What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

I suppose if I were being generous I could interpret Trumps tariff proposals as an attempt to hurt China at a cost to ourselves, so a goal of sorts. Could be reasonable in a wartime situation (eg we ate some higher energy prices to hurt Russia in their war against Ukraine), but I don't see any reason to do that with China currently (and it would hurt us much more than the Russian situation).

I'm perfectly happy being friendly with China and most countries around the globe, politicians too often turn to other countries to blame instead of looking at any of our own failings (other countries too obviously, not a unique US problem).
 
Eminence said:
I suppose if I were being generous I could interpret Trumps tariff proposals as an attempt to hurt China at a cost to ourselves, so a goal of sorts. Could be reasonable in a wartime situation (eg we ate some higher energy prices to hurt Russia in their war against Ukraine), but I don't see any reason to do that with China currently (and it would hurt us much more than the Russian situation).

I'm perfectly happy being friendly with China and most countries around the globe, politicians too often turn to other countries to blame instead of looking at any of our own failings (other countries too obviously, not a unique US problem).
Click to expand...
Interpret?

Why must we always interpret Trump? Why can’t we just take things at face value? I other politician gets this kind of treatment. He doesn’t understand economics, thinks he can pay for his domestic spending via tariffs, and doesn’t understand that his tariffs will cause our economy to have higher inflation (tariffs are inflationary) and retract. These are facts. Yet, Trump receives special treatment from people like you, why? What has he done in the last several decades to earn this level of trust? Benefit of the doubt? Because he starred on some crappy reality tv show?
 
The Thriller said:
Interpret?

Why must we always interpret Trump? Why can’t we just take things at face value? I other politician gets this kind of treatment.
Click to expand...

You're jumping at bogeymen and being a bit prickly. Relax man.

We don't always have to nor do we, I did so here and now because I found it helpful to understand where someone else might be coming from (more with a goal of understanding his voters than Donald himself).
 
Its funny how trump lays out his very basic, lacking context plan for the country and economy as: Less taxes for everyone, no overtime tax (this would be awesome for me personally as I get 8 hours of overtime literally every other week but would be bad for the deficit), no tax for tips, deport a huge portion of the workers in the country, stop more workers from entering the country, impose massive tariffs on everything.... Then someone says to him something like: Experts in the field say that many of those things will make the deficit explode and also make inflation worse. trump basically responds with: Those experts are idiots. I know more about everything than anyone. No details of how these plans of his wont increase inflation or explode the deficit. No specifics. Just, I smart. Everyone else dumb.
 
Eminence said:
You're jumping at bogeymen and being a bit prickly. Relax man.

We don't always have to nor do we, I did so here and now because I found it helpful to understand where someone else might be coming from (more with a goal of understanding his voters than Donald himself).
Click to expand...
Huh? None of us are unknowns. Trump is the most known politician of all time and it’s no secret what most of us think of him on this website. If you needed this conversation to know that I don’t like Trump and believe (as all notable economists believe) his economic policy to be idiotic, then you’re dumber than I thought. You probably don’t recognize it, but this exchange says a lot more about you than anything else.

As I’ve said many times before:
1. Dumber than rocks
2. ****** people
 
The Thriller said:
Huh? None of us are unknowns. Trump is the most known politician of all time and it’s no secret what most of us think of him on this website. If you needed this conversation to know that I don’t like Trump and believe (as all notable economists believe) his economic policy to be idiotic, then you’re dumber than I thought. You probably don’t recognize it, but this exchange says a lot more about you than anything else.

As I’ve said many times before:
1. Dumber than rocks
2. ****** people
Click to expand...
Dude. Nothing he/she posted was toxic or insulting or unreasonable etc.

You became quite a dick to him/her quite quickly and should probably apologize.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Dude. Nothing he/she posted was toxic or insulting or unreasonable etc.

You became quite a dick to him/her quite quickly and should probably apologize.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I identify as a dude (he/him).

Thriller, I am well aware you don't like Donald.

I (perhaps wrongly) assumed my views were also well enough known - but anywho, as a communist married to a trans man (indicators of a few primary reasons I might not like Don), I'm also not Donald's biggest fan.

I even agree with the basic description of Donalds supporters currently as either ignorant or self centered. But I don't believe we can get the country/world to being all it can be with your current level of animosity or by trying to leave that big a percentage of the population behind. We need to reach these people and convince them to change their ways, and I tend for a gentler approach than you do. I only hope one of the approaches works, I'm happy enough if it's yours, but I'll stick with mine.
 
fishonjazz said:
trump basically responds with: Those experts are idiots. I know more about everything than anyone. No details of how these plans of his wont increase inflation or explode the deficit. No specifics. Just, I smart. Everyone else dumb.
Click to expand...
Quick interviews with a plan to cover a wide range of topics aren't a format that allows a deep dive into details. Even if Trump could give a detailed explanation on how those policies would work, and I don't think he could, that doesn't mean the details aren't available. The reason making tips free from taxes won't explode the deficit is because those paying tips contribute almost nothing to the federal budget. The bottom 50% of income earners make up only 2.3% of tax revenues. Generally speaking, those paying tips and those making overtime aren't the top 1%. They are the working men and women. A tax cut to overtime and tips would make a big difference to those in the bottom 50% of income earners while having almost no impact at all on the amount of tax revenue coming in to the federal coffers.

