Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[Emily's Cat]

I think they well anticipated a Bad Trump, and have checks and balances built into the system that would handle him well.

What they didn't account for was Bad Republican Senators, who wouldn't convict his impeachment, Bad Republicans in general who would continue to support him and, especially, Bad Republican voters who would keep voting for him.

Meh, I don't think it's just Republicans. I don't think they accounted for the undue influence that the parties have gained. When the nation was formed, it was largely a collection of congress critters that each represented either the interests of the people in their district, or the interests of the state as an entity. Each of them was elected and expected to perform those duties honorably. Parties existed, but were more of a collection of people with shared ideas working together to drive consensus, and there was a lot of disagreement within the parties themselves.

Nowadays, we have congress critters whose first loyalty is to their party - not to their constituents or their state. Nobody foresaw the possibility of two non-governmental bodies gaining de facto control of both the legislative and executive branch.

FFS, we the people don't even get to have a say in who our presidential candidates are. We're given a short list that the party has decided we're allowed to choose from... and then the overwhelming majority are run out of the race after preliminary consideration in at most three states. The vast majority of the citizens of the country never got the opportunity to voice their preference for candidates in this race.

 

[Donal]

Right now, regardless of how you feel about the individuals involved or some of their decisions, the judicial branch is the only one that's actually doing their job as intended. They interpret the law and ensure that such laws are constitutionally valid.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say SCOTUS is there to interpret or weigh the consitutionality of laws.

 

[Donal]

They did though. The specific kind of populist blowhard that Trump represents is exactly why the legislative and the judicial branches exist in the first place, and why it is so hard to enact new laws - to prevent a cult of personality from driving the boat.

Way to prove his point. Good job.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The US Congress was modeled after the British Parliament. It was never meant by the founding fathers to be democratic.

Correct. We were never intended to be a pure democracy, we are a representative republic. And we consist of 1) citizens of the states and 2) states of the union.

 

[Stacyhs]

Harris should have been going to the border, and attending meaningfully to border issues all along. A pro forma appearance during campaign season is textbook "too little, too late".

Is that because Harris was the "border czar" as Trump endlessly and falsely claims?

Harris was tasked by Biden to do this according to Politifact:

In March 2021, President Joe Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with working alongside officials in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to address the issues driving people to leave those countries and come to the United States.

The Biden-Harris administration said it would focus on five key issues: economic insecurity, corruption, human rights, criminal gang violence and gender-based violence.

Border security and management is the Homeland Security secretary’s responsibility.

Biden asked Harris "to be the chief diplomatic officer with Central American countries" and address the root causes that make people leave their home countries, said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

Going to the border was not part of her job; going to Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras was and which she did. Harris went to Guatemala in June 2021 and met with Guatemala's new president in March 2024. She went to Honduras in Jan. 2022.

Overall, the proportion of migrants encountered at the US border who are citizens of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador has dropped from 49 percent (March 2021) to 18 percent (June 2024).

 

[Emily's Cat]

On Twitter 40 minutes ago:

Kamala Harris:

"We will work with builders and developers to construct three million new homes and rentals.

"And we will help first-time buyers get their foot in the door with $25,000 down payment assistance."

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1839046351541178710

Well, okay. Except we don't have a shortage of homes - there are plenty of homes out there. What we do have is very expensive - and the mortgage rates are very high, and the lenders require large down payments. Apartments are largely owned by multinational corporations, with a lot less competition than most people realize.

I mean, assistance with a down-payment might be nice. But I guarantee that's not a subsidy, it's a loan. It might not require as high a credit score, but it's still going to be a loan.

So essentially, the proposed solution is to give money to corporations to build more homes even though we don't need more buildings, and to get money for the fed from homeowners by giving loans to buyers.

Not a single bit of that actually addresses the cost of housing. It's a pretty-sounding kickback scheme for corporations and mortgage lenders.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The "checks & balances" are there to handle conflict between the branches, not between parties. It made sense to look at politics that way at the time. For centuries, British and other European political history had been dominated by conflicts between legislatures, courts, kings & lower nobles, and churches. I don't know how they could've anticipated back then that the defining units of political conflict would end up being parties as we now know them instead of those.

Yep

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Senate is part of the legislature. Not a check against it.

Apologies, I meant that to be a check on the executive branch.

