USA Kamala Harris Concedes. God Help America

[Bloods86]

The pharmaceutical industry pays for 80% of the ads that are posted on channels like CNN, MSNBC etc. The United States is only one of two countries in the entire world where pharmaceutical companies can directly advertise to consumers (the other is New Zealand). Why do you think they are deathly afraid of someone like RFK getting on the Trump administration?

This doesn't really have anything to do with my point. Big pharma will be fine under Trump, and I'm less concerned with their profits and ability to advertise, than RFK Jr damaging the good that medications and vaccines can do, among other practices and regulations.

That's the fear they use to control people who might otherwise consider themselves moderate in most positions - this idea that they have to go along with extremist ideology that is designed to destroy the social fabric of the country that they live in.

I explained in my first post why wages stagnated in the United States since 1979, and how it wasn't anything to do with corporate greed but was actually the actions of a socialist country in China that has bought and paid for a number of politicians in Washington. But it doesn't fit your anti-capitalist narrative so you'll just ignore it.

I'm not anti-capitalist. I'm a social democrat in terms of political philosophy, without the aim of progressing beyond that, though I prefer nationalising more fundamental infrastructure and services (than what the US does currently, and to a lesser extent than what Australia does).

I reject your personal opinion that the Democrats are in favour of extremist ideology, that they will destroy the social fabric etc. This is a common Republican talking point, designed to stoke fear and distrust. Interesting that you can't hide this opinion even when trying to paint Democrats as the ones playing the fear and division game.

Again, you're literally talking about a party that changed their primary process to make sure that RFK couldn't get on the ticket, and then once Biden was confirmed as the presumptive nominee, turfed him out in favour of Harris because they thought they had a better chance of winning without giving their constituents any sort of chance to nominate their preferred candidate.

And you're talking about maintaining democracy?

As for Liz Cheney, this is the same person who deleted all the records of the January 6 investigation and was turfed out of her seat by her constituents - the people she is supposed to represent the will of - by a 38 point margin. She supported Harris because unlike Nikki Haley (another war hawk), Cheney had already burnt her bridges with Trump, because she had seen what happened on January 6th as her shot at taking back control of the party from the populist movement. It was the only path left for her, and we will never hear of the Cheney family again after such a grave political miscalculation.

Primary processes are not inherently democratic. This will be the umpteenth time I've had to explain this. Do I wish they were more democratic on both sides, yes. But they are not democratic, on both sides. Republicans cancelled some of their state primaries in 2020 to simply anoint Trump, and he didn't even bother engaging in debate the last 2 times (similar to Biden in 2023/4). Should there be a rule in both parties to force an open convention if the leading candidate drops out/withdraws after it's effectively over, rather than following party rules about the allocation/unbinding of delegates, yes there probably should.

Biden withdrew after the disastrous debate. There was no grand scheme to lock RFK Jr out (at least for this reason), then parachute Harris in when it was too late. The Democrats, or at least the establishment, were going to run Biden until they realised, as did he, that it was untenable. Biden should have stepped aside much earlier to encourage other candidates to join the primary election process, or with still enough time for Harris to not just simply be seen as the logical option.

I have no doubt there are personal factors in play with the Cheney's, which is why I brought it up. Whatever the ratio of motives, at least Liz Cheney stood up for democracy over Jan 6th (and Trump's actions prior to this date which are even more egregiously authoritarian). And yes, presidential elections are supposed to be inherently democratic (though there are still plenty of flaws). To use party primaries as a comparison is a weak argument.

Only because Biden wound back the regulations he had put on fracking etc after it became clear that he had to tap into the national reserves for oil to keep costs down. It's also because the US is currently supplying LNG to Europe to replace the gas that Russia isn't supplying.

Sounds like a lot of words for "yes, you're right".

Accounting for inflation, the American economy was $1.5 trillion better off in 2019 under Trump before COVID hit than Biden's economy in 2024. That's because Biden had to create more than $7 trillion in debt to get his 'great economy', which is more than Obama spent in his entire eight years.

Ah yes, debt is a problem when the less conservative politicians do it.

I don't necessarily ascribe fault to Trump for the blowout in federal debt due to Covid, just as I wouldn't to increases under Biden in order to recover from that mess, and invest in future growth. Trump certainly didn't pare down debt, and his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations haven't helped either.

