- 143
- Arkansas
Mind you, these are often people that profess to be Christian."I won't be around in 200 years so why do I care?"
Mind you, these are often people that profess to be Christian."I won't be around in 200 years so why do I care?"
Here's the 60 min.Meanwhile as Trump continues to ditch interviews like 60 Minutes because he doesn't like to be fact checked, Kamala Harris will appear on The Howard Stern Show tomorrow.
Watch and Listen to Kamala Harris’ Full Interview with Howard Stern
The current Vice President and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee will appear on ‘The Howard Stern Show.’www.siriusxm.com
What time does Jimmy Kimmel broadcast tonight?
Here's the 60 min.
@DukeI have no idea what part of the democrat platform you're complaining about.
Immigration? There was a bi-partisan border deal that Trump sabotaged. Kamala herself has prosecuted transnational gangs operating across the US-Mexico border.
Taxes? Capital gains taxes are not at a healthy place today compared to regular income tax
Deficit? You're joking right?
Crime? This also has to be a joke.
Renewable energy? Are people still complaining about this?
Inflation? Worldwide inflation occurred following the pandemic. At the time, it was let companies fail and evictions proceed at breakneck pace and destroy the recovery, or try to keep it afloat with monetary policy. The world pretty much answered in a united fashion, and whether or not you agree with how they responded, there was no path that didn't include a downside. The pandemic baked that in.
Where's the complaint?
I have no idea why those same people would prefer tarrifs, isolationist trade policies, anti-immigration policies. Even if you limit it to that, and ignore all of the horrible anti-democratic, anti-human rights stuff, and just look at economic policy, the GOP is very decidedly non-libertarian. Moreso than the democrat proposals.
I'm lost on why this makes sense to anyone. Help me out.
I agree. I'd love to not be in a position where we constantly seem to be on the brink. But that's where we are. Giving up and falling off is just irresponsible.
Immigration isn't directly a significant issue with me. I've said for decades that we need to streamline the immigration process. The Trump Cult swears that the Democrats allow noncitizen voting, but everyone with a brain knows that's bull. I do not believe voting fraud is a serious problem at the national level. I am, however, in favor of requiring ID to vote, which currently 15 states do not.I have no idea what part of the democrat platform you're complaining about.
Immigration? There was a bi-partisan border deal that Trump sabotaged. Kamala herself has prosecuted transnational gangs operating across the US-Mexico border.
Harris and the Democrats are (or at least recently were) proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains. That's utter crap in its deepest form. I recognize that they intend it to apply only to people with net assets > $100M. DO NOT CARE. They are literally defining a hypothetical amount,taxing you on it, and then repeating that year after year. It what possible world is that just? They're considering it a "prepayment" of future capital gains. As if that makes it better. And what happens if the yearly tax on unrealized gains adds up to more than the actual gain? Ooooooh, you get a credit towards future taxes. Great - so you have the privilege of giving the government a large, interest-free loan for potentially decades instead of a single year. Suuuuuuper fair.Taxes? Capital gains taxes are not at a healthy place today compared to regular income tax
What do you think I'm joking about? Neither candidate has any interest in reducing the deficit. Other than a few Cultists who somehow think Trump is planning to "pay back the debt" by selling oil or something, no one on the campaign trail is talking about it at all. All they're talking about is new or different ways to spend too much money. The Republicans are still coasting on the conventional historic wisdom that they are the party of reduced government spending - which, like most conventional wisdom, is of course dead wrong, and has been for decades. But the Democrats aren't even bothering to pretend that they won't throw borrowed and printed money at everything under the sun.Deficit? You're joking right?
Crime is not a real issue for me. I don't believe it's up much (if at all), despite the Republican hysteria. It would be nice to end the war on drugs at the national level, however, which Harris sort of seems to be proposing, maybe.Crime? This also has to be a joke.
Shouldn't be subsidized. Period. NOTHING should be subsidized. But if you MUST subsidize something, how about subsidizing something with real, robust energy density, like building modern, high-efficiency nuclear plants?Renewable energy? Are people still complaining about this?
