Trump Rally at Madison Square Garden Marked by Racist and Lewd Jokes

KCfromNC said:

I was in the post you initially brought all this up in response to. Not sure where all the other but but but both sides stuff is coming from, given the clear distinction between the two parties on this subject.

Click to expand...

Is this particular facet of the subject the only one that matters?

Or is the concept of a politician having to walk on eggshells to appease a radical portion of the base something both parties should have a vested interest in addressing?

Bill Clinton and Obama seemed to be of the mindset that it's the latter as they both had their "Sister Souljah Moment" during their campaign cycles.

This "at least the Democrats didn't do this one particular thing Trump did, therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to vote for them by default so they can do whatever they want for 4 years" hasn't been the strong selling point many on the left think it has.

If the Democrats had spent more time listening to moderate and independent voters with regards to the concerns about their party, they'd be winning in a landslide right now instead of in a tight race where they may lose.

I'm 100% available to the Democratic party, but they're not going to get me off the couch with "BoTh SIDeS" snark and a "Trump is so bad the only reasonable thing to do is vote for us" type rhetoric.

ThatRobGuy said:

This "at least the Democrats didn't do this one particular thing Trump did, therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to vote for them by default so they can do whatever they want for 4 years" hasn't been the strong selling point many on the left think it has.

If the Democrats had spent more time listening to moderate and independent voters with regards to the concerns about their party, they'd be winning in a landslide right now instead of in a tight race where they may lose.

Click to expand...

We shall see. There's a reason up to 10% of Republican voters may cross over today...

IMO, the Harris campaign has done well to reach out to moderates and Republicans. The positive, unifying and even patriotic theme of her campaign feels more like Ronald Reagn in 1980. It's quite the contrast with the Trump campaign.

wing2000 said:

We shall see. There's a reason up to 10% of Republican voters may cross over today...

IMO, the Harris campaign has done well to reach out to moderates and Republicans. The positive, unifying and even patriotic theme of her campaign feels more like Ronald Reagn in 1980. It's quite the contrast with the Trump campaign.

Click to expand...

In what ways has she reached out?

It would appear as if she's given some vague rhetoric and "non-answers" to certain issues. And it sounds like a few of the approaches that are being branded as "reaching out", aren't being well-received among some of the Democratic voting base.


Giving non-committal answers and hanging out Liz Cheney isn't exactly winning her a lot of love from many Republicans or independents...and per the NPR article linked above, it sounds like it's running the risk of making some her own base a tad apathetic.

People tend to want actual answers on questions...simply "not explicitly giving the other side's answers at a specific event" isn't going to cut it for a lot of people.

Harris is really banking on telling people that she was raised in a middle class home. It's how she answers every question on the economy and high prices. I think she thinks she's being relatable, but it just comes across as fake. Even SNL has skewered Harris' non-answers. I particularly enjoyed their Family Feud Election Showdown.

ThatRobGuy said:

But that's the same cop-out that the GOP types use, is it not?

Click to expand...

Not quite. IT's the opposite.

ThatRobGuy said:

When confronted with the reality that Trump cheated on multiple wives, lies regularly, ran casinos, owned a liquor brand, fleeced people with a scam university, insults people based on physical characteristics, etc... The common rebuttal is "we're not electing a pastor, life coach, or spiritual advisor".

Click to expand...

There are still a lot of other problematic behaviours he's been a part of that speak to his values.

MAybe we're talking about differing values. I'm talking stuff like the value of treating everyone honestly and justly; value in helping people; valuing the truth; believed in being loyal to others. There are others but I'm talking about quality of character when I talk about values.

ThatRobGuy said:

If policy positions don't reflect personal values, then that's basically a round-a-bout way of saying politics and elections are a sham, and people are just voting for someone based on specific talking points. Also known as, undermining faith in "sacred institutions like elections"

Click to expand...

If you are referring to values more like opinions or a worldview (ie... a right to free healthcare, 2nd ammendment is awesome), then it's a different discussion.

ThatRobGuy said:

But that's the same cop-out that the GOP types use, is it not?

When confronted with the reality that Trump cheated on multiple wives, lies regularly, ran casinos, owned a liquor brand, fleeced people with a scam university, insults people based on physical characteristics, etc... The common rebuttal is "we're not electing a pastor, life coach, or spiritual advisor".

Click to expand...

And that (plus a heck of a lot more) should guide your decision as to whether the person is suitable to be considered in the first place. I don't have to like him. He may not be the type of guy I'd want to go camping with for a week. But if he's morally bereft then I don't want him representing me. The policies don't come into it.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'm 100% available to the Democratic party, but they're not going to get me off the couch with "BoTh SIDeS" snark and a "Trump is so bad the only reasonable thing to do is vote for us" type rhetoric.

Click to expand...

If I were voting I'd be doing it based on policies. But if the policy positions were reversed then it's not that I wouldn't vote for Trump. I actually couldn't. Because it would mean that I'd have to ignore the type of man he is and what he has said and done. And that I cannot do. Pick any other Republican and if the policies were reversed, I've vote for them.

But I will not say that the type of man he is can be overlooked. And for a lot of people, excused.

Bradskii said:

If I were voting I'd be doing it based on policies. But if the policy positions were reversed then it's not that I wouldn't vote for Trump. I actually couldn't. Because it would mean that I'd have to ignore the type of man he is and what he has said and done. And that I cannot do. Pick any other Republican and if the policies were reversed, I've vote for them.

But I will not say that the type of man he is can be overlooked. And for a lot of people, excused.

Click to expand...

Which is why I went with "couch/pizza"... (figuratively speaking, I did show up to the polls and vote for some state and local stuff, but I left the president one blank)

I don't like Trump's character with regards to how he conducts himself (and only agree with him on about 50% of policy issues), while Kamala's personality flaws (on individual level) are fewer, I don't like Kamala's inability to stand up to more radical element of her base. (and same deal with her, I only agree with her on about 50% of policy issues)

Neither team made a compelling enough case for me in 2024.

If you want me to overlook the flaws, the policy-alignment percentage has to be closer to ~80%...not 50%.