I've thought that Trump is the favorite to win for over a year... maybe you inferred otherwise because I was willing to bet 1:1 on Biden but I don't care at all about FG.

I'm not sure how many democracies around the world have the same system we do where the presidential/prime minister nominees are chosen based on caucuses and primaries. But I'm not offended by the American people expressing to their representatives after the debate that Biden should drop out, and I'm also not offended that those representatives listened to the voters and exerted pressure on him to drop out. The party didn't throw out anything, there was no party rule or mechanism that they exercised to remove Biden without his consent. They applied pressure and Biden did the right thing.

Again, these talking points are only coming from Trump supporters. Democrats(voters, politicians, and elites) are all thrilled that Harris is the presumptive nominee.

As a general matter, I'm fine with political parties exerting more control over who becomes the nominee. Institutions screening out nutters and unserious people is a good thing. If it's only about who can get the most votes, why have political parties at all? Just have a list of candidates with no party affiliation.

I guess I'm a third way democracy supporter where I don't support coups but I'm cool with political parties not completely bending to the will of the latest populist movement. But this is talking generally, because the populist move was democrats pressuring Biden to step aside.

This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 16 2024 05:59pm

I think my main point was objecting to the idea that Trump is running a policy-focused campaign. Harris's less-than-a-month-long campaign has been short on policy, sure. That's not surprising.

It's smarter politically for Kamala not to be too focused on policy specifics. She's playing her role as a generic democrat, that's how she beats Trump.

Sure they are. She'll be easier to push around than the sock puppet Biden. :/


DEMS: Things aren't going our way.


DEMS: No problem, we'll just eliminate the Executive Branch.

This post was edited by Ghot on Aug 16 2024 06:30pm

Why not raise it to a million? Let's truly support families.

Mitt Romney had a child allowance plan which was deficit neutral. But that would mean supporting families in a fiscally responsible way, which no political party is in favor of.

This post was edited by IceMage on Aug 17 2024 10:37am

Pretty sure the point was to showcase the difference in tone inp the media depending on parties.

I'm curious as to what Romey's plan was that mass tax credits could be "deficit neutral".

Yeah, I took a boring media criticism post and turned it into a potential discussion.

Romney's plan:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/factsheet-senator-romneys-family-security-act/

I see it as more than a boring "criticism of media", it's repeat behavior by mainstream media to paint one party's ideas as impossible or outright dangerous while the very same ideas by the other party are analyzed without bias.

Romney's plan seemed rational, though it removes other credits and deductions which affect different people than those targeted by a child allowance plan.

This post was edited by Chainsaw47 on Aug 17 2024 12:12pm

Well, I don't think we need to dig deeper to know that Kamala/the Democrats have no intention whatsoever of proposing a fiscally responsible plan. Nor does Trump, for that matter. Vance might have a better plan, but he afaik hasn't released details yet.


I wouldn't call it "media criticism", I'm just calling out their glaring bias. I will happily stop when they stop being biased hacks.

it's all about the vibes, so I hear