Trump's rhetoric v Harris

[AlexB23]

@AlexB23 when Trump says that he likes and/or gets along with Putin and Xi, he says that as long term negotiating strategy ploy meant to tell those dictators that he is not attacking them personally as leaders. Instead, he treats them with some respect while also at the same time recognizing that the Russian and Chinese governments are enemies of the USA.

Maybe, but we can not predict the future. What if Putin or Xi get into Trump's head? China and Russia are our greatest threats. We have to move all Chinese manufacturing back to the US, and cut all ties with Russia. Also, if long term takes more than 4 years, who would then take over in 2028 to keep the negotiating strategy on the table. I feel that we need to send a non-partisan ambassador or two who is fluent in Russian or Mandarin to Russia and China who can serve for a decade or so. That ambassador can then strike a deal with Russia and China, but striking a deal with those two countries is like making a deal with the devil.

 

[PloverWing]

I have heard of that. Maybe a cheaper college tuition would get more young people into college? Less money spent on sports, sporting infrastructure, or the college president massive salary could save universities money.

I agree that affordability is a significant issue for university students.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Her answers are long winded and not to the point. That's a problem for many Americans.

I see no rambling in this answer. He tells the audience it's going to be a long answer, "Okay so I'll get into another little bit of a long answer" . And everything he said was related to the topic of the question (threats).

See. You guys are not serious about your critiques of Harris. No way. There is no way you can convince me otherwise based on comments like this. It has nothing to do with what any candidate says All that matters is what team they're on. Maybe that's a both sides deal, but it is the way it is.

 

[Fantine]

Amen to that. This guy, Peter Sonski is very eloquent with his words. Sadly, most of us have not heard him, cos he is a 3rd party candidate that never made it to the television news stations, except maybe more obscure stations. There is no comparison between Sonski and Trump. Sonski has a way with words, polite manners, and a good temper. Trump on the other hand, he has some work to do on his own personality.

If you lived in the US and were a citizen, would you vote for Sonski? He is like the best of the Republicans (pro-life, traditional families) combined with the best of the Democrats (pro-environment/renewable energy, cheaper healthcare).

I would vote for him because I live in Arkansas where Trump will win by 65%. I can throw away my vote however I please.

But if I lived in a swing state, I believe a Trump victory would endanger America so strongly that I would only choose whoever was most likely to defeat him.

 

[Vambram]

Maybe, but we can not predict the future. What if Putin or Xi get into Trump's head? China and Russia are our greatest threats. We have to move all Chinese manufacturing back to the US, and cut all ties with Russia.

There are safeguards in the federal government if a worst case scenario like that between the three of them were to happen. However, I believe that there is a much greater chance of Kamala Harris deciding that she is now a Republican instead of a Democratic party member than there is of Putin or Xi getting into Trump's head. Also, I believe that based upon his rhetoric and his record, Donald Trump agrees with you that we ought to move as much as possible all Chinese manufacturing back into the USA and cut all economic ties with Russia.

 

[ViaCrucis]

@AlexB23 when Trump says that he likes and/or gets along with Putin and Xi, he says that as long term negotiating strategy ploy meant to tell those dictators that he is not attacking them personally as leaders. Instead, he treats them with some respect while also at the same time recognizing that the Russian and Chinese governments are enemies of the USA.

It's because Trump is a stable genius who is playing 5D chess, right?

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[Vambram]

It's because Trump is a stable genius who is playing 5D chess, right?

-CryptoLUtheran

Haha, that's funny

 

[AlexB23]

There are safeguards in the federal government if a worst case scenario like that between the three of them were to happen. However, I believe that there is a much greater chance of Kamala Harris deciding that she is now a Republican instead of a Democratic party member than there is of Putin or Xi getting into Trump's head. Also, I believe that based upon his rhetoric and his record, Donald Trump agrees with you that we ought to move as much as possible all Chinese manufacturing back into the USA and cut all economic ties with Russia.

We will just have to see. The Chinese government are known for bugging phones, and manipulating their own citizens, while the Russians are known for hacking Western countries. In my humble opinion, Trump and Kamala should both stay out of Russia and China, cos I do not want the Russians or Chinese to get access to our American leaders.

And yes, there are a few things that I agree with Trump on, such as returning manufacturing to the US. Though, I also support unions, and some of the states that dismantled unions are known to support Trump. Wisconsin dismantled most unions in 2011 with Scott Walker. So, if we can move most, if not all manufacturing back to the US and also have the choice to join a workers' union, then the best of both worlds could happen.

