730
Trump rejects second Harris debate
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
730 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1825 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Mostly the economy, foreign affairs, and national security.
Let's start with foreign affairs, because from my perspective he isn't too good at getting along with other world leaders (or anyone) unless they praise him. How do you suppose foreign affairs would improve?
I think we'd see an ease in tensions in certain parts of the world, especially in Israel and Palestine. Trump can't end the Israel-Hamas War, but he'd probably push to limit funding to Iran like he did before, limiting their ability to fund Hamas' and Hezbollah's activities. He'd also probably pressure countries to stop sending as many migrants into America.
Well, I think you're definitely correct that he'd crack down on immigration via as many means as are available to him, that seems to be a major talking point for him and was a theme for his first term. His platform pledges "peace in Europe and in the Middle East" but doesn't go into any detail, so I won't speculate on that. I won't argue against your positions, because that's not the point. Thanks for actually outlining some policy positions you agree with him on, it's a better answer than I usually get.
I don't think it's a secret that he's a bit of a loose cannon, though, and I think it's pretty apparent from the debate that he's prone to personal attacks and easily baited into pointless arguments about things that don't matter for the country (though they matter to his ego, evidently). I am of the opinion that, policy aside, his first four years were marked by this tendency to double down against any perceived personal slight, to the detriment of his duties as president. He does not appear to be more in control of his outbursts now. Is that concerning for you?
With transparency, I'm a trans person, and Trump/MAGA have made it clear that they intend to demonize me and people like me. I'm aware of the argument that Trump only wishes to restrict trans healthcare for minors, though he's said that he would work to prevent any agency from promoting "the concept of sex and gender transition at any age." Regardless of whether this policy factually seeks to erase all transgender people, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has created, and continues to create, an environment that is harmful for me and people like me. For that reason if for no other, I cannot vote for him. I consider it self-defense. I hope that you can appreciate that position.
I definitely get that position and understand why trans people would vote against Trump, especially since a lot of people in Trump's cabinet and inner circle support or have worked on Project 2025. I have a trans friend myself who will be voting for Kamala.
I agree with you on Trump's rhetoric as well, I'm almost 100% an issues and policy voter though and try to ignore the rhetoric. If rhetoric factored into my decision I probably wouldn't be voting for him, I pretty much loathe how Trump has carried himself on Truth Social for most of the campaign. I don't think that that'll affect how he runs the country though, as he was saying similarly vindictive things when running in 2016 like talking about putting Hillary Clinton in jail or opening up the libel laws to go after MSM outlets that lied about him and none of that ever happened.
I agree that his bark is worse than his bite; whether that's because reality doesn't agree with his rhetoric, or because the power to unilaterally imprison an opponent is outside the scope of presidential powers, or because he was only bloviating and never meant any of it.
I have always said that my main concern isn't Trump himself. I don't think he's evil incarnate or a would-be dictator, largely because I personally don't think he's smart enough to be a supervillain. My main concern is that rhetoric like that whips up reactionary anger; it certainly motivates voters, which is almost certainly why he continues to do it (an angry mob is a force), but it's also worsened an already deep political divide and created a situation where conservatives and liberals (I'm neither, for the record, I'm pretty far to the left of both) don't even really see or hear each other anymore, they only see the masks that have been placed there by their own conditioning.
Feel free to respond again if you wish, I'm happy to let you have the last word since you were so kind as to engage civilly. I've enjoyed the interaction; thank you..
You want to go back to not knowing where your next roll of toilet paper is coming from? Because that's where we ended up under Trump.
What's trump got to do with toilet paper? I don't like the fucker, but I live halfway across the world and we had the exact same issue here, people bought up all the toilet paper readily available in stores.
If that's what I wanted I'd be advocating for expanding the NIH and giving it more money.
Why do you want a worse economy, for the US to become a pariah state, and for all our state secrets to be sold to personally enrich Trump? I mean, all the things you mentioned are reasons to vote against Trump, not for him!
I don't really see how he would be better on national security, given that most, if not all, of our national security agencies regard Trump as a threat. He frequently gives out secrets to foreign powers (whether this is accidental or purposeful is debatable), has a distinct disregard for the military, (including doing nothing about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers, instituting a trans ban in the military against the advice of the military, calling captured soldiers losers, etc.), and he also tried to overturn an election he consistently called fraudulent in spite of no evidence found to support that conclusion and loads of evidence to conclude that the election was fair through a number of methods (fake slates of electors, organizing a mod and several senators and representatives to delay certification of the election, getting Pence to not certify).
If you meant border security, then why did he help kill a bill that would have fixed many of the things he's complaining about?
What most Republicans took issue with the bill was that it actually somewhat ties the president's hands and limits how long the border can be shut down:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602
Don't Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?
Yeah that's fair, and I do think the bill would have been a step in the right direction. I don't like absolutist advocacy, I see this in the pro life movement also. If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill even though I'm a Republican.