Policies

[SHUSA]

wondering the thoughts on people who have actually looked at the policies of each candidate. Both are deficient in this category but it does seem Harris at least gives us more meat on the bone with her 83 page policy deep dive

https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Policy-Book-Economic-Opportunity.pdf

compared to trump aka "stop doing all the bad things and do all the good things" accordion web page that has very official language like "best economy in history" and "drain the swamp"

Issues | Donald J. Trump For President 2024

Certified Website of Donald J. Trump For President 2024. America's comeback starts right now. Join our movement to Make America Great Again!

www.donaldjtrump.com

 

[HALL85]

lol…you don’t really care what anyone thinks.

 

[SHUSA]

lol…you don’t really care what anyone thinks.

some people here i do, others i know what they think

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

When you're comparing what the candidates have posted on their website you know the candidate you want to win is in trouble. Pretty sure that means they've done a terrible job telling the people what they're for.

 

[SPK145]

I managed to get through page 1 of Chapter 1 before the sheer stupidity hit me right in the face.

Under "Lower Costs for Middle-Class Families", are these:

Restoring the Expanded Child Tax Credit to Up to $3,600 to Help More Than 100 Million Americans
A New $6,000 Tax Cut to Help Families Pay for the High Costs of a Child’s First Year of Life
These don't lower costs. They put more money in the hands of the chosen ones. If anything, that would most likely increase costs.

That's no different than saying tariffs would decrease costs for people.

I couldn't read any further.

 

[Robot_Man]

I managed to get through page 1 of Chapter 1 before the sheer stupidity hit me right in the face.

Under "Lower Costs for Middle-Class Families", are these:

Restoring the Expanded Child Tax Credit to Up to $3,600 to Help More Than 100 Million Americans
A New $6,000 Tax Cut to Help Families Pay for the High Costs of a Child’s First Year of Life
These don't lower costs. They put more money in the hands of the chosen ones. If anything, that would most likely increase costs.

That's no different than saying tariffs would decrease costs for people.

I couldn't read any further.

Are "the chosen ones" 1) people who files taxes, and 2) have children?

 

[Robot_Man]

That Trump issues page is an abomination, but the "Free, Honest and Lawful Elections" one made me laugh out loud.

People like to get on the Harris campaign for being scant on policy specifics (not disagreeing with this), but it's not like the Trump people are doing any better here.



Q: "How are you going to end the war in Ukraine?"

A: "Well, we're going to end the war by not being weak and not being dumb, which is what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are. It's very simple..."

This is like how a fifth grader would respond in an argument.

 

[SHUSA]

That Trump issues page is an abomination, but the "Free, Honest and Lawful Elections" one made me laugh out loud.

People like to get on the Harris campaign for being scant on policy specifics (not disagreeing with this), but it's not like the Trump people are doing any better here.

View embedded media

Q: "How are you going to end the war in Ukraine?"

A: "Well, we're going to end the war by not being weak and not being dumb, which is what Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are. It's very simple..."

This is like how a fifth grader would respond in an argument.

he's cornered the 5th grade education cohorts for years.

 

[SHUSA]

I managed to get through page 1 of Chapter 1 before the sheer stupidity hit me right in the face.

Under "Lower Costs for Middle-Class Families", are these:

Restoring the Expanded Child Tax Credit to Up to $3,600 to Help More Than 100 Million Americans
A New $6,000 Tax Cut to Help Families Pay for the High Costs of a Child’s First Year of Life
These don't lower costs. They put more money in the hands of the chosen ones. If anything, that would most likely increase costs.

That's no different than saying tariffs would decrease costs for people.

I couldn't read any further.

there's meat on this bone. not sure if you stopped reading the other link i said which is embarassing.

you would think $6000 goes to new families not chosen ones no?

