What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic VP candidates - Kamala Harris Is The Choice (1 Viewer)

The Future Champs said:
I guess you missed the part where the OP cited the LAST 12 quarters of the Obama administration.   
I did not miss it, I just see it for what it is-cherry picking.  

I compared one administrations' full run to the full run, so far, of another. Any of us could talk about that "one time" we did well in Vegas and won $5000 but it doesn't tell the complete picture of the $30000 we lost overall. 

There were absolutely no points made to say that the Obama administration was responsible for the Great recession; only what they did during that time. In the same vein, others shouldn't be saddling a word-wide pandemic that occurred during the final quarter of another administration and paint it out to be like that is the end all, be all failure of man...but they do. 

What should be the most telling points in this is that, as someone said above, there were 12 good quarters in the Obama administration. The Trump administration has had a comparable period as well. We can pick many things and say this one was better here, that one there. The one that I find interesting to me more than most others is the record low unemployment in the trump administration which equally extends to the black and hispanic communities at the same time as the rest of the country.  to me, that is a very solid indicator that the methods of how to fairly manage a successful economy works and, more importantly, is fair, to ALL. 

I am not interested in arguing with people who have their minds set in stone on what they don't like. I am interested in sharing information and letting people who genuinely want to think about it and discuss do so.

We can spend all day, everyday, saying things that bolster one side or take shots at the other but it doesn't matter. Nothing we say here will replace the election that will decide things. I am just saying that if re-elected, the current administration has provided a very good economy for its citizens. 

 
The Future Champs said:
Unemployment- 4-5% is considered natural in the USA at any given point.
Oh, Really?

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

Let take a look at a few things, shall we?

First, note the last 20 years - Unemployment has been at 4% or less in 29 of those 240 months.

The average monthly Unemployment Rate is a little over 6%

Second, let look a little more closely at the trends.  Take a look at how unemployment was trending into Obama's presidency?  Did that trend change during Obama's administration?

Now, lets look at the trend leading into Trump's presidency.  Excluding the covid months, for the sake of this argument, did the trend change during Trump's administration?

 
Oh, Really?

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm

Let take a look at a few things, shall we?

First, note the last 20 years - Unemployment has been at 4% or less in 29 of those 240 months.

The average monthly Unemployment Rate is a little over 6%

Second, let look a little more closely at the trends.  Take a look at how unemployment was trending into Obama's presidency?  Did that trend change during Obama's administration?

Now, lets look at the trend leading into Trump's presidency.  Excluding the covid months, for the sake of this argument, did the trend change during Trump's administration?
There was a website that had a game related to this, where there were a bunch of graphs like that without x axis labels and you had click on where you thought Trump became president. I was looking for it yesterday but could not find it. Kind of blows up the good for the economy and other arguments about how much the president matters for things like that when the slope does not change from previous administrations. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you don't mention the massive deficits created by the Trump tax cuts during a sustained period of of growth, you're not being completely honest. Many countries have created temporary growth by excess spending, that's easy. Now that we're in a recession, we really can't cut taxes anymore. Even without COVID, the tax cuts were never going to pay for themselves,  instead our retirement and our children's future will be diminished by those cuts. When Regan did his tax cuts, there was a recession and the toprate was 70%. Some of his cuts were justifiable.

 
Well, somehow the guy born to a wealthy real estate tycoon who lived in a house literally made of gold was able to lock up the lesser-educated, blue-collar sect of the voting public so who knows at this point.
President Trump, and Republicans in general, are far better at campaigning to working America than the DNC. The Democrats need a healthy dose of populism imo. There is a growing movement, and Bernie almost had something, but it hasn't quite tipped over just yet.

 
President Trump, and Republicans in general, are far better at campaigning to working America than the DNC. The Democrats need a healthy dose of populism imo. There is a growing movement, and Bernie almost had something, but it hasn't quite tipped over just yet.
My belief is that Trump won both the Republican nomination and the general election in large part because he appealed to an ill-informed electorate by providing knee-jerk impractical answers to difficult problems.  I don't want the Democrats to copy that strategy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My belief is that Trump won both the Republican nomination and the general election in large part because he appealed to an ill-informed electorate. by providing knee-jerk impractical answers to difficult problems.  I don't want the Democrats to copy that strategy.
Oh I think there are different ways to implement the strategy. Working hard to win back unions, for one.

