a debate open thread

by liberal japonicus

I've heard that there was a debate happening somewhere, so this is a thread for it.

Comments

[wj]

Using "debate" in the loosest possible (or perhaps just utterly incorrect) sense.

The so-called debates during US Presidential elections really need a better label. Truth In Advertising, if nothing else.

When the League of Women Voters ran them, back in the day, there was at least occasionally something resembling a back and forth exchange of views. At this point, about the most that comes out of it are tiny video clips for the campaigns to use.

Occasionally, possibly by accident, those clips reveal something significant. Whether this event provides any remains to be seen. But given Senator Vance's demonstrated ability to put his foot in it in other situations, I doubt anything unexpectedly bad from him.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Joint publicity events"

[Hartmut]

Moderated Stump speech crossover

[Hartmut]

“The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check”

Vance on the single occasion during the VP event where the moderators corrected him.
At this point Walz should have done a Bugs Bunny, lifting a sign with a snappy version of 'See, he just admitted to brazenly lying!'

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"It wasn't FACT checking, it was LIE checking!"

[hairshirthedonist]

Vance had a great night of lying his ass off smoothly and confidently. He even pretended to be more moderate than he or tRump actually is.

Talk of the great economy under tRump drives me bonkers. He inherited a good economy and brags about inflation, interest rates, and gas prices, all of which were low because of COVID. Unemployment and exploding deficits weren't his fault, though. Those were because of COVID, doncha know.

I don't know why so many people think the president has some immediate effect on macroeconomic factors. To the extent they have any influence, it takes time for effects to manifest. I'm tired of ignorance and stupidity.

[wj]

Maybe we should make taking, and passing, a year of economics a high school graduation requirement.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Even college-level macroeconomics doesn't explain how presidents don't control gas prices.

For the same reason that college-level astronomy courses don't explain that planets do not move in their orbits because they're nudged by invisible blue fairies.

[CharlesWT]

Politics 101 trumps Economics 101.

[bobbyp]

Here's some politics 101 for you, Charles. The peanut gallery awaits your take.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/10/the-people-deciding-whether-democracy-continues-to-exist-in-america

[russell]

I'm tired of ignorance and stupidity.

Co-sign.

Sadly, appealing to ignorance and stupidity is effictive. See also, flooding the zone with shit.

[bobbyp]

The movement led by Trump, with or without him, needs to be crushed. It is a direct threat to any concept of democracy as we know it. To little or no avail, lefty type Dems (as opposed to the 100 or so lefty radicals in the NYT's imagination) have been trying to impress this fact on the so-called "moderate" Democrats since like, McGovern's doomed run.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/10/jd-vance-and-the-future-of-the-gop

[bobbyp]

This is what results when public policies that resolutely transfer wealth and income upward are adopted:

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/10/meet-your-texas-christofascists

Money talks. BS walks. If you are opposed to the politics that the corruption of money inevitably leads to.....then stop supporting policies that give a small elite minority ALL THE MONEY.

This is not hard.

[wj]

Even setting aside the corruption and its political consequences, the policies need to be changed. This is obvious, not just to "so-called 'moderate' Democrats", but even to moderately conservative long-time Republicans. It really isn't a left/right thing. It's just about doing what's right.

[GftNC]

Here's some politics 101 for you, Charles.

I've been in and out a lot in the last few days for various reasons, so I may not have caught everything. I certainly remember that Charles thought voting for Trump or Biden was just choosing between two sides of the same coin. I can't imagine why it would have, given the Trump/democracy situation, but still I wonder whether Charles's assessment between Trump and Harris has changed. Is it still that they are just as bad as each other, Charles, and that America will muddle through without any serious damage?

[GftNC]

Further to which, incidentally, is this from today's Grauniad about libertarian ambitions for the future to come with J D Vance:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/03/jd-vance-anti-democracy-movement-leader

[nous]

...and if Grump manages to shamble his way to a narrow electoral win by whatever means he can, I fully expect that Shady is going to 25th Amendment Grump's ass and be the president well before 2028.

All the renegade justices would love to have Mr. Opus Dei on the throne they have erected with their recent decisions. Much more manageable and dependable than the Ketchup Flinger.

[CharlesWT]

I'm not quite as sure as I was that we would muddle through regardless of who wins. We may still muddle through in the short term, but the long term doesn't look great.

For me, it's close to a tossup between Trump and Harris.

Trump seemingly didn't learn anything about economics from his years in business. And Harris seemingly didn't learn anything about economics in her university economics courses. But politicians' concerns for ideology and political advantage often supersede what they may know about economics.

Trump may be more dangerous to the economy. Trump may be able to do on his own things like tariffs on all imports. Whereas Harris may need Congress to do things like a $25,000 downpayment support for first-time home buyers.

