The Harris campaign needs to 1) use the following heuristics, 2) to argue on fiscal issues, 3) on high-leverage platforms.

There are multiple opportunities to engage both “persuade to participate” and swing voters on fiscal issue based on heuristics. 

The campaign could go to these heuristics but hasn't yet and should go to them currently in front of large audiences (i.e., high-leverage platforms).

Here are things that I think Harris should say on fiscal issues (with the justification for saying these things in parentheses):

JD Vance himself said in 2020 but before covid that Trump "thoroughly failed" in his economic promises. And we should explore why.

[The fact that Donald Trump's own VP candidate said before covid that he failed on his economic promises is an excellent heuristic to start with.]

Donald Trump promised to balance the budget. Donald Trump quintupled the federal deficit, while Barack Obama halved the federal deficit and Joe Biden halved the federal deficit.

[Elon Musk has been hammering Democrats on "government overspending" to his 200 million followers on X and has associated this with inflation. Democrats have a strong track record on the budget deficit and should grab that win on the issue by appealing to it. Harris should not be shy about defending Biden's fiscal record relative to Trump because there's a lot to defend. And Harris hasn't been able to separate from Biden anyway as Biden's VP. And it's important to show the record of Trump relative to Biden to put Trump's failures in context.]

The budget deficit started rocketing early in Trump's administration (well before covid) and it's because Democrats are willing to tax the wealthy and Donald Trump and Republicans aren't.

[This is a way to include reference to the Trump tax cuts on the wealthy without demonizing the wealthy and in the context of showing Democrats are better on fiscal sustainability, which has been tied in public perception to inflation..]

The Trump tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy either. Trump promised to grow the economy 5% per year, and he grew it 1.18% per year, while Biden grew it 3.4% per year. Economic growth under both Biden and Obama was higher than under Trump, even comparing to Trump prior to covid.

[There are many people who don't like Trump but want to vote for him on some vague idea that he's better for the economy. The facts don't support it, and Harris should take this win by talking about how puny the Trump economy was relative to Biden and Obama.]

Elon Musk said that when he's part of the Trump administration he's going to cut $2 trillion from the nation's budget. And we don't even have $2 trillion in discretionary spending to cut. He would have to cut Medicare or Social Security. [Talking about this potential to cut Medicare or Social Security will both activate and persuade.]

But the other problem is that Elon Musk said that when he cuts that money off the nation's budget, the economy and financial markets will crash. That's what he said. Millions of people will lose their jobs. And we can't afford an economic crash because we have to be able to pay our federal debts. We require the economy to be strong in order to pay our debt. The only way we will repay our debt is to strengthen the economy and outgrow the debt.

[This a) suggests that she has a commitment to a strong economy and is also b) fiscally responsible and helps quell the national debt concerns and the socialism concerns and c) gives people a substantial reason to be concerned about Trump. And it addresses the many voters who wanted Trump to win to help fill their pocketbooks, including those with stock, real estate and cryptocurrency investments because if the economy crashes, those investments are going to crash.]

Since covid, inflation has hit 30 year and 40 year highs in many different countries around the world. The US is doing better than most countries. But we can't afford another quintupling of the federal deficit like what happened during the Trump administration.

Trump has no plans to bring down prices except to crash the economy and cost millions of people their jobs and crash the economy and financial markets. It's more viable to grow the economy and outgrow the debt, which is what starts to happen every time a Democrat gets in the executive office. Every Democratic president since 1980 has reduced the federal budget deficit; every Republican president since 1980 has increased the budget deficit. That pattern's held without fail for the past seven administrations. Democrats have consistently been more fiscally sustainable than Republicans.

That is what Harris should say on fiscal issues. She should say these things on high-leverage platforms, including an appearance on Rogan. She should absolutely fly to Austin to do it. But she should say these things wherever she's able to get a large audience.

If she goes on Rogan and the subject of cryptocurrency comes up, she should consider pledging to fire Gary Gensler as SEC Chairman, which Donald Trump has already pledged to do. Gensler has a very poor reputation among people investing in cryptocurrency. Pledging to fire Gensler would be a step suggesting that Harris actually means it as far as being dovish on cryptocurrency and isn't just saying she will, which many on crypto Twitter have been skeptical about. (If she's not willing to fire Gensler, this should not be a reason to avoid Rogan.)