 
My belief is that Trump won both the Republican nomination and the general election in large part because he appealed to an ill-informed electorate by providing knee-jerk impractical answers to difficult problems.  I don't want the Democrats to copy that strategy.
And you would be wrong.  VERY wrong.  Have you learned nothing over the last 4 years?  Your post is literally dripping with condescension.

He won because the alternative was much worse.  Don't know how many times we have to repeat that yet, you guys refuse to accept it.  HRC was literally worse in many people's eyes.

I hope at least you're preparing for a possible Trump win.  This constant drama every day by the left is getting tiresome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
President Trump, and Republicans in general, are far better at campaigning to working America than the DNC. The Democrats need a healthy dose of populism imo. There is a growing movement, and Bernie almost had something, but it hasn't quite tipped over just yet.
The populist insurgency within the Democratic Party got destroyed.  I mean totally demolished.  I don’t think people have really come to grips with just how little the party leadership cares about the left base- on ending the wars, legalizing drugs, single payer healthcare, stripping corporate money out of electoral politics, etc.  Bernie folded to the establishment without much of a fight.  

 
The populist insurgency within the Democratic Party got destroyed.  I mean totally demolished.  I don’t think people have really come to grips with just how little the party leadership cares about the left base- on ending the wars, legalizing drugs, single payer healthcare, stripping corporate money out of electoral politics, etc.  Bernie folded to the establishment without much of a fight.  


Link

Link2

Link3

Link4

For example.

 
So then you won't be arguing when the right tries to paint her as a liberal? 
Depends on what they say. If they say she has a liberal voting record in the Senate or that she is one of the most liberal Senators - no. Why would I? That’s a fact. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not miss it, I just see it for what it is-cherry picking.  

I compared one administrations' full run to the full run, so far, of another. Any of us could talk about that "one time" we did well in Vegas and won $5000 but it doesn't tell the complete picture of the $30000 we lost overall. 

There were absolutely no points made to say that the Obama administration was responsible for the Great recession; only what they did during that time. In the same vein, others shouldn't be saddling a word-wide pandemic that occurred during the final quarter of another administration and paint it out to be like that is the end all, be all failure of man...but they do. 

What should be the most telling points in this is that, as someone said above, there were 12 good quarters in the Obama administration. The Trump administration has had a comparable period as well. We can pick many things and say this one was better here, that one there. The one that I find interesting to me more than most others is the record low unemployment in the trump administration which equally extends to the black and hispanic communities at the same time as the rest of the country.  to me, that is a very solid indicator that the methods of how to fairly manage a successful economy works and, more importantly, is fair, to ALL. 

I am not interested in arguing with people who have their minds set in stone on what they don't like. I am interested in sharing information and letting people who genuinely want to think about it and discuss do so.

We can spend all day, everyday, saying things that bolster one side or take shots at the other but it doesn't matter. Nothing we say here will replace the election that will decide things. I am just saying that if re-elected, the current administration has provided a very good economy for its citizens
It’s propped up, fake news. Venezuela has a stock market on fire too. 

 
It's like you don't even want to hear the truth.  You just rather throw fake talking points out and pretend they're true.

You actually prove shutout's point very well. 
I just told the truth bro. 
 

I’m sorry...I know the truth hurts sometimes. 
 

If Jay Powell wasn’t printing money and giving it to millions of people we’d be worse than the Great Depression. 
 

The exact people who rail against fake news calls the truth fake news. I feel sorry for you. 

 
I just told the truth bro. 
 

I’m sorry...I know the truth hurts sometimes. 
 

If Jay Powell wasn’t printing money and giving it to millions of people we’d be worse than the Great Depression. 
 

The exact people who rail against fake news calls the truth fake news. I feel sorry for you. 
You ain't told any truth. You put forth a bunch of fake talking points I could have just got on vox or the daily kos or from the DNC website itself.

That ain't the truth. That's propaganda.