 

[SHUSA]

When you're comparing what the candidates have posted on their website you know the candidate you want to win is in trouble. Pretty sure that means they've done a terrible job telling the people what they're for.

no it doesn't. frankly probably the opposite. the one is positioned to find solutions, the other just diarrheaing all over the office.

really interesting though because most people here think she's a bad candidate because she has no ideas. well they're all there. in depth. i doubt anyone will read it god forbid they have to admit it. one already admitted it lol.

 

[SPK145]

Are "the chosen ones" 1) people who files taxes, and 2) have children?

People who vote for democraps.

 

[SPK145]

there's meat on this bone. not sure if you stopped reading the other link i said which is embarassing.

you would think $6000 goes to new families not chosen ones no?

So if you choose not to have children or can’t have children, sorry you’ll have to subsidize those who do or can?

 

[SPK145]

there's meat on this bone. not sure if you stopped reading the other link i said which is embarassing.

you would think $6000 goes to new families not chosen ones no?

I stopped reading as I was afraid I was going to read about the stupidity of thinking there was price gouging.

So nobody has yet to explain how giving people money is going to cut costs.

 

[Merge]

I stopped reading as I was afraid I was going to read about the stupidity of thinking there was price gouging.

Did grocery store profits not surge in 2020 and 2021 well above what a normal margin would have been for the industry?

So nobody has yet to explain how giving people money is going to cut costs.

It doesn't. Your issue is really that the tax credit should have been in section 2.
I'd agree with that.

I get why you as a libertarian would be against it, but a birth year tax credit to help with the related costs during that first year would be a huge help for new families and wouldn't cost that much relative to the current child tax credit. There is also always a fairly strong ROI when the government gives lower to middle class families more money.

I do understand the argument that if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. That's what I did, but it doesn't change the fact that many people do have children who can't afford them and longer term impacts of helping those families will be beneficial to the children and the country overall. Longer term, the birth rate in the US is too low a tax credit would help there as well.

 

[Merge]

no it doesn't. frankly probably the opposite. the one is positioned to find solutions, the other just diarrheaing all over the office.

really interesting though because most people here think she's a bad candidate because she has no ideas. well they're all there. in depth. i doubt anyone will read it god forbid they have to admit it. one already admitted it lol.

Part of running for office and being president is a sales pitch getting people to understand why your polices are good and why the public should support them. Harris is really bad at the sale.

That's why Trump isn't offering any specific policies. He's good at selling a narrative, but he's horrible talking about the details.
Tariffs are a great example there. He still doesn't understand how they work and if his campaign outlined a full policy - he would be completely lost.

 

[SPK145]

Did grocery store profits not surge in 2020 and 2021 well above what a normal margin would have been for the industry?

No, absolutely not, the real measure of this so-called price gouging would be to measure gross profit margin, not net margin. Look at the publicly traded grocery stores, their gross profit margins were essentialy flat, or slightly up or down.

I get why you as a libertarian would be against it, but a birth year tax credit to help with the related costs during that first year would be a huge help for new families and wouldn't cost that much relative to the current child tax credit. There is also always a fairly strong ROI when the government gives lower to middle class families more money.

I do understand the argument that if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. That's what I did, but it doesn't change the fact that many people do have children who can't afford them and longer term impacts of helping those families will be beneficial to the children and the country overall. Longer term, the birth rate in the US is too low a tax credit would help there as well.

It's not government money, it's borrowed taxpayer money.

Childless couples don't struggle to pay their bills? How about personal responibility? You want to have kids, that's great, but everyone else shouldn't have to contribute. It's just populist nonsense instead of trying to solve the underlining issues, if they can be solved, both presidentioal candidates do it.

 

[SHUSA]

Part of running for office and being president is a sales pitch getting people to understand why your polices are good and why the public should support them. Harris is really bad at the sale.

