An aspect of the GOP/Trump's agenda, if he wins the presidency, is civil service reform. Since the constitution gives the president control over the executive branch, conservatives have thought that laws aiming to curtail the ability to hire and fire the president's subordinates is unconstitutional and by pushing for such reform, they can expunge the so-called "deep state" of bureaucrats who are employed from administration to administration regardless of which party controls the White House.

My concern is not about Trump's desires specifically, but how if non-military federal employees became at-will workers, how such a change would work and impact how the federal government carries out its tasks, both routine and long-term. Would the threat of being fired or benefit of being hired alter how government workers do their jobs compared to the private sector? Will more partisans seek employment in federal government knowing that they'd likely to be hired by a co-partisan administration? Will many if not most employees feel that a 4 to 8 year stint in government would be routine instead of lifetime employment? How would both parties seek to advantage themselves under such rules?

There is a lot of belief that the heightened inflation rate in 2021 & 2022 came from grocery store price hikes. The truth to this has been hotly debated, but Harris says she wants to make price-gouging illegal in grocery stores to keep inflation down. What do you think of this idea? Do you think there are any unseen drawbacks to this issue?

This is probably a scenario that would not happen anytime soon, but I think it would be to discuss what potential effects it would have on the economies of the three countries if the border agreement was implemented. For example, would Mexico face a loss in population due to people leaving the US or maybe Mexico gains population for its cheaper cost of living. What would happen if a hypothetical agreement was signed?

Georgia is deep in the heart of the red south. It's neighbouring states are all firmly Trumpland, to the point that the Dems barely consider them. But somehow Georgia is different; Biden took it in 2020 and it's still a battleground this year. What is it about the state that stops it from going the same way as Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and the rest of the deep red south?

Here is where I am coming from on this question-prompt for discussion:

I carry out this exercise once every four years. The point of this exercise (for me) isn't to name people I think will win. It is to force myself to think a bit more deeply about, and state clearly to my fellow voters, what it is that I would like to see in a Republican candidate. It's hard ever to get where you would like to go if you can't do a decent job of defining where it is you want to go. I'm hopeful that my fellow voters find this a useful exercise.

Any politician (or thought leader on the right) who might plausibly be called a Republican candidate is fair game for this exercise, including those who have not thrown their hats in the ring and even those that have signaled they would not allow themselves to be drafted.

Kamala Harris has received a substantial amount of support from the American general public but lot of her stated positions and policies(primarily around Gaza) have been unsatisfactory or outright repudiated by the progressive elements of the Democratic Party.

Given how outspoken the dissatisfaction of this subset of the electorate is and with groups like the uncommitted movement being very unsupportive of Harris and essentially threatening to withhold their votes and give Donald Trump a victory in states like Michigan, how real is the concern that Harris not being more left leaning could cost her votes and have her lose? It’s a tight race and every vote counts does it not?

One tactic that Harris seems like she is really trying to leverage is that Trump lacks the gravitas of a president. She referred to him as “not serious” in her DNC speech and continues to highlight it with her “next question please” about his race baiting.

However, Trump’s campaign seems to be leaning in to it with name calling and flippancy. For example, Stephen Cheung’s comment about the interview, “America was eagerly anticipating an interview where Comrade Kamala and Tampon Tim would actually answer questions—after she refused to do any interviews of press conferences for 39 days—but what they got was a shameful display of lying of policy positions and basic facts," Cheung said. "America tuned into a train wreck."

Seeing that a lot of Trump’s appeal seems to be his projection of strength, does this line of attack have potential to be effective?

A lot of Republicans like Larry Hogan, Jeff Flake, Cindy McCain, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger gave support to Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Why didn't Hillary Clinton receive the same Bipartisanship Endorsements in 2016?

The town hall in Wisconsin today for Trump was thought to be a speech. He said they told him last minute that it's a town hall.

Do you think his campaign was trying to get him to stay on topic and talk about his policy areas to voters.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/JivPzkvA5Qq7LAj2/?mibextid=oFDknk

During these harrowing economic downturns or periods of grave national urgency, it is a popular belief that democracies should compromise some of their freedoms for immediate and stable economic recovery. Others hold that compromising some basic liberties for the sake of economic prosperity is in a sense killing democracy itself, and starting down the path towards authoritarianism. Under what conditions, therefore, would it be considered a democratic government's right to put financial matters above civil rights, and where does one draw the line?