In the closing stretch, Harris should deemphasize talk about abortion. Pro-choice people are high voter information, represent a larger fraction of voters in midterm elections than in general elections, and already know what the candidates' positions on abortion are.

Harris should deemphasize the usage of vague pejoratives to describe Trump: "fascist," "dictator," "chaotic," "weird," "divisive." Criticizing Trump in this manner sends voters the heuristic that you have no argument on the issues. Criticizing Trump is good strategy but criticize him on fiscal issues and secondarily criticize his lies and the promises he broke in his first term (e.g., balancing the budget, bringing back coal, growing the economy 5%, building a wall that Mexico would pay for).

Harris should deemphasize talk about January 6th. Voters have already heard enough about January 6th and are starved for the strong heuristics on fiscal issues that Harris could and should provide. Going to the same January 6th well too many times gives voters the heuristic that you're weak on fiscal issues.

1.Trump's fundraising is down 50% from 2020. 2.Trump is trailing Kamala Harris in small dollar individual donors. 3.Trump has yet to match his best fundraising numbers form the primary season when Biden was still in. 4.Trump lost 40% of his voters in North Carolina in 2020 vs 2016. 5.Trump lost Georgia and Arizona outright in 2020, both Georgia runoffs went to Democrats in 2021. Trump's endorsed MAGA candidates both took L's. 6.A Republican has not won staewide in Michigan or Pennsylvania since 2016. 7.Only one Republican has won staewide in Wisconsin and it was a muli term incumbent Senator who barely survived by 1% against a left of Biden Democrat. 8.The 2018 midterms saw the largest defeat of the incumbent party in aggregate votes in U.S. midterm election history during a fairly stable economy with low unemployment. 9.The oldest man ever elected hauled in the highest total votes basically because they were voting against Trump not for Biden. 10.The 2022 Midterms were an absolute bust for the GOP requiring that they seat a known criminal fraudster George Santos just to hit 50% +1 to elect a Republican Speaker and not before 15 humiliating ballots. 11.Trump endorsed candidates have take L after L in 2023 and 2024. 12.Niki Haley hauled in 150k primary votes in must win Pennsylvania after she'd already dropped out of the race, which was a greater margin that Trump ever managed in 2016 and of course zero margin in 2020. 13.Trump has been negative in approval rating every single month since inauguration day, through all four years and every month as an ex President. He's the first President I can think of who was not at least positive in net approval for his first 100 days. 14.Trump is the first convicted felon candidate for President, the first fired ex-president running for re-election, running with a VP who is himself underwater in approval in every poll since he was tapped. 15. No candidate has ever been this underwater with all women no matter education, race or marital status. 16.The incumbent president held ever senate seat and state legislature in his midterm election for the first time in 70 years despite high inflation and gas prices.

So.... why wouldn't this be consistent with Trump fatigue?

p.s. inflation has been a full point below the national average in Michigan, Wisconsin and PA for the last 12 months. Reagan won 49 of 50 states with higher inflation than those 3 states have today.

I say this because when we are discussing what's best for America we often times get into headed debates regarding who is morally superior

We start talking about values and beliefs

I say this all started with conservatives taking a moral apporach to the topic of abortion & due to Christianity being deeply rooted in many conservatives that tends to spill over into everything

Look at the candidates we have now their policies one clearly benefits the rich and wealthy while the other benefits the middle & lower classes

But most of the time when discussing reasons why we shouldn't vote for a candidate in many cases we look at their characters and beliefs and while I'm not saying that's a bad thing seeing as we are a country that prioritizes freedom of speech above critical thinking this is actually a very stupid way of doing things

The reason I say this is because most people do not take a deep dive and look into their beliefs and why they have them

I feel like if we are going to keep bringing morality into politics

We need to first change how we elect our president and the whole campaign process

We also have to priortize why we believe what we believe after truly figuring out what we believe

I think this is why so many of us get into heated discussion over politics....there's a mass difference in values & beliefs and rather than addressing that head on we tiptop around it