That's why Trump isn't offering any specific policies. He's good at selling a narrative, but he's horrible talking about the details.
Tariffs are a great example there. He still doesn't understand how they work and if his campaign outlined a full policy - he would be completely lost.

i think that 80 page policy booklet is comprehensive enough to be a surprising sale than what i expected out of her. yes the issue is a lot of them are either (a not actual solutions but explaining the problem and b) not in the control of the president. but theres a semblance of work being done to at least address issues. the flipside is trump just yelling stuff on his policy website. its really embarassing for a presidential candidate

 

[SHUSA]

So if you choose not to have children or can’t have children, sorry you’ll have to subsidize those who do or can?

as the people who never live to see old age, yet the boomers will gladly accept sucking everyone dry

families are what's best for the nation right?

 

[SHUSA]

Did grocery store profits not surge in 2020 and 2021 well above what a normal margin would have been for the industry?



It doesn't. Your issue is really that the tax credit should have been in section 2.
I'd agree with that.

I get why you as a libertarian would be against it, but a birth year tax credit to help with the related costs during that first year would be a huge help for new families and wouldn't cost that much relative to the current child tax credit. There is also always a fairly strong ROI when the government gives lower to middle class families more money.

I do understand the argument that if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. That's what I did, but it doesn't change the fact that many people do have children who can't afford them and longer term impacts of helping those families will be beneficial to the children and the country overall. Longer term, the birth rate in the US is too low a tax credit would help there as well.

who ends up paying into social security? you need a new crop of humans for that.

right now nobody can afford to have a child. if not having a child was the result then the birth rates would be insanely low. people (like myself) go from financially stable to walking a fine line once you have a child. more so than before. you need the second income, hostage by daycare price, etc. we still lag woefully behind on standard things like giving a mother a realistic time off after giving birth. just general human stuff .

the problem is, where does the money come from. we can at least discuss these things with kamala. which you cant do for the other candidate

 

[Merge]

No, absolutely not, the real measure of this so-called price gouging would be to measure gross profit margin, not net margin. Look at the publicly traded grocery stores, their gross profit margins were essentialy flat, or slightly up or down.

Most if not all of them show an increase in either 2020 or 2021, higher than the company averages prior to the pandemic and higher than today. Fair to not call that gouging, but taking advantage of an environment with rising prices was certainly a part of it.

It's not government money, it's borrowed taxpayer money.

Of course. It's always taxpayer money.
A program is either worth funding or not.

How about personal responibility? You want to have kids, that's great, but everyone else shouldn't have to contribute.

Your tax rate is not changing if we fund that program or not.
We can help families or not. Again, I can respect the view that you think we shouldn't but I would tend to disagree because it would be money well spent to help with the costs to raise a child. Long term, is a net benefit to the country to help families.
It encourages more babies being born which we need. It gives money to people who will put it right back into the economy. It helps provide a better environment for a child and it helps with one of the biggest reasons why women have abortions.

 

[Merge]

who ends up paying into social security? you need a new crop of humans for that.

right now nobody can afford to have a child. if not having a child was the result then the birth rates would be insanely low. people (like myself) go from financially stable to walking a fine line once you have a child. more so than before. you need the second income, hostage by daycare price, etc. we still lag woefully behind on standard things like giving a mother a realistic time off after giving birth. just general human stuff .

the problem is, where does the money come from. we can at least discuss these things with kamala. which you cant do for the other candidate

What do you mean? Trump answered on child care - Was this not clear?

"Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it — in this country you have to have it."

Now that's a plan.

 

[SHUSA]

What do you mean? Trump answered on child care - Was this not clear?

"Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it — in this country you have to have it."

Now that's a plan.

sorry i didn't read this because kamala already used the word price gouging and i already made up my mind!

 

[SPK145]

Most if not all of them show an increase in either 2020 or 2021, higher than the company averages prior to the pandemic and higher than today. Fair to not call that gouging, but taking advantage of an environment with rising prices was certainly a part of it.

Some showed a slight increase, some showed a slight decrease, nobody showed any surge like you posted above. Price-gouging just did not happen, but it's a good populist silly slogan.

 

[HALL85]

People forget there were a ton of unknowns and major fluctuations during the pandemic. Some companies went under because they just miscalculated…some did better not knowing how consumer habits would change. To suggest that there was a calculated price gouging strategy is just not accurate.