Both Harris and Trump have said they would not charge taxes on tips. Although there are very few details to the plan, at least Harris has said that it would only apply to income tax (not payroll tax) and be capped at salaries of $75k.

It appears very popular with politicians but unpopular with economists who have opined.

1. Is "No Tax on Tips" a good policy?

2. If so, why? If not, why and why are both Harris and Trump arguing for it?

3. Will it pass Congress? If so, what would have to happen for it to pass?

According to a recent Emerson College poll of battleground states, down-ballot Republicans are underperforming Donald Trump. To wit:   Arizona:   President: R+3.7 Senate: D+6.8   Michigan:   President: D+3.6 Senate: D+6.4   Nevada:   President: D+1.1 Senate: D+10.9   North Carolina:   President: R+0.9 Governor: D+6.3   Pennsylvania:   President: Tied Senate: D+4.3   Wisconsin:   President: R+0.7 Senate: D+1.2

Why are down-ballot Republicans performing worse than Donald Trump in those states?

Hey everyone!!

Was just lying on my bed and heard from the other room Trump on television saying: "[Kamala] destroyed San Francisco."

Obviously this rhetoric is very prevalent amongst conservatives, claiming that democrats have destroyed major cities.

I'm curious about the origins of these claims and the pros/cons in these types of broad, generalizing assessments.

I could bring up a lot of different pardons that have been controversial (and commutations and a few other kinds of clemency). Roger Stone might be a good example for a pardon issued by Trump, Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is another. Jimmy Carter issued a pardon to many Vietnam draft dogers and that is often seen to be a good thing in hindsight for those who resisted an illegal and immoral war, while Andrew Johnson's pardon of CSA leaders is seen by many as giving impunity for acts of terrorism and a rebellion over nothing more than selfish desires to maintain slavery that killed over half a million people. A Hungarian president got into hot water this year over her pardon of a sex offender and had to resign.

Different places have different rules for pardons. Some places, especially some American states, might have a board of clemency which must recommend that a person be given a pardon to be eligible. Others give only the legislature this power, as in Switzerland. Some suggest a president may not issue a pardon to themselves or their relatives. And more suggestions abound.

An NPR piece came out this morning about Trump and the cemetery incident, and for several hours, clicking on the link from Twitter brought up the following:

"Warning: this link may be unsafe"

I've noticed my feed take a hard right shift, but this was new, a warning about NPR?

How much of this is Musk vs. the algorithms, vs. user behavior?

Will it swing voters?

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-army-defends-arlington-national-cemetery-employee-trump-campaign-incident-2024-08-29/

According to the source, the US Army has made a statement on the matter, considered "rare" by source as the Army seldom comments on political matters.

Key quotes: "An ANC (Arlington National Cemetery) employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside," the Army statement said.

"This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked," it added.

1.) Trump's campaign has had a few different statements to the incident so far, one being: "Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung had said: '"The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump's team during a very solemn ceremony.'" (Reuters)

2.) “'For a despicable individual to physically prevent President Trump’s team from accompanying him to this solemn event is a disgrace and does not deserve to represent the hollowed [sic] grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. Whoever this individual is spreading these lies are dishonoring the men and women of our armed forces, and they are disrespecting everyone who paid the price for defending our country,' LaCivita continued." A statement provided to CNN.

3.) JD Vance has outright stated Kamala can "go to hell" in response to Kamala's criticism of the Arlington National Cemetery incident.

This story has begun to gain widespread coverage. Do you think this will move the needle or have significant consequences for the Trump campaign?

UPDATE:

Campaign Adviser Chris LaVita has responded with a tweet, reposting some ANC footage to "trigger the hacks" at the US Army.

Once upon a time Harris supported banning fracking and endorsed a set of energy policies known as the Green New Deal but has not been as vocal on the matter lately. Harris also seems to have backed off her support for a single-payer health care system and has emphasized the importance of border security, vowing to sign a bipartisan border bill in her speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Harris responded to Dana Bash's inquiry about climate change and that Harris no longer opposes fracking. Harris said "...the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act. We have set goals for the United States of America, and by extension, the globe, around when we should meet certain standards for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as an example. That value has not changed."