First,

People need to stop saying that “Kamala Harris has been in office for the last four years. Why hasn’t she done “XYZ” already? Or “Under Harris’ administration…” It is not the Harris Administration. That is not her job. It is the Biden administration. It was the Trump administration before that. He had his chance. It wasn't any better.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/

Stop praising tariffs. They are the reason the economy costs so much right now.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/trump-favors-huge-new-tariffs-how-do-they-work

Second I was driving through North Carolina and saw a sign with the Soviet Union flag(communism) with Kamala Harris on top of it saying Socialism. Ps. Socialism good communism bad.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism

On the other side it had a picture of the United States flag with Trump over it saying Patriot.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/patriot

I will agree that Trump is willing to attack anyone whether he is right or wrong. But I don’t think that would make him a patriot. No one in his family has served in the military or proved anything to show their love for the country. They love themselves and money.

As an added bonus

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism

Third How is pro-choice bad because it “doesn’t protect the children” but it’s okay to show support for a known pervert, who surrounds himself with sexual deviants and pedophiles, and wanted to sleep with his own daughter? Now I’m confused.

Imagine you’re in an online game. Maybe you’re playing an MMORPG, and someone threatens to hack your account. Most people can’t keep a skilled hacker out of their accounts. If its someone skilled and dedicated at hacking, probably no one can keep them put forever. I’ll concede that much.

But you can make it more difficult. And besides, even if a kid who’s a normal chat room user or gamer can’t beat a highly skilled hacker in a blackmail contest without police getting involved, I still would contend that:

1. You can absolutely keep low skill level or script kiddies out of your accounts. I was a script kiddie in high school and I can attest to this.

2. Even for the people who are geniuses who can get into any account they want, if your educated on things like 2FA or other basic security measures such as VPNs or how to force websites to use TLS in your browser, etc, you can make it much more difficult. Especially if you know how to spot social engineering attacks. At the very least it will be dozens of attempts to finally successfully break into your account rather than two or three. So you won’t be low hanging fruit. Like for example, a lot of people still don’t think social engineering type attacks will appear manipulative or rude, but they don’t. Skilled social engineers have high levels of empathy and are very good at acting polite. Even if manipulation itself isn’t polite, good social engineers will appear that way while using sophisticated persuasion techniques that you need to be aware of in order to not get hacked.

But most people don’t know anything about this. Even among a lot of young people some of them don’t get this stuff. This knowledge should be required learning in schools, period.

It's on his web site as platform item number 18. He calls them Hamas supporters but means all protestors. Media is not covering this. Please vote Kamala as the better choice on Gaza issue. Trump will give weapons unconditionally to Israel. Kamala is persuadable but also she needs to win first.

I am so tired of hearing about those two. When you got your ballot were you suprised to find names on it you didn't even know? Do you feel like if they took those two names off that you would know enough about the remaining candidates to rank them as presidential candidates? Do you feel it is a fair election if main stream media and the internet are keeping us from learning everything we can about the other candidates? If you don't think it is a problem. I challenge you to try to learn about the other candidates. If you can't find out who they are ask me I will help you.

As the only living Republican president besides Trump it’s my belief that if that is his opinion he should tell the American people why. It’s my opinion that his silence says Harris, but I could be wrong.

Orwell’s 1984 government had a The Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of Peace, the Ministry of Love, and the Ministry of Plenty. 

 After the MDG rally, Trump did not admit the vengeful and insulting comments, much less apologize.  Has he EVER?  After all, Trump insists that he has never asked forgiveness because he “never did Anything wrong”.

 So, instead, he said: “The love in that room, it was breathtaking. There’s never been an event that beautiful. It was a love fest. It was love for our country.”  It must be true.

 Way way wait! Aren't Porto Ricans American citizens of the country too?

In my opinion that was nothing more than an effort by the gop to convince their base the economy was horrible. I started to think, are these folks wishing an economic crash just to make the democrats look bad? Trump even said he hopes it crashes before the election and not after so it doesn't make him look bad.