Yes, inflation. The pandemic guaranteed there would be unavoidable economic problems, agreed. No one expected to come out of that unscathed. Yes, Trump started the spending. But even when it became clear that inflation was unavoidable, the Biden administration just kept pumping fuel on the fire. Too much, too fast, too long, all while denying that it was happening. You and I have disagreed about the stimulus packages before, and we still do. They overwhelmed already stressed supply chains, they guaranteed that we got pennies on the dollar in infrastructure value, and they radically raised costs for everyone. not just government projects. In late 2019 I was getting ready to gut renovate both bathrooms in my house, which would have cost about $50,000 at that time. Then the pandemic hit and that cost jumped to - not kidding here - $140,000, which is about what I paid for my whole house in 1992. So it didn't happen until 2023, and even then if cost $80,000 - that's 62.5% inflation in 4 years. It put lots of small contractors out of business, because no one could afford to do small projects, and they weren't big enough to grab a slice of that government pie.Inflation? Worldwide inflation occurred following the pandemic. At the time, it was let companies fail and evictions proceed at breakneck pace and destroy the recovery, or try to keep it afloat with monetary policy. The world pretty much answered in a united fashion, and whether or not you agree with how they responded, there was no path that didn't include a downside. The pandemic baked that in.
Just told you.Where's the complaint?
The non-Cultist people I know are convinced that tariffs will protect and strengthen US businesses. You and I both know they won't, but that is the belief, and that's why they are willing to vote Trump despite his flaws. They also believe at least some of the Republican machine's hype about both crime and illegal immigrants. These of course range from "based on some truth" to "completely insane total lies". Most of the undecided / centrists I know do not make it anywhere near the upper end of that scale, but they also tend to dismiss that crap as being fringe, rather than distressingly commonly believed.I have no idea why those same people would prefer tarrifs, isolationist trade policies, anti-immigration policies. Even if you limit it to that, and ignore all of the horrible anti-democratic, anti-human rights stuff, and just look at economic policy, the GOP is very decidedly non-libertarian. Moreso than the democrat proposals.
I'm lost on why this makes sense to anyone. Help me out.
You are likely patriotic.
Do you think America should go against the axis of authoritarian states?
Did he also send leaves (leafs?) to make his table even longer?
I don't use my ID in Colorado. I did get asked to show my ID in California. Guess which one is safer from a voter fraud perspective? It's Colorado. And it's not close.Immigration isn't directly a significant issue with me. I've said for decades that we need to streamline the immigration process. The Trump Cult swears that the Democrats allow noncitizen voting, but everyone with a brain knows that's bull. I do not believe voting fraud is a serious problem at the national level. I am, however, in favor of requiring ID to vote, which currently 15 states do not.
The evidence is that Harris already backed a tougher border bill and has publicly said she would sign that if it were on her desk. It had support in congress based on the current congressional makeup. There's your evidence that she's not going for both. The Biden/Harris admin has been a lot tougher on immigration than most on that side would like actually. And they have signaled that they will continue to be.But you can have either a welfare state or relatively open borders, NOT BOTH. I don't see much evidence that Harris won't try for both. Of the two, I'd much prefer reasonably open borders and a streamlined immigration process, but you need to couple that with substantially reduced public entitlements, in both volume and duration of benefits.
Well she's not running on unrealized capital gains. She's running on raising the capital gains rate - and that is actually fair. In terms of people not paying their fair share, Amazon paid $0 in income tax in 2018. Is that their fair share? What do you think their fair share would be.Harris and the Democrats are (or at least recently were) proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains. That's utter crap in its deepest form. I recognize that they intend it to apply only to people with net assets > $100M. DO NOT CARE. They are literally defining a hypothetical amount,taxing you on it, and then repeating that year after year. It what possible world is that just? They're considering it a "prepayment" of future capital gains. As if that makes it better. And what happens if the yearly tax on unrealized gains adds up to more than the actual gain? Ooooooh, you get a credit towards future taxes. Great - so you have the privilege of giving the government a large, interest-free loan for potentially decades instead of a single year. Suuuuuuper fair.
From the official Democratic Party platform: "President Biden’splans will cut taxes for middle-class and low-income Americans – and we’ll finance those cuts by making the ultra-wealthy and big corporations finally start paying their fair share."
Actually she's just talking about changing the percentages.This is an old saw that liberals just love to bring out an polish up every election year. The top 10% pays 75% of the income taxes... but somehow that's still not "their fair share." The Democratic platform on taxes boils down to "Eat The Rich", an idea as old as time, but neither fair nor good. But nobody is talking about simplifying and balancing the tax code; they're only talking about making it more complicated.
The joke is that this is a reason to vote for Trump, who by all accounts would raise the deficit faster (and has a track record of that).What do you think I'm joking about? Neither candidate has any interest in reducing the deficit. Other than a few Cultists who somehow think Trump is planning to "pay back the debt" by selling oil or something, no one on the campaign trail is talking about it at all. All they're talking about is new or different ways to spend too much money. The Republicans are still coasting on the conventional historic wisdom that they are the party of reduced government spending - which, like most conventional wisdom, is of course dead wrong, and has been for decades. But the Democrats aren't even bothering to pretend that they won't throw borrowed and printed money at everything under the sun.