Most of these jobs are government jobs.

This is just an outright lie.

 

[Cyber_punk]

 

[Bloods86]

I wouldn’t base my entire campaign on being trendy.

Depends what’s “celebs” as well. Of course both parties used them but Trumps weren’t pop stars.

This is not what the Democrats did.

Trump absolutely used musicians, rappers etc they just aren't anywhere near as popular. He absolutely used the "trendy" world of podcasts for his benefit.

I don't think these kinds of endorsements move the needle much at all, though Swift would have gained Harris some votes, Rogan would have gained Trump some votes.

 

[Royces Hart]

I love the argument that the Dems screwed themselves by getting celebrity endorsements and Trump was a genius by not going down that path.

If Beyoncé or Swift endorsed Trump and offered to appear at one of his rallies, I’m sure he would have said “no thank you, you are the elites who I’m trying to disassociate from, as I’m all about appealing to the working class.”

He would have creamed his diaper if he received endorsements like that, his whole life has been about trying to get acceptance inside that circle. Instead, he relied on the few celebrities that would endorse him, of lesser recognition they may be but celebrities all the same.

And he had Elon ****ing Musk and Dana White inside his camp, these people are god like figures to a decent percentage of Trump fans.

It could be argued that Trump voters are more easily swayed by these endorsements, considering the election result.

 

[Bloods86]

I love the argument that the Dems screwed themselves by getting celebrity endorsements and Trump was a genius by not going down that path.

If Beyoncé or Swift endorsed Trump and offered to appear at one of his rallies, I’m sure he would have said “no thank you, you are the elites who I’m trying to disassociate from, as I’m all about appealing to the working class.”

He would have creamed his diaper if he received endorsements like that, his whole life has been about trying to get acceptance inside that circle. Instead, he relied on the few celebrities that would endorse him, of lesser recognition they may be but celebrities all the same.

And he had Elon ****ing Musk and Dana White inside his camp, these people are god like figures to a decent percentage of Trump fans.

It could be argued that Trump voters are more easily swayed by these endorsements, considering the election result.

It's a dumb argument. Both sides love and court celebrity endorsements. Both will give them spots at rallies and conventions if they want them.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

How out of touch can you be

Plus 100s of 1,000s of swifties.
Ahahahah
Just a God awful campaign. manager whoever it was.
That person advising the Democrats should spend the rest of thier life on the dole in the unabombers old bush shack.
Just pitiful

 

[ElectricG]

How out of touch can you be

I for one agree with many criticisms of publicly fraternising with celebrities to try and get votes. This is pretty lame tho. I've never heard of the performer and they weren't doing anything overly sexual to warrant a "look at this degeneracy" reaction.

Some of these posts give me the impression of desperately trying to justify the Trump vote they were always going to make.

I'd rather a president who surrounds themselves with vapid entertainers than creepy internet weirdos.

 

[Blue1980]

I for one agree with many criticisms of publicly fraternising with celebrities to try and get votes. This is pretty lame tho. I've never heard of the performer and they weren't doing anything overly sexual to warrant a "look at this degeneracy" reaction.

Some of these posts give me the impression of desperately trying to justify the Trump vote they were always going to make.

I'd rather a president who surrounds themselves with vapid entertainers than creepy internet weirdos.

That’s exactly what it is, when the people who decided this election wouldn’t have factored any of that stuff in as a positive or a negative.

 

[Stokey]

Being a Brit you would be fully aware that the FTSE 100 is down from Tuesday, so it appears that the Brit money markets are not that impressed with donny's policy's

The FTSE isn't down due to 'donnys policies'. What an dumb take.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The FTSE isn't down due to 'donnys policies'. What an dumb take.

Why's it down to then, if not donny. being re-elected?
You brits were told that if donny rumpy was re-elected the FTSE 100 would rise and it hasn't.

 

[Romeoh1]

I for one agree with many criticisms of publicly fraternising with celebrities to try and get votes. This is pretty lame tho. I've never heard of the performer and they weren't doing anything overly sexual to warrant a "look at this degeneracy" reaction.

Some of these posts give me the impression of desperately trying to justify the Trump vote they were always going to make.

I'd rather a president who surrounds themselves with vapid entertainers than creepy internet weirdos.

Yep- or racist comedians or venomous businessmen - if Beyoncé is a more offensive endorsement than those guys, well- it’s a truly mad country. Ridiculous.