Chinese hackers compromised 250,000 devices in 2024, caught by FBI:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/us-fbi-says-it-has-struck-second-chinese-hacking-group-2024-09-18/

Russia hacked US Gov't correspondence from Microsoft in early 2024, caught by Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA):

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/11/russian-hackers-federal-correspondence-microsoft-00151770

 

[Vambram]

I often wondered why Putin waited to move into Ukraine. Then I realized that he had been waiting for Trump to do his bidding--throw NATO into chaos and pulling the US out of NATO. Having pulled out of NATO, Putin would have had a cakewalk cruising into Ukraine, looting and pillaging and murdering.
But when Trump lost by 8 million votes, incited insurrection, absconded with top secret documents, etc. Putin decided to act on his own--losing hundreds of thousands of his own troops, taxing his nation's economy to its limits.
He is now hoping Trump will have another chance at throwing NATO into chaos--with the help of his social media hackers.

In my opinion, this post reminds me of some stuff which I have read on The Babylon Bee.

 

[Fantine]

No proof. Just sound deductive reasoning.

 

[Bradskii]

From an hour 'speech' in California:

From about 59 mins on...

"In Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, all these rich areas they want to give you like 38 gallons of water to use, you buy a house for a lot of money and then you're allowed to use 38 gallons of water but they...you have no water down here and the reason you have no water you have the canals...the reason you have no water is because Gavin Nusum didn't want to do it.

I had it all done. I had the Department of Commerce at the time, believe...believe it or not they're the ones that rule on this particular issue so you have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north with the snow caps and Canada and all pouring down and they have a essentially a very large faucet and you turn the faucet and it takes one day to turn it, it's massive it's as big as the wall of that building right there behind you and you turn that and all of that water goes into the... aimlessly into the Pacific and if they turned it back all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles, they wouldn't have to have people not use more than 30 gallons and 32 gallons.

They want to do that you know they're trying to do that and you have so much water and all those fields that are right now, barren, the farmers would have all the water they needed and you could revert water up into the hills where you have all the dead forests where the forests are so brittle because no...no places like California, I go to Austria, the head of Austria tells me you know, we have trees that are much more flammable than what you have in California, we never have forest flowers because they maintain their forests and you have all that water that could be used to as water, what they call water flow where the water, you know, where the land would be damp and you'd stop many of these horrible fires."

Yeah, make the land damp, Donny. If my ten year old grandson did a few minutes speech on water shortages with just a few minutes notice and a couple of notes and he gave that, I'd be a little embarrassed for him. Read it like a ten year old and it sounds...OK

 

[Hans Blaster]

In my opinion, this post reminds me of some stuff which I have read on The Babylon Bee.

Agreed, @Fantine 's post wasn't funny.

 

[PloverWing]

They want to do that you know they're trying to do that and you have so much water and all those fields that are right now, barren, the farmers would have all the water they needed and you could revert water up into the hills where you have all the dead forests where the forests are so brittle because no...no places like California, I go to Austria, the head of Austria tells me you know, we have trees that are much more flammable than what you have in California, we never have forest flowers because they maintain their forests and you have all that water that could be used to as water, what they call water flow where the water, you know, where the land would be damp and you'd stop many of these horrible fires."

Sigh, just no clue about American geography...

 

[MrMoe]

The question was about “threats to the future of Michigan auto working jobs.” (You can find it in the transcript on youtube or at 37:20 in the video). Going on about nuclear weapons is not answering the question. It takes him about 4 minutes to get to the word “tariff,” at which point, he goes on for another couple minutes with some nonsense about changing everything within 24 hours. In total, it took him 9 minutes to give an answer no more substantive than “tariffs on Chinese products.” If you can’t see tons and tons of rambling in that answer, you’re deliberately ignoring it.

You're spinning again.


"Going on about nuclear weapons"

He talks about it for less than a minute and at the end he says "it's the single biggest threat to the world, not only Michigan, to the world, and, uh, you're not going to care so much about making cars if that stuff starts happening" pretty sure war will have a pretty big affect on jobs.



"It takes him about 4 minutes to get to the word “tariff,”"

The question wasn't about tariffs, it was “threats to the future of Michigan auto working jobs.” Read what you wrote.



"at which point, he goes on for another couple minutes with some nonsense about changing everything within 24 hours."

That "nonsense" was all related to the question.



"In total, it took him 9 minutes to give an answer no more substantive than “tariffs on Chinese products.” If you can’t see tons and tons of rambling in that answer, you’re deliberately ignoring it."