Well I don't agree with you. I'm not sure why you have placed this at such a high position in your own ranking of criticality, but I would invite you to question it.Second only to Trump and the Cult's direct threat to democracy itself, government deficit spending is historically the largest crisis the US is facing. And no one with any political influence cares at all. In fact, they are actively involved in making the problem worse, for their own short-term political gain.
Not sure why you like nuclear so much. Solar is better than nuclear in basically every way. I know that you cannot power solar literally everywhere and at all times of day. But there are many technologies that leverage solar to generate power when the sun is not shining, including simple things like pumping water up hill and lifting heavy stuff.Shouldn't be subsidized. Period. NOTHING should be subsidized. But if you MUST subsidize something, how about subsidizing something with real, robust energy density, like building modern, high-efficiency nuclear plants?
You have no real evidence that it was partially avoidable. You just suspect that it was partially avoidable. Inflation was not 62% in 4 years. The cost of something went up 62% in 4 years, sure. That's not inflation, not in the macroeconomic sense, not in the government monetary policy sense.Yes, inflation. The pandemic guaranteed there would be unavoidable economic problems, agreed. No one expected to come out of that unscathed. Yes, Trump started the spending. But even when it became clear that inflation was unavoidable, the Biden administration just kept pumping fuel on the fire. Too much, too fast, too long, all while denying that it was happening. You and I have disagreed about the stimulus packages before, and we still do. They overwhelmed already stressed supply chains, they guaranteed that we got pennies on the dollar in infrastructure value, and they radically raised costs for everyone. not just government projects. In late 2019 I was getting ready to gut renovate both bathrooms in my house, which would have cost about $50,000 at that time. Then the pandemic hit and that cost jumped to - not kidding here - $140,000, which is about what I paid for my whole house in 1992. So it didn't happen until 2023, and even then if cost $80,000 - that's 62.5% inflation in 4 years. It put lots of small contractors out of business, because no one could afford to do small projects, and they weren't big enough to grab a slice of that government pie.
So yes, inflation is an issue. It was unavoidable - but it did NOT have to be as bad as the Democrats made it.
None of that is a basis for voting for pure insanity. Saving a few bucks is not a rational basis for voting for the gay windmill electric boat shark rapist.Just told you.
Get them to watch V for Vendetta or something. The fear mongering over crime is a method of control.The non-Cultist people I know are convinced that tariffs will protect and strengthen US businesses. You and I both know they won't, but that is the belief, and that's why they are willing to vote Trump despite his flaws. They also believe at least some of the Republican machine's hype about both crime and illegal immigrants. These of course range from "based on some truth" to "completely insane total lies". Most of the undecided / centrists I know do not make it anywhere near the upper end of that scale, but they also tend to dismiss that crap as being fringe, rather than distressingly commonly believed.
In other words, price controls. Bad idea.The Democratic Platform:
Lowering costs is Democrats’ number one economic priority. We’re using every tool to bring prices down on health insurance and prescription drugs, including negotiating the price of commonly used drugs for diabetes and heart failure; and on housing, child care, internet, banking, credit cards, and more.
In other words, price controls, and continuing to total ignore that it was federal spending and monetary policy that created much of that inflation to begin with. And most of those jobs left the US because of federal policies, none of which the Democrats are even slightly interested in addressing.President Biden’s lowering costs agenda is historic in scope, attacking the issue from every angle to help cut costs for consumers, crack down on price gouging, and get companies to use their record profits to reduce prices long-term. It’s also investing in making things in America again to boost supply, push down prices, and bring jobs home.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right.Health care should be a right in America, not a privilege.
Conspicuous in their absence: Denunciation of Israel's brutal attacks on Gaza, any reduction in aid to Israel in response to those attacks, any denunciation of the Israeli expansionism that causes Palestinian violence in the first place, and any commitment to making a two-state solution that would guarantee a Palestinian homeland protected from Israeli pressure.President Biden and Vice President Harris believe a strong, secure, and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States. Their commitment to Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge, its right to defend itself, and the 2016 Memorandum of
Understanding is ironclad. President Biden and Vice President Harris recognize the worth of every innocent life, whether Israeli or Palestinian. President Biden and Vice President Harris have unequivocally denounced Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel on October 7, condemned the gruesome violence [...] demonstrated by Hamas and made clear that the United States wants to see Hamas defeated.
No right to trial then.Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right.