Harris continued: "My value around what we need to secure our border, that value has not changed. I spent two terms as the attorney general of California prosecuting transnational criminal organizations, violations of American laws regarding the passage, illegal passage, of guns, drugs and human beings across the border. My values have not changed."

Perhaps in a show of her bipartisan approach Harris also said she would appoint a Republican member to her Cabinet. Harris went on to explain "I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it's important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences. And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican."

Harris also revealed several of her proposed economic policies, which include raising the level of tax levied on corporations, ending taxes on tipped income and expanding current child tax credit provisions. Newsweek has broken down what she hopes to achieve with her tax policies here. Harris went in great detail about helping with housing [$25,000] credit for first time home buyers.

Earlier this month, Harris told supporters at a campaign rally in North Carolina that she wanted to build an "opportunity economy."

Interview addressed many other issues including Biden, as well as foreign policies- conflict in Gaza, a path to peace and curtailing some other countries.

When Dana asked Harris about some of Trump's ongoing comments about race and her identity. Harris dismissed it as the same old paybook!

Did Harris meet or exceed expectation?

Watch: Harris tells CNN that she would name a Republican to serve in her Cabinet if elected | CNN Politics

Kamala Harris on Policy Positions Changing Since 2020: "My Values Have Not Changed" | Video | RealClearPolitics

choices in upcoming election in my country. the first choice is an incompetent guy with past ties of religion extremism and racism, but he is very pro-democracy and will safeguard it. the second choice is a competent guy, been ruling my country for the past ten years, contributed massively in economic growth and political stability, but he is very authoritarian and doesn’t care about democracy, been cracking down on press freedom and busy gathering political power with purpose of creating a government with powerless opposition.

which one will you choose? why?

edit: this is somewhere in asia (not india). the latter has been proven competent because every aspect of people’s lives has improved greatly during his tenure (except regarding democracy and press freedom). the former has been proven incompetent because he previously served poorly as a cabinet minister for one year (sacked due to failure of multiple policies) and governor of a province for 5 years (destroyed that province by his policies and racist views).

If Donald Trump loses this year’s election and is no longer a factor and won’t run in 2028 (due to health issues, legal challenges, or other reasons, including possibly being deceased), do you believe the GOP platform will undergo change or reform?

I ask because after the 2012 election and the Republican Party losing the Presidential race twice in a row (just like in this scenario), the GOP was expected to undergo reform in response to its poor performance, aiming for a broader appeal with minorities, a more inclusive approach to immigration, increased candidate diversity, and other changes.

“I think it’s important to have people at the table when some of the most important decisions are being made that have different views, different experiences,” she said in an interview with CNN. “And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.”

As a reminder, four Republicans served in Obama's Cabinet: Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation, Robert McDonald as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Gates and Chuck Hagel as Secretaries of Defense.

To be clear, I don’t just mean would they accept a contribution from a donor that made a larger contribution to their opponent (which obviously happens all the time), but rather, do you think they would refuse a $1 million contribution if by doing so they would stop their opponent from receiving $2 million?

Let's say Kamala wins in November and many of the people already serving in Biden's cabinet decide to step down. Who would you like to see potentially serve in her cabinet? Would Hillary Clinton be someone that should serve in her cabinet? What would be the arguments for and against that? There's the nice optics of the first woman to be an official party nominee to serve under the first female president, but what benefits and drawbacks would having Hillary in her administration bring?

So, a lot of discussions is on Trump and Kamalas internal policies, ones that will affect the American people, I haven't seen any foreign policy as of yet and I am worried that if trump is reelected then Trump will do anything within his power to pressure Ukraine into giving up.

I've seen a lot of people even say he will try to handicap NATO in some way shape or form and will basically give Russia the upper hand in any peace deal.

How realistic is this?

So the title basically says it all. If Trump is convicted on all Federal Charges, still alive and in Prison, what is the likelihood that the next Republican President will simply pardon him assuming that Kamela wins this election but loses the next one to the next Republican challenger?

On another note, if he is Pardoned on all Federal Charges but still serving time for his State Charges, will there be a great deal of pressure on the New York Governor and the Georgia Governor Board to ALSO pardon him so he is a completely free man?