Not ignoring it. Giving a long answer isn't the same as rambling.

 

[MrMoe]

See. You guys are not serious about your critiques of Harris. No way. There is no way you can convince me otherwise based on comments like this. It has nothing to do with what any candidate says All that matters is what team they're on. Maybe that's a both sides deal, but it is the way it is.

Is that how you would rather her answer questions? Like a robot using only the most efficient and necessary words with no explanation or other commentary? You didn't seem to have any trouble getting the specifics from her answer to the question.

Right, which is how all interviews go with anyone, not just politicians. Do they really want her to just state her one-line policies in answer to questions with no commentary or explanation? Do people really think that would make for good TV? It's such a dumb critique and it's proven so by the fact that one of the critics in this thread clearly understood exactly what her policies were from her "meandering mess of a response" so what's the issue?

The question was about “threats to the future of Michigan auto working jobs.” (You can find it in the transcript on youtube or at 37:20 in the video). Going on about nuclear weapons is not answering the question. It takes him about 4 minutes to get to the word “tariff,” at which point, he goes on for another couple minutes with some nonsense about changing everything within 24 hours. In total, it took him 9 minutes to give an answer no more substantive than “tariffs on Chinese products.” If you can’t see tons and tons of rambling in that answer, you’re deliberately ignoring it.

See. You guys are not serious about your critiques of Trump. No way. There is no way you can convince me otherwise based on comments like this. It has nothing to do with what any candidate says All that matters is what team they're on. Maybe that's a both sides deal, but it is the way it is.

 

[Bradskii]

Not ignoring it. Giving a long answer isn't the same as rambling.

The answer wasn't even tarrifs. The guy asking the question was an auto worker. The majority of cars made in Flint are ICE. From here: Site Maintenance.

'General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) announced today plans to invest more than $1 billion in two of its Flint, Michigan, manufacturing sites – Flint Assembly and Flint Metal Center – to prepare those plants for production of the next-generation internal combustion engine (ICE) heavy-duty trucks.

GM has announced more than $1.7 billion in investments for Flint-area operations in 2023, including $579 million in Flint Engine Operations for sixth-generation Small Block V-8 engine production...'

Tarrifs on Chinese electrical cars are already at 100%. And from here: How (and when) Chinese cars could affect the U.S. market

'There are currently no Chinese-branded passenger vehicles for sale in the United States'

So tarrifs are already restrictive and raising them again on electrical vehicles will do next to nothing. So tarrifs will do nothing for the worker who asked the question. That was just more rambling for those who don't understand the impact of tarrifs on those type of cars, especially to workers who are predominately producing ICE vehicles. I doubt if Trump really knows what he was talking about. It certainly didn't appear that he did.

No, the answer that was relevant to our auto worker came right at the end of that 10 minutes walz through umpteen topics. Almost the very last few words. Go check them out.

'You are going to have plants built at a level that you haven't seen in 50 years.'

That was it. Seventeen words at the end of a ten minute speech. And someone complained about Harris giving a 90 second intro to the answers in her interview question.

I can't take discussions like this seriously.

 

[MrMoe]

The answer wasn't even tarrifs. The guy asking the question was an auto worker. The majority of cars made in Flint are ICE. From here: Site Maintenance.

'General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) announced today plans to invest more than $1 billion in two of its Flint, Michigan, manufacturing sites – Flint Assembly and Flint Metal Center – to prepare those plants for production of the next-generation internal combustion engine (ICE) heavy-duty trucks.

GM has announced more than $1.7 billion in investments for Flint-area operations in 2023, including $579 million in Flint Engine Operations for sixth-generation Small Block V-8 engine production...'

Tarrifs on Chinese electrical cars are already at 100%. And from here: How (and when) Chinese cars could affect the U.S. market

'There are currently no Chinese-branded passenger vehicles for sale in the United States'

So tarrifs are already restrictive and raising them again on electrical vehicles will do next to nothing. So tarrifs will do nothing for the worker who asked the question. That was just more rambling for those who don't understand the impact of tarrifs on those type of cars, especially to workers who are predominately producing ICE vehicles. I doubt if Trump really knows what he was talking about. It certainly didn't appear that he did.

No, the answer that was relevant to our auto worker came right at the end of that 10 minutes walz through umpteen topics. Almost the very last few words. Go check them out.

'You are going to have plants built at a level that you haven't seen in 50 years.'

That was it. Seventeen words at the end of a ten minute speech. And someone complained about Harris giving a 90 second intro to the answers in her interview question.

I can't take discussions like this seriously.