 

[Donal]

Well, okay. Except we don't have a shortage of homes - there are plenty of homes out there.

Where? Not where the jobs are. Are you advocating taking people's proerty and sitributing it among the poor?

What we do have is very expensive - and the mortgage rates are very high, and the lenders require large down payments. Apartments are largely owned by multinational corporations, with a lot less competition than most people realize.

That's a big part of it, but there is also a lack of affordable housing. Developers don't build "starter homes" anymore. The return isn't there for investors.

I mean, assistance with a down-payment might be nice. But I guarantee that's not a subsidy, it's a loan. It might not require as high a credit score, but it's still going to be a loan.

Says you.

So essentially, the proposed solution is to give money to corporations to build more homes even though we don't need more buildings, and to get money for the fed from homeowners by giving loans to buyers.

we need more starter homes, mixed use buildings, and affordable housing

Not a single bit of that actually addresses the cost of housing. It's a pretty-sounding kickback scheme for corporations and mortgage lenders.

You should be celebrating. Supply Side Econmics actually applies! Ronald Iran-Contra Reagan is looking up from Hell with joy in his heart.

but, no, "others' might benefit. And that's what this always comes down to.

 

[Donal]

Apologies, I meant that to be a check on the executive branch.

and it fails.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say SCOTUS is there to interpret or weigh the consitutionality of laws.

That's literally what the words mean. Legislative = make and record the law, Executive = execute the law and determine how the law is enacted, Judicial = judge the law and adherence thereto.

It's literally the entire premise behind the Judicial branch: To determine which laws are applicable in a dispute, determine the sentence for violations of the law, and when challenged determine whether the law itself is consistent with the constitution.

Court Role and Structure

The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government’s executive branch to enforce court decisions.

Courts decide what really happened and what should be done about it. They decide whether a person committed a crime and what the punishment should be. They also provide a peaceful way to decide private disputes that people can’t resolve themselves. Depending on the dispute or crime, some cases end up in the federal courts and some end up in state courts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Way to prove his point. Good job.

Joe: They never anticipate something like Trump
Emily: They did anticipate something like Trump, that's why they structured the branches the way they did.
Donal: Way to prove Joe's point.

Your logic isn't logicing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, okay. Except we don't have a shortage of homes - there are plenty of homes out there. What we do have is very expensive - and the mortgage rates are very high, and the lenders require large down payments. Apartments are largely owned by multinational corporations, with a lot less competition than most people realize.

According to Pew Research there's currently "a shortage of an estimated 4 million to 7 million homes which is a major cause of the high price of homes.

Ken Johnson, a professor of finance and the Walker Chair of Real Estate at the University of Mississippi said “The real symptom of what’s going on is that we’re short in supply. We’re dangerously short in supply. We just cannot build homes fast enough.”
Mortgage rates are now dropping from a high of just over 7% to 6.32% today. They're also expected to keep dropping.

I mean, assistance with a down-payment might be nice. But I guarantee that's not a subsidy, it's a loan. It might not require as high a credit score, but it's still going to be a loan.

On what do you base your "guarantee" down-payment assistance is a "loan"? According to everything I've read, it's not a loan.

So essentially, the proposed solution is to give money to corporations to build more homes even though we don't need more buildings, and to get money for the fed from homeowners by giving loans to buyers.

None of that is true. We need to build more homes and the buyers assistance isn't a loan. Harris' plan calls for tax credits and/or a subsidy.

Not a single bit of that actually addresses the cost of housing. It's a pretty-sounding kickback scheme for corporations and mortgage lenders.

The National Association of Home Builders disagrees with you:

...Harris’ proposed tax credits for homebuilders could offset the inflation risk by stimulating new construction, and that down payment assistance would be an important step to level the playing field and boost opportunities for homeownership.

The National Association of Home Builders praised Harris for making housing and homeownership a centerpiece of her economic agenda.

“We are pleased that the foundation of her plan calls for the construction of 3 million new housing units because the primary way to tackle the nation’s housing affordability crisis is to increase the nation’s housing supply,” said NAHB Chair Carl Harris in a statement.

 

[plague311]

Joe: They never anticipate something like Trump
Emily: They did anticipate something like Trump, that's why they structured the branches the way they did.
Donal: Way to prove Joe's point.

Your logic isn't logicing.

I took it as the system isn't working. At all.