The cost and availability of shipping containers is just one example.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

no it doesn't. frankly probably the opposite. the one is positioned to find solutions, the other just diarrheaing all over the office.

really interesting though because most people here think she's a bad candidate because she has no ideas. well they're all there. in depth. i doubt anyone will read it god forbid they have to admit it. one already admitted it lol.

LMAO. You talk about 5th grade educations. I tell you it means she's not getting her message across to the people. You tell me it means the exact opposite. Merge tells you she's a horrible messenger and you like the post. You're as moronic as the people who only vote for D or R. Disagree with everything I say. Then when your buddy Merge says the same thing you like the post.

You're excited about 83 pages of stuff she didn't work with the president on while in office as VP.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

NBC was showing a poll where did Trumps policies help or hurt your family help won 44%-31%. During the Biden era it was 45%-25%.

No matter what anyone writes a webpage, that's the most important question. How Harris gets people to feel different about that in the next 3 weeks will not be on a webpage. So you can take the webpage and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[SHUSA]

LMAO. You talk about 5th grade educations. I tell you it means she's not getting her message across to the people. You tell me it means the exact opposite. Merge tells you she's a horrible messenger and you like the post. You're as moronic as the people who only vote for D or R. Disagree with everything I say. Then when your buddy Merge says the same thing you like the post.

You're excited about 83 pages of stuff she didn't work with the president on while in office as VP.

i never once said i was excited and thats 5th grade reading level for you...

the message is also getting across to the people as she's leading every current poll.

wish republicans had a real primary instead of bow to a guy who caters to neanderthals. and thats not a troll, i showed you his website.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

i never once said i was excited and thats 5th grade reading level for you...

the message is also getting across to the people as she's leading every current poll.

wish republicans had a real primary instead of bow to a guy who caters to neanderthals. and thats not a troll, i showed you his website.

All that matters is swing state polls. There's been a silent Trump vote in both elections. No reason to believe it won't be there again. He's leading a few and 1 or 2 points behind in the others. She's not doing nearly as good as Biden and the victories in key states was not giganic.

Election 2024 Swing State Polls: Trump-Harris Race Deadlocked On Election Day—All Eyes On Pennsylvania (Final Update)

The race between Trump and Harris is tight in key 2024 swing states, with polls showing a near tie in crucial Pennsylvania. See the latest updates!

www.forbes.com

 

[Merge]

Some showed a slight increase, some showed a slight decrease, nobody showed any surge like you posted above. Price-gouging just did not happen, but it's a good populist silly slogan.

That’s fair. I’ll concede the point. I think you’re right.

 

[Merge]

All that matters is swing state polls. There's been a silent Trump vote in both elections. No reason to believe it won't be there again. He's leading a few and 1 or 2 points behind in the others. She's not doing nearly as good as Biden and the victories in key states was not giganic.

Election 2024 Swing State Polls: Trump-Harris Race Deadlocked On Election Day—All Eyes On Pennsylvania (Final Update)

The race between Trump and Harris is tight in key 2024 swing states, with polls showing a near tie in crucial Pennsylvania. See the latest updates!

www.forbes.com

I’d rather be Trump as of today based on the polls. It’s going to come down to turnout and I think Trumps base is more enthusiastic. If it’s higher turnout, I think Harris gets the edge. I’m not convinced Dems will get the turnout they need though.

 

[HALL85]

I’d rather be Trump as of today based on the polls. It’s going to come down to turnout and I think Trumps base is more enthusiastic. If it’s higher turnout, I think Harris gets the edge. I’m not convinced Dems will get the turnout they need though.

It’s turnout IMO with turnout of some key demographics in swing states:
- Suburban women particularly in PA.
- Hispanic vote shift to Trump…is it real?
- Black male voter turnout…apparently lukewarm on Harris.
- Gen Z…do they come out and make a difference. Axios had a poll last month that Gen Z vote was lining up by gender…male/Trump and female/Harris.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

- Gen Z…do they come out and make a difference. Axios had a poll last month that Gen Z vote was lining up by gender…male/Trump and female/Harris.