In general:
Trump: More dangerous but less effective.

Harris: Less dangerous but more effective.

Either way, we're screwed.

[wj]

Trump seemingly didn't learn anything about economics from his years in business. And Harris seemingly didn't learn anything about economics in her university economics courses.

To the first, Trump is incapable of learning. Which is why his "business career" seems to consist of finding a con, stiffing a bunch of marks, frittering it away due to incompetence, rinse and repeat.

To the second, have you considered that, just perhaps, Harris learned economics just fine? That it merely didn't happen to be the simplistic libertarian gloss on the subject that you favor? Just a thought.

Look on the bright side. If Trump wins, Vance will find a way to push him aside sooner rather than later. Then we'll be on an express course towards your libertarian utopia. At which point, you are correct, we're screwed.

[CharlesWT]

To the second, have you considered that, just perhaps, Harris learned economics just fine?

Doesn't seem like it when she wants to throw gasoline on a house fire - $25,000 downpayment support for first-time home buyers. Or apply caps to grocery prices.

Vance is no libertarian.

[wj]

Vance is no libertarian.

Of course not. Vance has no detectable principles at all. Peter Thiel, however....

[Marty]

"Doesn't seem like it when she wants to throw gasoline on a house fire - $25,000 downpayment support for first-time home buyers. Or apply caps to grocery prices."

25,000 for first time home buyers addresses a real problem, if it creates more accessible alternatives in the existing housing market that would help plenty of people without causing an immediate housing crash. It would probably also level out apartment rent increases some. It has good and bad effects. So your priorities become important.

The cap on food prices was specific to price gouging after a disaster and a pretty bland proposal

Her tax proposals are even relatively benign. Her immigration policy, which matches the current administrations pretty successful crackdown is also rational, if difficult for some of my liberal friends to get there heads around
.her gun policy would definitely offend Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, it seems the top of the ticket has been dragged far enough right they might be worth considering.

It's laughable that some of the unions won't endorse her, like Trump could be their friend? A truly remarkable statement of the underlying racism and misogyny of the American working class

[nous]

My hunch is that the unions that won't endorse Harris have fewer female members than those who do.

Whatever the case might be, any unions who don't endorse Harris are cutting their own throats when it comes to bargaining power.

[wj]

Whatever the case might be, any unions who don't endorse Harris are cutting their own throats when it comes to bargaining power.

Or, in cases like the Teamsters, the top of the national union has clearly trashed their prospects for holding their jobs. Absent major corruption of the union's elections, of course.

[GftNC]

Yup, she's the real threat to democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/trump-fundraiser-recording

Trump, who instigated an attempted coup on 6 January 2021 and has claimed that his Democratic rival Harris poses the true threat to democracy, used the exclusive event to warn of dire consequences if she becomes president.

“Look, we gotta win and if we don’t win this country’s going to hell,” he said. “You know, there’s an expression, this could be the last election we ever have and it’s an expression that I really believe, and I believe that this could be the last election we ever have.”

[nous]

Don't know if O'Brien has trashed his prospects or not. It's possible that he can hold his position if his self-reported numbers are accurate. If O'Brien's voting membership (dues paying members) skews strongly towards Trump, then it doesn't matter to his election chances if the majority of his represented workers are pro-Harris. I don't have a sense of how this works out for them. Don't think I know many Teamsters affiliated people.

I do wonder how much tension this may create between the different divisions and conferences within the union. If his support is more heavily located in one or two of the divisions, that could lead to infighting and he could face a backlash like what happened a few years back with the UAW.

O'Brien seems like the type who wouldn't risk his own grip on power for any culture war stuff, so he's got to believe that he will be able to hold on in any challenges. The rest is going to come down to the internal politics of the union at the national level, which is often pretty disconnected from the local politics.

[Donald]

Lesser evil argument written by lefties ( Albert is a long time friend of Chomsky) for lefties— this argument has more credibility coming from people who see the Biden policy on Gaza as vile. Which it is.

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/election-2024/

[Donald]

Personally, though, I think the article I just linked is a bit too flippant at certain points.

[nous]

One thing that I think the article definitely misses in there is the way that Harris and Walz are more supportive of labor than have been any of the neoliberal Democrats that preceded them. That's not nothing, especially where avenues for activism come into play. It puts unions in a position of influence that was only occupied by donors in the more neoliberal days of central DNC control.

And it's that loss of worker/labor influence that really led to the disconnect that Trump has exploited with his grievance politics.

[Donald]

Biden was definitely a big step forward on domestic issues. I see some concern Harris might be listening to rich donors concerning Lina Khan, who is a hero to people on the left who follow anti monopoly issues . Not an issue I follow much but I have seen people talking about it. It is not, of course, the gut wrenching dealbreaker that support for mass murder is for many.