It's not so much of a question as which are the best arguments but more of a question of what these voters care about and how to get the message across. I ask in part because of the generalization that those on the fence aren't always the most engaged voters on all of the key issues, understand the roles of the judicial branch, House and Senate, what the majorities are going to look like, or how the courts will affect the country. What areas to you lean on and how do you communicate this?

Key points to consider:

The federal judiciary - How does one communicate the impact of the judicial balance? The federal judiciary is still largely Republican-stacked, including critically, the 6-3 Republican Supreme Court that has already made extremely controversial rulings many legal scholars say are based on questionable and inconsistent application of the law. They've also already ruled on granting Trump practical immunity from any crimes in office and are set to green light most executive actions he attempts. How does this judicial balance affect a Trump vs Harris presidency?

Senate control - The Senate is very likely to be in Republican hands due to a very favorable 2024 map. So they would greenlight nearly all of Trump cabinet and judicial picks. Harris nominees that one imagines are too progressive or not qualified would be blocked. Similarly, they would block any legislation one believes would be too progressive that the House might pass (unclear which party will have the majority there).

Fitness for office - Examples: qualifications, understanding and adherence to the law, support of democratic institutions

Character

Policies and Issues - healthcare, budget proposals and deficit impact, abortion, etc.

Address voter high priority concerns like inflation, pointing out the primary drivers of the global supply chain crisis and how each president might have impacted that or impact inflation going forward. Note job growth and real wage growth.

Project 2025

Others?

Which of these areas do you think reaches swing voters who value moderation and how do you go about communicating with them? I mean, one might argue that federal judiciary and Senate control are critical in this case, but not sure those voters understand what's at stake or how one might communicate that.

While most Americans have a negative view of what is happening in Gaza, support for Israel overall is above 50%.

But an expanding settler project in the West Bank keeps reaching the news. Dozens of peaceful West Bank Palestinians killed, thousands driven from homes and farms, Christian communities in East Jerusalem and Bethlehem threatened with extinction.

Expanding military action in the West Bank even reached the front page of CBS, CNN, and the AP this morning.

It should also be noted that expanding settlement in the West Bank contributes to making a two state solution impossible.

For many months his supports on this sub claimed that he was not a Republican-funded spoiler candidate but a true third party candidate for president.. But things have shifted significantly since he gave up his campaign. The question now is whether the people who were enthusiastic RFK supporters are willing to follow him in his support for Trump.

What do you think they will do?

With Donald Trump, the media frequently engages in intense scrutiny, often highlighting controversial statements and actions, which fuels polarized debates. Hillary Clinton faced substantial critical coverage, especially regarding her email scandal and Benghazi, despite her long tenure in public service. Joe Biden, while receiving less vitriol than Trump, has often been subject to critical coverage concerning his policy decisions and cognitive fitness.

In contrast, Kamala Harris has seemed to faced-less rigorous examination—is this due to her historic status and the sensitivity surrounding race and gender? Or her late entry?

John Stossel has recently released one of the first critical analyses of Harris that I have seen. https://x.com/JohnStossel/status/1828830149095149898

If a country were to be founded tomorrow, what would it take for democracy to thrive? What rights should be protected, how much should the government involve itself with the people, how should it protect the minority from mob rule, and how can it keeps its leaders in check? Is the American government doing everything that the ideal democratic state would do? If you had the power to reform the American government, what changes would you make?

At least in my state, and I believe in most states, candidates are responsible for having their petitions and various pieces of candidate paperwork filled out completely and accurately

In general, Voter Services does not vet the information on the application. Not only do they not have the resources, they have someone else willing to do the work for free: the opposing candidates and various other people who have a motivation to get someone kicked off the ballot. Those individuals and parties are highly motivated to locate issues in the paperwork to get people off the ballot, because it's a lot easier to ensure no one votes for Candidate X if they're not on the ballot

This also motivates candidates not to screw up, because they know it's not just some random person in an office glancing at the forms

Every year candidates submit flawed paperwork that is successfully challenged, and candidates are removed from the ballots because of it

So the question: should Voter Services be given the resources to 'pre-vet' applications and petitions to warn candidates when there are errors? Would they even have time to fix the problems if they were identified, since many submissions are received at the last minute? Would there be an uneven level of scrutiny applied based on the partisan lean of the relevant governing body?

Or is the current system just fine, and people need to take the time to fill out the forms correctly if they want to be entrusted with authority?