As for tariffs, use Trump's first term as an example of how they'd work. Most of the time they never become reality. He only uses them as a threat to get better terms in a deal. In the instances where he does impose them, everyone sees the wisdom in it as exemplified by his tariffs on Chinese electric cars which the Biden administration kept in place.
 
Red said:
Kamala was great. She’s basically through with Fox News BS….






I do think the cultural climate described in the article I posted above(comment #2647) would point to a big Harris victory. But a close win by Harris might be overturned by team Trump, as Neal Katyal described yesterday. I think we are going to need a solid victory by Trump, since Trump will without any doubt whatsoever, try to steal this election if he loses. I’m not even sure Trump has a cutoff point for electoral college votes where he would decide “not worth trying”. I doubt there is such a cutoff number. He’ll challenge a Harris landslide. But, as Katyal describes, a close loss by Trump could, and likely will, lead to a constitutional crisis.

www.msnbc.com

Neal Katyal: We are looking at a very possible constitutional crisis in November

MSNBC Legal analyst Neal Katyal discusses his latest NYT column 'In Case of an Election Crisis, This Is What You Need to Know'.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
Click to expand...


In the most important moment of the interview she handled the "enemy within" question great. Total BS of FOX showing The Rapist trying to shift the conversation but Kamala brought it back to his threat and included the Join Chief of Staff categorizing Trump as a threat to America. Not sure she could have handled that better.
 
Eminence said:
I identify as a dude (he/him).

Thriller, I am well aware you don't like Donald.

I (perhaps wrongly) assumed my views were also well enough known - but anywho, as a communist married to a trans man (indicators of a few primary reasons I might not like Don), I'm also not Donald's biggest fan.

I even agree with the basic description of Donalds supporters currently as either ignorant or self centered. But I don't believe we can get the country/world to being all it can be with your current level of animosity or by trying to leave that big a percentage of the population behind. We need to reach these people and convince them to change their ways, and I tend for a gentler approach than you do. I only hope one of the approaches works, I'm happy enough if it's yours, but I'll stick with mine.
Click to expand...
No, I was in the wrong. I lost my cool and unnecessarily lashed out at you. I made assumptions that weren’t warranted. I apologize.
 
Bucknutz said:
No comment about his Candidates atrocious basic interview; the questions were not even hard and she couldn’t answer them without “Trump”.

But Thriller has to do whataboutism immediately, but he doesn’t know that Trump does interviews with people on the left.
Click to expand...
To me, the most interesting thing about the Bret Baier - Kamala Harris interview wasn't in the questions asked or answers given. It was in the stage managing. Kamala clearly only has limited number of memorized talking points, and if you are already a Kamala supporter, the answers are fine. Kamala showed up 30 minutes late and informed Fox News the interview had to be cut short, which forced Bret to trim the number of questions thereby cutting the chances Bret would ask her something out of left field she was unprepared to answer.

That weird room they are in with a hard back wall reflected sound which allowed you to hear the people standing behind the camera. When Bret would ask a pointed question and Kamala would start to get angry, you could hear the rustling of her handlers, and finally at the end they put a stop to the interview. The people who know Kamala best, her campaign staff, knows there isn't anything behind the false front and they worked hard to keep that hidden. Part of me believes the Fox crew knew exactly what they were doing when they set the venue up that way.

Now contrast that with Trump in the Bloomberg interview, the NABJ interview, or any of his hostile interviews. There were no handlers seeking to contain Trump, no limits set by Trump on the amount of time, and no limits on questions. Trump walks out and Trump handles it how he sees fit. Some may detest the substance and other revere the substance, but everyone can see there is substance there. That is clearly not the case with Kamala.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
To me, the most interesting thing about the Bret Baier - Kamala Harris interview wasn't in the questions asked or answers given. It was in the stage managing. Kamala clearly only has limited number of memorized talking points, and if you are already a Kamala supporter, the answers are fine. Kamala showed up 30 minutes late and informed Fox News the interview had to be cut short, which forced Bret to trim the number of questions thereby cutting the chances Bret would ask her something out of left field she was unprepared to answer.

That weird room they are in with a hard back wall reflected sound which allowed you to hear the people standing behind the camera. When Bret would ask a pointed question and Kamala would start to get angry, you could hear the rustling of her handlers, and finally at the end they put a stop to the interview. The people who know Kamala best, her campaign staff, knows there isn't anything behind the false front and they worked hard to keep that hidden. Part of me believes the Fox crew knew exactly what they were doing when they set the venue up that way.

Now contrast that with Trump in the Bloomberg interview, the NABJ interview, or any of his hostile interviews. There were no handlers seeking to contain Trump, no limits set by Trump on the amount of time, and no limits on questions. Trump walks out and Trump handles it how he sees fit. Some may detest the substance and other revere the substance, but everyone can see there is substance there. That is clearly not the case with Kamala.
Click to expand...

No limits to Trump's idiocy too. Substance and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. Are you on drugs?
 
It was funny reading so much praise all over for Kamala's interview. And then come here and see the usual suspects rushing to inform us just how terrible it was. The damage control order came down fast on that one.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
It was funny reading so much praise all over for Kamala's interview.
Click to expand...
You do realize that isn't a comment on how good or bad Kamala's interview was, right? The coverage on the internet runs the full range. If you only took in one point of view everywhere you looked, that speaks to being in a silo. At least JF can provide some balance to your info diet, so that is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top