Trump committed impeachable crimes but because the founders didn't expect a political party to become a cult of personality he hasn't been held responsible at all. On top of that he has a SCOTUS that just handed him a get out of jail free card because he loaded it with his nut huggers that will give him whatever he wants. Trump also got a criminal case dismissed by a judge that didn't recuse herself, despite obvious bias, based on a random opinion from a SCOTUS judge that didn't set precedent and that was also a Trump nut hugger.

So, they didn't really anticipate something like Trump and I would extend the lack of anticipation for his dumb ******* moron supporters and the dumb ******* moron senators and the dumb ******* moron house reps that enable him.

TL; DR, if they planned for someone like Trump, their planning didn't work and the checks and balances put in place are now on the brink of collapsing if Trump gets re-elected. Now he's got a playbook and experience on how to break the system more.

 

[Tero]

Harris should have been going to the border, and attending meaningfully to border issues all along. A pro forma appearance during campaign season is textbook "too little, too late".

Now it's the first trip....as nominee.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-border-visit-douglas-arizona/

 

[Donal]

That's literally what the words mean. Legislative = make and record the law, Executive = execute the law and determine how the law is enacted, Judicial = judge the law and adherence thereto.

It's literally the entire premise behind the Judicial branch: To determine which laws are applicable in a dispute, determine the sentence for violations of the law, and when challenged determine whether the law itself is consistent with the constitution.

Court Role and Structure

Hmmm, that doesn't look like Article 3. Can you cite in Article 3, or anywhere in the Consitution that grants SCOTUS that power?

 

[Donal]

Joe: They never anticipate something like Trump
Emily: They did anticipate something like Trump, that's why they structured the branches the way they did.
Donal: Way to prove Joe's point.

Your logic isn't logicing.

You're missing a really important fact. Can you guess what it is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I took it as the system isn't working. At all.

Trump committed impeachable crimes but because the founders didn't expect a political party to become a cult of personality he hasn't been held responsible at all. On top of that he has a SCOTUS that just handed him a get out of jail free card because he loaded it with his nut huggers that will give him whatever he wants. Trump also got a criminal case dismissed by a judge that didn't recuse herself, despite obvious bias, based on a random opinion from a SCOTUS judge that didn't set precedent and that was also a Trump nut hugger.

So, they didn't really anticipate something like Trump and I would extend the lack of anticipation for his dumb ******* moron supporters and the dumb ******* moron senators and the dumb ******* moron house reps that enable him.

TL; DR, if they planned for someone like Trump, their planning didn't work and the checks and balances put in place are now on the brink of collapsing if Trump gets re-elected. Now he's got a playbook and experience on how to break the system more.

They planned for something like Trump - an individual person with a cultish personality that appeals to the populace on an emotional level. They didn't plan for the way the parties have gained power as non-governmental agencies that effectively control policy.

And if you think that the power exerted by the parties as entities is limited to the GOP, well, I can't help you with that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hmmm, that doesn't look like Article 3. Can you cite in Article 3, or anywhere in the Consitution that grants SCOTUS that power?

I genuinely don't feel like playing this stupid game. How about you explain what the role and power of the judicial branch is? That would be awesome. Then you can proceed to enlighten us all on how your view plays into the actual decisions and work that SCOTUS actually does and has been doing since its inception. You know, like actually opining on the constitutionality of laws... something they've been doing since the beginning.

But hey, it doesn't use exactly the words you're looking for, and doesn't give you a glossary, and the government page describing the role of the court system doesn't cut it for you.

Sometimes I would really like to just have a decent, reasonable, and intelligent conversation without having someone get wrapped up in inane and pointless gotchas that don't contribute anything except frustration.

 

[shemp]

T****y, releasing his plan for immigration: Herp. Herp a derp. Herp a derpity derp. Flippetty floppety, glibbety globbety minpy moopy moo!

Trumpistas: Sounds of drowning noises from all the tears they cried at this "predisential" solution.

Yesterday, I was listening to some "pundits"* say that Kamala Harris needs to give the public more specifics on her plans. Meanwhile, The Orange Blob can **** in a paper bag and put in on voters' doorsteps and light it on fire, and millions cheer. Having a thought of a concept of a plan, and being able to breathe, is good enough for them.

* Definition of "pundit": Person who gets paid ridiculous money to pull **** out of their ass and call it wisdom.