So Trump is wrong about tariffs. Being wrong doesn't equate to rambling. And you admit that Trump answered the question, which is more than Kamala did in a recent interview.

She was asked a simple question "Are they(voters) better off today than they were 4 years ago?" (0:24). She brings up Jan 6, black unemployment, optimism, housing, growing up as a middle class kid. But in that mishmash of topics she never answers the question, are voters better off today than they were 4 years ago.

She rambles on so much the interviewer tries to cut her off.

So in the Trump v Harris rhetoric, Trump is 1 Harris is 0.


I can't take discussions like this seriously.

 

[Bradskii]

So Trump is wrong about tariffs. Being wrong doesn't equate to rambling.

No. But he was also wrong to bring up covid in regard to protecting auto workers jobs in Flint. An epidemic a couple of years ago is not going to help his job now. Wrong to bring up nuclear war. Tanks. His relationship with Putin or Kim Jong-um. Is North Korea building SUV's for the US market? Neither has anything to do with car making. He was wrong about India's nuclear capability and five countries having said capability. Both about protecting Flint's auto workers and the number of countries. He was wrong to mention global warming in relation to auto workers. And rising sea levels. Do you see how far Flint is from water? Working with Russia has nothing to do with it, nor their minerals or their size. The Mexican deficit has no affect on Flint's car workers. Or how he was going to change the world's economy in 24 hours (really? Twenty four hours?

Hang in, we're getting there. There'll be an answer soon.

He was wrong to talk about consultants wanting millions of dollars in fees to destroy the US. Completely irrelevant. And wrong about changing things in 24 hours (again). Wrong about bringing up covid - yet again. Wrong to bring up why he calls it the China Flu. Who cares what he calls it? The auto workers? Wrong to bring up Spanish Flu. Wrong to bring up that it wasn't a problem from France (just...what?). Wrong to explain that he doesn't know what it means. That's just showing his ignorance. Wrong to say that Putin endorses Harris. That won't help the auto industry one iota. And wrong to sound confused about why Putin did it. That just showed he doesn't understand satire.

Hang in. Not far to go.

He was wrong to talk about a reciprocal car tax. There are hardly any Chinese cars sold in the US. Wrong to mention anything at all about Musk, whether he endorsed him or not. Was anyone in Flint worried about that? He was wrong to mention some random unnamed senator who knew nothing about finances (what on earth was that actually about?). He was wrong to say anything about meeting the Indian PM. Utterly irrelevant. Nobody is impressed. At all. He was wrong to talk about his top ten countries for being tough. Who is worried in Michigan about Trump's league table of tough guys. He was wrong to say it's either free trade or he makes a lot of money. As if that's his only simplistic options. And then...and then he says 'You are going to have plants built at a level that you haven't seen in 50 years.'

Well, we got to a statement that I guess you could call in some way 'an answer'. But there's nothing to back that up. And it took ten minutes to get there. New plants he says? Well they've been building new plants in Michigan like crazy. EV plants. From here: Where mega battery, EV projects stand after $1 billion in Michigan subsidies | Bridge Michigan

'Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has staked much of her economic legacy on transitioning the auto industry to electric vehicles, arranging incentives and corporate tax breaks of more than $2 billion to five companies.'

Well, gee - that's not much use to a guy who is building ICE cars in his plant. So we can see that even his ten second answer at the end of a ten minute rambling, nonsensical waste of everyone's time wasn't even correct in the first place.

Other than that...at least it made his debate performance maybe a half point better in comparison. So he now gets a 2 (and that's out of ten).

 

[Bradskii]

She was asked a simple question "Are they(voters) better off today than they were 4 years ago?" (0:24).

Yeah, she immediately said that unemployment was better. That public health was better. And went on to say that there were 16 million new jobs. That there were 800,000 new jobs in manufacturing. That they now had the lowest black unemployment figures in generations. That there was a greater investment in small businesses. And that the cost of prescription medicine had been capped. And that was before we hit the two minute mark. So all the voters who were affected by those policies were better off.

She went on to say that were things like groceries higher? Yes, they were. And that she and the government had more work to do (I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you the reasons for global inflation).

So did we watch the same video?

I can't take discussions like this seriously.

I should help you out here and tell you that schoolyard type mimicry doesn't work very well in forums like this.

 

[Fantine]

Re: Trump's ramblings

I will never be a Trump supporter, but his rambling neverending response may actually be the first indication I've seen of his being a "very stable genius."
Because all over cyberworld he'll have AI circuits explode trying to compose a synopsis of his answer.