 
My belief is that Trump won both the Republican nomination and the general election in large part because he appealed to an ill-informed electorate by providing knee-jerk impractical answers to difficult problems.  I don't want the Democrats to copy that strategy.
Agreed.  And the funny part is that the real Republican Party doesn’t even want an association to the parts of trumps base that are racist and Qanon.  Yes they need those votes right now but they would dump them all right now for a better option.  And not look back.

yes, I said parts so I am not saying every trump voter falls into one of those two groups.

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
Agreed.  And the funny part is that the real Republican Party doesn’t even want an association to the parts of trumps base that are racist and Qanon.  Yes they need those votes right now but they would dump them all right now for a better option.  And not look back.

yes, I said parts so I am not saying every trump voter falls into one of those two groups.
Oh look it! The racist Boogeyman around every corner has appeared again!

You guys are unreal.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: rct
Oh look it! The racist Boogeyman around every corner has appeared again!

You guys are unreal.
What did I saw that was incorrect?  The Republican  Party used to have some prestige to it.  Now  the leader of the party is welcoming racists and conspiracy theorists to the club.  
 

again, not that everyone behind trump is in one or both of those groups - but he needed their vote to win the election.

 
What did I saw that was incorrect?  The Republican  Party used to have some prestige to it.  Now  the leader of the party is welcoming racists and conspiracy theorists to the club.  
 

again, not that everyone behind trump is in one or both of those groups - but he needed their vote to win the election.
no he didn't.  That's made up hogwash to justify the atrocious behavior of the left and to make virtue signaler's feel better about what happened in 2016

You guys just wont' stop with this stuff.

Trump didn't need The Racist BoogeymanTM anymore than HRC needed him/her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Her voting record doesn’t mean much in McConnell-dominated Senate.  This happens every cycle, the minority party throws up tons of legislation they know will never pass and then points their fingers at the other guys. 

Do you think her attempts to keep innocent men on death row, prosecuting parents for truancy, her apparent support for the drug war as late as 2015, flipflopping on m4a, centrist line on foreign policy, and meetings with rich donors in the Hamptons are consistent with being progressive?  It’s pretty obvious that she’s not.  She’s just another corporatist politician.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Her voting record doesn’t mean much in McConnell-dominated Senate.  This happens every cycle, the minority party throws up tons of legislation they know will never pass and then points their fingers at the other guys. 

Do you think her attempts to keep innocent men on death row, prosecuting parents for truancy, her apparent support for the drug war as late as 2015, flipflopping on m4a, centrist line on foreign policy, and meetings with rich donors in the Hamptons are consistent with being progressive?  It’s pretty obvious that she’s not.  She’s just another corporatist politician.  
Throwing out her most recent years of voting seems to be cherry picking to prove your point. She is liberal even when compared to other Democratic Senators. I get that she's not liberal enough for you. 

Now - what do I think of her criminal justice history? I think its bad. I don't like it. I don't like Biden's record on it either. But that's not EVEN CLOSE to being enough to vote for Trump over Biden.

 
Now - what do I think of her criminal justice history? I think its bad. I don't like it. I don't like Biden's record on it either. But that's not EVEN CLOSE to being enough to vote for Trump over Biden.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that Biden and Harris can pull a Nixon-goes-to-China on criminal justice reform.  Realistically, Biden is a lost cause on this issue IMO, but I do like what Harris said about it during the campaign.  Her record is horrible, but maybe that gives her the space to make better policy now.

 
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that Biden and Harris can pull a Nixon-goes-to-China on criminal justice reform.  Realistically, Biden is a lost cause on this issue IMO, but I do like what Harris said about it during the campaign.  Her record is horrible, but maybe that gives her the space to make better policy now.
I think the environment is right for substantive changes to criminal justice - and if Biden/Harris win, that will be a signature issue for them - particularly Harris in the run-up to the 2024 election.

 
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that Biden and Harris can pull a Nixon-goes-to-China on criminal justice reform.  Realistically, Biden is a lost cause on this issue IMO, but I do like what Harris said about it during the campaign.  Her record is horrible, but maybe that gives her the space to make better policy now.
I suppose it's possible, and maybe she did have a genuine change of heart on the matter.  But I think the issue does highlight what a lot of people find off-putting about her in that she seems to be stridently in favor of whatever side of an issue currently has political momentum.  Somehow, it seems like when the political winds change she has come to a deeply thought out change in opinion herself that matches with the new zeitgeist.  It just reeks of inauthenticity, whether it is or not.