The anti-price gouging thing is pretty vague. I haven't heard a specific idea on that, but I agree with you that price controls would be a bad one.@Danoff
A few other items from the Democratic platform you failed to mention, that I take substantial exception to:
In other words, price controls. Bad idea.
Well no, I don't really agree with any of this. Jobs leave the US because you can run a sweatshop in Malaysia or wherever is the current sweatshop country. And monetary policy creating inflation following the pandemic was a strategy that is hard to criticize.In other words, price controls, and continuing to total ignore that it was federal spending and monetary policy that created much of that inflation to begin with. And most of those jobs left the US because of federal policies, none of which the Democrats are even slightly interested in addressing.
I agree that healthcare is not a right. This is a philosophical position. However, we have socialized medicine for seniors and prisoners. I think it actually makes sense to have SOME kind of social program for everyone (obviously it cannot be limited to this). Because the current system is broken beyond belief, and has been for a very long time. We need to make a change, and that change should not be letting people clog the ER.Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right.
Israel sucks. Palestine sucks. I hate that one of them is our ally. I agree that we have to play ball harder. But this is not a reason to vote for Trump, who wants to fund Israel to shoot brown people.Conspicuous in their absence: Denunciation of Israel's brutal attacks on Gaza, any reduction in aid to Israel in response to those attacks, any denunciation of the Israeli expansionism that causes Palestinian violence in the first place, and any commitment to making a two-state solution that would guarantee a Palestinian homeland protected from Israeli pressure.
I'm discussing entitlements, not civic duties.No right to trial then.
Well no, I don't think that's a fair characterization. "This isn't that bad" might be an opinion, but it can at least be an opinion that is measured against economies of the past. It has some basis in fact. Your opinion that "we could have done better" is very difficult to substantiate. It looks like hindsight criticism to me. We came out of the pandemic WAY better than many of the predictions at the time. You think we could have done even better, but you have a lot of work to make that case.@Danoff
You have claimed multiple times here that you strongly approve of the Biden administration's pandemic response. You're basing that opinion on... what? That you're reasonably happy with your current economic state? So am I. But others are not. You're dismissing any criticism by saying "we can't go back and try again, and this isn't that bad, so by definition, this is the best that could have been done."
You have no direct evidence either; you're just using your opinion that it isn't that bad to counter my opinion that it could have been better.
I wouldn't say it's "out of hand". I'm giving you reasons.I'm not voting for Trump. Never did, never would. But you asked how anyone sane could even remotely consider it, then you're dismissing any explanation out of hand.
I understand that view, but I think it is oversimplified. I've told you why I think that is but we can discuss it at length in whatever thread is appropriate. For this thread, it's not a reason to vote trump over Harris, because Trump by all accounts would make that from somewhat worse to way worse.I make excessive federal spending and the crushing national debt my long-term primary issue because they are millstones around the necks of the economy and the people. Those millstones get heavier with every hour and they have been for decades, whether a Republican or a Democrat was in office.
Compared to what? Making it worse compared to...Now, in the short term, Trump and the Cult are a greater threat, so I'm voting Democrat this time - my first vote ever for a major party national candidate, in 40 years of voting. But I am doing so at the cost of making the long-term economic situation worse, or at least failing to make it better.
I didn't say we could have achieved the best possible course. What I said was that you are saying we did achieve the best possible course, because it was not a disaster.I don't think it's realistic to say that we could have achieved the best possible course given what we knew at the time. We did the best we could based on the information and people we had.
But what if you don't give Trump's excesses enough weight to think that he's insane? That's part of what you're dismissing out of hand.That's somewhat tautological. Biden could not have done any better - because he's Biden. Neither could the fed, because they're the fed. But would I rather have had the insane man? Absolutely not.
And you're dismissing my reasons out of hand.I wouldn't say it's "out of hand". I'm giving you reasons.
I never said Harris wouldn't do anything about illegal immigration. What I said was that I believe Harris will try to simultaneously increase legal immigration and entitlement / assistance programs. My belief is based on reading the adopted Democratic Party platform, ratified at the 2024 DNC convention. I do not think this is a sustainable or even viable proposition.Like... if you think that there is no evidence that Harris would do anything to prevent illegal immigration. I gave you some.
Again, not what I said. What I said was that we shouldn't be subsidizing anything.That's not "out of hand", that's just giving you what you asked for. If one of your reasons is that we should be investing in nuclear instead of solar (which I don't understand), saying that Donald prefers coal is not "out of hand" it's a real reason why that position should not lead one to vote for Donald "I love coal" Trump.