 

[Goroyals22]

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]" data-quote="[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji6][emoji[emoji6]]z" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

I wouldn’t base my entire campaign on being trendy.

Depends what’s “celebs” as well. Of course both parties used them but Trumps weren’t pop stars.

The dems didn’t learn from the last time with every celebrity elite hitching their wagon and it seems it even bankrupted them from appearance fees…
So the so called celebrities didn’t show up because of their convictions, it was because they were paid ….


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The FTSE isn't down due to 'donnys policies'. What an dumb take.

But if/when it goes up, it's all Trump yeah?

 

[Stokey]

But if/when it goes up, it's all Trump yeah?

If you say so.

 

[Aussie in exile]

If you say so.

Stump on that one then Stokey

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Everyone who voted for Trump knew what they're getting. There was no sugar coating like 2016, we have to assume this is what people want which is heartbreaking.

**** ‘em.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Harris was lucky to have the celebs endorse her, otherwise she would have lost by a far larger margin.

 

[Jello_B]

Do you think americans will be happy when prices skyrocket cos they are manufactured in america with much higher wages? Is that the lesson you took from the election result?

There’s a few things to unpack here, and I think it depends on the individual situation.

1) it would be preferable if they were happy that prices increased, if and on the basis that their family friends and communities had more and better rewarded employment by onshoring.
2) outsourcing overseas is ok, if there is money invested in retooling the workforce into different roles.

Going the other way and why many Americans are pissed, is that jobs have been sent overseas; they, their families friends and communities have been left behind; and prices have gone up recently.

Analogous to are people happy to pay a bit more for an environmentally sustainable product compared to one that isn’t.

 

[Todman]

Any truth in the rumour that Kamala raised over $1,000,000,000 and is now $ 20 million in debt?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Any truth in the rumour that Kamala raised over $1,000,000,000 and is now $ 20 million in debt?

Most of the rich are democrats, yet Trump is the one labelled as looking after the rich.
Head scratcher…..lol

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Interesting perspective, arguing the Dems lost because they ignored young men, not (as is fast becoming the official verdict) because their candidate was a woman.

‘A fatal miscalculation’: masculinity researcher Richard Reeves on why Democrats lost young men

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz had an opportunity to win a demographic that swung toward Trump – but they didn’t fight for it, says the author

www.theguardian.com

 

[Stokey]

Stump on that one then Stokey

What uou on about?

 

[Blue1980]

Most of the rich are democrats, yet Trump is the one labelled as looking after the rich.
Head scratcher…..lol

Well who gave them a massive tax cut in his first term? To say that Trump is less for the big billionaires is very disingenuous. I'd prefer billionaires didn't exist, but to pretend that the democrats look after them more is just wrong.

Not every celebrity is some uber wealthy billionaire, aside from Taylor Swift. It isn't like the republican celebrities they trot out are paupers. When it comes to policy, they are demonstratably more in billionaires and the uber wealthy's pocket.

That doesn't make the democrats good in that regard, more less bad.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Well who gave them a massive tax cut in his first term? To say that Trump is less for the big billionaires is very disingenuous. I'd prefer billionaires didn't exist, but to pretend that the democrats look after them more is just wrong.

Not every celebrity is some uber wealthy billionaire, aside from Taylor Swift. It isn't like the republican celebrities they trot out are paupers. When it comes to policy, they are demonstratably more in billionaires and the uber wealthy's pocket.

That doesn't make the democrats good in that regard, more less bad.

Yet every bit as disingenuous to think the Dems don’t look after the rich as priority #1. All politicians do and it is ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Well who gave them a massive tax cut in his first term? To say that Trump is less for the big billionaires is very disingenuous. I'd prefer billionaires didn't exist, but to pretend that the democrats look after them more is just wrong.

Not every celebrity is some uber wealthy billionaire, aside from Taylor Swift. It isn't like the republican celebrities they trot out are paupers. When it comes to policy, they are demonstratably more in billionaires and the uber wealthy's pocket.

That doesn't make the democrats good in that regard, more less bad.

By the way was it the Democrats policy to remove the tax loopholes that allow the wealthy to pay little tax?
Like Labor in Australia it’s cool to shout from the clouds yet they never ever remove the loopholes. Why is that????