That said, I think the low to medium information voters that will decide the election are not going to go back and look at her earlier record.  They are going to go by what she says now and how articulately/persuasively she says it.  So, in the practical sense it won't matter and we won't really know until she gets into office.

 
no he didn't.  That's made up hogwash to justify the atrocious behavior of the left and to make virtue signaler's feel better about what happened in 2016

You guys just wont' stop with this stuff.

Trump didn't need The Racist BoogeymanTM anymore than HRC needed him/her.
I think we are back to he didn’t win a single demographic but old white men - for a reason.  
 

I have friends that deny he’s a racist - I can’t judge the guys heart - just his actions and statements - and there’s a lot of concern there.  I get why his supporters don’t want to acknowledge he’s a racist - cause if it were true, many would still vote for him anyways.

so if he were a proven racist - say the alleged apprentice tapes were revealed and there were many instances of him using the N word - would he have your vote in 2020?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose it's possible, and maybe she did have a genuine change of heart on the matter.  But I think the issue does highlight what a lot of people find off-putting about her in that she seems to be stridently in favor of whatever side of an issue currently has political momentum.  Somehow, it seems like when the political winds change she has come to a deeply thought out change in opinion herself that matches with the new zeitgeist.  It just reeks of inauthenticity, whether it is or not.

That said, I think the low to medium information voters that will decide the election are not going to go back and look at her earlier record.  They are going to go by what she says now and how articulately/persuasively she says it.  So, in the practical sense it won't matter and we won't really know until she gets into office.
I have very little doubt that Harris's newfound zeal for CJ reform is completely inauthentic and opportunistic.  If she inauthentically and opportunistically abolishes mandatory minimum sentencing, legalizes pot, etc., I'm totally fine with that.  The fact that she's an opportunist and this is suddenly a winning issue politically is what gives me hope.

 
I have very little doubt that Harris's newfound zeal for CJ reform is completely inauthentic and opportunistic.  If she inauthentically and opportunistically abolishes mandatory minimum sentencing, legalizes pot, etc., I'm totally fine with that.  The fact that she's an opportunist and this is suddenly a winning issue politically is what gives me hope.
I agree that if someone enacts policy I support it doesn't much matter to me whether that person does so for authentic or politically expedient reasons.  I do, however, think that someone is more likely to follow through on campaign promises if they are true believers in the cause versus just mouthing the words.  

 
I agree that if someone enacts policy I support it doesn't much matter to me whether that person does so for authentic or politically expedient reasons.  I do, however, think that someone is more likely to follow through on campaign promises if they are true believers in the cause versus just mouthing the words.  
2024 is the carrot in front of Harris to help make her mark in the next two years.  Authentic, or not, she will be motivated to show an accomplishment in the next two years.

 
What's the plan for replacing her in the Senate....how does that work?  Is this a temporary appointment or is there an off cycle election?

 
What's the plan for replacing her in the Senate....how does that work?  Is this a temporary appointment or is there an off cycle election?
I would assume that the governor appoints somebody, with a special election next November.  That's how it work in most states, but maybe California is different somehow.  

ETA -- Obviously this is a very safe blue seat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For people who know this issue well but say Kamala is being disingenuous about her stance on weed. What would you have liked to do as California AG? 

 
Throwing out her most recent years of voting seems to be cherry picking to prove your point. She is liberal even when compared to other Democratic Senators. I get that she's not liberal enough for you. 

Now - what do I think of her criminal justice history? I think its bad. I don't like it. I don't like Biden's record on it either. But that's not EVEN CLOSE to being enough to vote for Trump over Biden.
What seems like cherrypicking to me is to lean on an inconsequential voting record and ignore her actual career as a prosecutor and her cozy relationship with the establishment wing of the party.  In the end, much like her refusal to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, her liberal voting record did nothing to stop the GOP’s corruption.  I think she’d prove to be just as pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-mass incarceration as anyone else.  

It’s like it’s still a huge mystery to people that money controls elections, and Kamala Harris gets picked because the donors like her.  Are we supposed to believe that Joe Biden and a bunch of billionaires picked the most liberal senator in the country to advance their interests?  I mean come on.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top