Your list is about 72 genders short on this indigenous peoples day.

 

[Robot_Man]

Your list is about 72 genders short on this indigenous peoples day.

🙄

 

[HALL85]

Your list is about 72 genders short on this indigenous peoples day.

And those 70 genders after M and F make up less than 0.1% of the population…they are just louder and have the MSM and Hollywood on their side.

 

[Robot_Man]

And those 70 genders after M and F make up less than 0.1% of the population…they are just louder and have the MSM and Hollywood on their side.

I really don't think it's because they're "louder," I think it's more about the right-wing obsession to demonize trans people. People like Chris Rufo and Matt Walsh have made a career out of this. And how many people do you think have really wanted to be singled out on the libsoftiktok account (another trans panic profiteer)?

This may seem hard to believe, but I think the vast majority of nonbinary people want to simply live their lives in peace.

 

[Merge]

It’s turnout IMO with turnout of some key demographics in swing states:
- Suburban women particularly in PA.
- Hispanic vote shift to Trump…is it real?
- Black male voter turnout…apparently lukewarm on Harris.
- Gen Z…do they come out and make a difference. Axios had a poll last month that Gen Z vote was lining up by gender…male/Trump and female/Harris.

Yep. Just really hard to predict. Trump seems to have made up ground with Hispanics, black men, and young men.

Not the largest demographic groups so Harris can overcome that but she needs to outperform Biden elsewhere to make that up. They need to outperform Biden with women, and getting them to show up is a huge part of that.

 

[Merge]

I really don't think it's because they're "louder," I think it's more about the right-wing obsession to demonize trans people. People like Chris Rufo and Matt Walsh have made a career out of this. And how many people do you think have really wanted to be singled out on the libsoftiktok account (another trans panic profiteer)?

This may seem hard to believe, but I think the vast majority of nonbinary people want to simply live their lives in peace.

Agreed. Social media blows up all of the crazy ones, so when you see a handful of people going overboard, it makes it seem like it’s happening everywhere.

It’s not a huge issue at all. Dems just can’t offend anyone ever so they can’t say where the line should be drawn over what should be acceptable… so republicans know they are winning that issue based on public perception so they blow it up.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Agreed. Social media blows up all of the crazy ones, so when you see a handful of people going overboard, it makes it seem like it’s happening everywhere.

It’s not a huge issue at all. Dems just can’t offend anyone ever so they can’t say where the line should be drawn over what should be acceptable… so republicans know they are winning that issue based on public perception so they blow it up.

It happens on both sides. Social media makes it sound like all conservatives are right wing nut jobs. Abortion is blown up in the same manner. They make you believe if you're against abortion you're against women's rights. 1% of abortions are from rape and 0.5% are from incest. 98.5% are from people doing what they want and not wanting the consequences of their actions. But it get's blown up that if you're against it, women everywhere have no control over their body. Obesity wouldn't be a thing if we could all put whatever we want in our bodies and have no consequences for it.

 

[Merge]

They make you believe if you're against abortion you're against women's rights. 1% of abortions are from rape and 0.5% are from incest.

Indeed, abortions because of rape and incest are very rare. Almost as rare as abortions after 21 weeks of gestational age, speaking of blowing things out of proportion.

98.5% are from people doing what they want and not wanting the consequences of their actions.

I know you don’t share their belief, nor can you get pregnant… but they see the potential consequence of their action is an abortion. The men involved largely share that belief as well.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I know you don’t share their belief, nor can you get pregnant

Is that the science of today, men can't get pregnant? Just confirming as I can't keep up with this issue. But I was once a fetus, not sure how you view your life, but I wouldn't have wanted my mother to end it there for me. Curious if we can get a simple majority of people who wish their mother's ended their life there.

but they see the potential consequence of their action is an abortion. The men involved largely share that belief as well.

That's idiotic as saying the consequences of putting your hand on a hot stove is an ice pack.