Not by all accounts. Understand: I agree with you that Trump's policies will be no better, and probably worse. That wasn't the question. The question was how anyone sane could vote for Trump, and here you're defining your interpretation of economic policy as the only sane one, so anyone who doesn't share that interpretation is by definition insane.I understand that view, but I think it is oversimplified. I've told you why I think that is but we can discuss it at length in whatever thread is appropriate. For this thread, it's not a reason to vote trump over Harris, because Trump by all accounts would make that from somewhat worse to way worse.
...what we could have if we reigned in general spending, passed balanced budget legislation, simplified and rebalanced the tax code, stopped sending so much money overseas, reduced bureaucracy, quit social engineering via subsidy and tax breaks, reduced lobbying power, etc, etc, etc...Compared to what? Making it worse compared to...
Well then I miscommunicated somehow. I think we did the best we could with the people and information we had. But I also said that was tautological. We get the best we could get out of Biden and the fed based on the information that biden and the fed had. I do not think it was the best possible course we could have taken if given more information or better people, etc. I would not characterize the pandemic response as perfection, that would be a very difficult position to hold.I didn't say we could have achieved the best possible course. What I said was that you are saying we did achieve the best possible course, because it was not a disaster.
I'm not following you.And you're dismissing my reasons out of hand.
So compared to something that wasn't on the table. Something that wasn't viable. So why bring this up? This is the case every time you vote for no matter who you vote for. You're voting for someone who will do something that isn't what you consider to be the absolute best possible thing. I'm not understanding why it's worthwhile to use this as a measuring stick or a knock against a candidate when it is simply not available....what we could have if we reigned in general spending, passed balanced budget legislation, simplified and rebalanced the tax code, stopped sending so much money overseas, reduced bureaucracy, quit social engineering via subsidy and tax breaks, reduced lobbying power, etc, etc, etc...
But what if you don't give Trump's excesses enough weight to think that he's insane? That's part of what you're dismissing out of hand.
You think he's insane. I think he's insane. But even leaving the Cultists out of it, a lot of people who don't particularly like him don't think he's insane. So they are not voting for an insane man. They're voting for someone they don't like because they think Republican economic policies are better than Democratic ones. They perceive Democratic economic policies as actively socialist, and they're not entirely wrong.
You mean from a libertarian perspective or my personal perspective? From a libertarian perspective, I don't think it makes much sense to discuss a non-existent option. From a personal perspective, the differences between the candidates have historically set what it means to be "actually good" for me. And that may have been wrong-headed.You're still mistaking "better on" for "actually good."
Whereas I think it does make sense to discuss it. Because it can represent an ideal, not just a reaction to an existing political landscape. If you only discuss the current path of least resistance (or best avoidance of chaos, at this point), you're not striving for anything positive. You're just trying to slow the inevitable descent and minimize the pain.You mean from a libertarian perspective or my personal perspective? From a libertarian perspective, I don't think it makes much sense to discuss a non-existent option.
I won't argue with how you got there. For me, it is not so much about my personal growth as it is about how the bottom has dropped out of the American political system.So I consider Kamala Harris "actually good". Not because I agree with her on every last bit of economic policy or immigration or healthcare. It's because I've grown since 2008 and learned that character and belief in "we the people" is just about the only thing that actually matters.
No, it's just over if that happens.
The people electing the amoeba aren't listening to anything but the amoeba.
He did. Though it's also impossible to prove there was no fraud involved. Additionally, all the (true) dirt on the Biden family was suppressed as misinformation, and the promoted Russian disinformation pushed as true (later proven false), gave Biden victory by a razor's edge, it's not much of a leap to say the media (social and otherwise) were complicit in election interference.@WolfpackS2k Since other conservatives seem to avoid answering this question, I'll ask it to you. Did Trump lose the 2020 election?
No, it's not.The country is excited to vote for Trump
I say personal growth in part because I wonder if Bob Barr is something I can't stand behind anymore for exactly that reason.I won't argue with how you got there. For me, it is not so much about my personal growth as it is about how the bottom has dropped out of the American political system.
Glad you enjoyed your insurrection. I wonder, when you see an American flag does it remind you that Trump tried to kill congress and the vice president? Or do you only remember that when you're touching yourself to the memory of Trump doing an ad for canned beans in the oval office?First term of Trump's was way better than the trash Biden's administration has given us.
Though it's also impossible to prove there was no fraud involved.
1,561 proven instances of voter fraud since 1982
Sorry, they're allowed to do that. From your candidate's orange, puckered up pie hole.it's not much of a leap to say the media (social and otherwise) were complicit in election interference.
Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up?