing his tax returns (which he's technically not required to do) because it would probably show he skirted lots of tax laws." Of course I blame him for hiding his weaknesses as a candidate, even if I agree strategically he's more likely to get elected if he doesn't release those tax returns. Debating in the way American politicians do it is a circus. It doesn’t provide meaningful insight into their policy positions. | ||
| ||