Just heard on the news the economists have basically agreed we have achieved the illusory soft landing. It's amazing how many people have been convinced the economy is horrible even though every economic indicator says otherwise.

His mouth, which his ego controls and not his brain. Trump has said some pretty nasty things over the years.

His mouth as his ego made him claim victory in the overturning of roe, and he was proud of it, very proud.

His mouth which has denigrated almost every group of people I can imagine. Why, because his ego tells him he is better than all of them.

His mouth, as he tells his own voters he doesn't care about them, he only wants their votes.

Trump has driven many more people away from him than he is energizing. So many of his top level people are now warning us do not vote for trump. Losing the number of women voters and republicans that will not vote for him again, he loses.

Do those supporting an "America First" agenda/administration realize that the result is "America Alone"? Have they forgotten that after 9/11, our NATO allies send troops to Afghanistan in support of the USA? How can anyone hold that "America First" makes us stronger, more prosperous, and safer?

The recent MAGA rally at MSG has shined yet another light on Trump's strategy to make politics 'politically incorrect'.

I'm for a lot of politically incorrect humor. I agree with Trey and Matt of South Park's approach to comedy that nothing is off limits when it comes to topics you can make fun of. Of course, this doesn't make everything funny, and even they've gotten things wrong over the years. They at least own up to it, and grow from it.

The dynamic changes when you start using that kind of humor at political rallies, on the campaign trail...as a politician.

It's frustrating to me how people just don't see this.

It's one thing to be frustrated at the general obfuscation of politics and how politicians tend to treat the population like ungrateful children. It's another thing entirely to tolerate actual dehumanization in the name of humor.

You can't brush off Trump's comments about getting away with murdering people on 5th Avenue as humor. He wants to control your fucking life. That's what politics is. You're supposed take people with authority over you with the utmost seriousness, whether you respect them or not.

Not that they can't be funny, I just don't find shit like that funny. People who do likely had an abusive authority figure in their life that had to use humor as a coping mechanism to deal with it. They probably laughed at their depraved humor because they were conditioned to, consciously or subconsciously.

Humor benefits from being politically incorrect, but how is that also political? It's the damn root of the phrase!

When we excuse that in politics, when politics isn't correct, everyone suffers.

It has been stated that the presidential race is currently tight, but I'm trying to take a grain of salt of that. This is because Trump has lost a lot of allies (i.e. Mike Pence, his former White House workers, etc) and I think many voters are turning against him after everything he's done. Not to mention his 34 felony counts and many more to come. So, if anyone wins in a landslide, it's most likely going to be Harris.

If you think that strength, integrity, and a commitment to an ethic of hard work and collaboration are defining values of a generational Leader and the means to making a meaningful difference in our lives and in bringing out the best in all of us then Kamala Harris is your choice for Leader of the Free World.

Equality, diversity, and inclusion are the defining values of our democracy and current mantra of our work and daily lives. Help not blame for the disenfranchised, Empathy and compassion for the sick and needy are what make us human.  The opportunity to live in a place that is safe and secure for the future of our children and that evolves through an open-mind, dignity and respect, and celebrates our differences are the pillars of strength for our democracy and the Free World.

Given that the Republican party is chronically trying to cut entitlements, pass tax cuts for people clearing 400K per year, increase various forms of sales tax, ban unions in favor of "right-to-work"(where corporations can exploit people with low wages and no job protections), I can't understand how poor people vote for these things against their own interests...and these are just old guard republican party policies...now they want to gut even more programs that benefit the lower classes like public education, Medicare, Obamacare, FEMA, etc. I just cannot square the Republican policies with the interests of the poor and middle class. There is a billionaire, celebrity running as the Republican candidate; his running mate went to an Ivy league school; and his biggest donor is the richest man in the world. These people have NOTHING in common with low-Income and middle class voters, so why would they (the campaign) have any interest in putting forth policies that help them? This idea that the president can wave a wand and lower inflation independently of the Federal Reserve in a pro-corporate, unbridled-capitalist system is a farce and it is the only issue on which the Republicans are still polling better than Democrats. (Apart from immigration, which I won't go into, but have deep feelings about). Clearly, our public education system, combined with highly partisan news consumption, is failing our country.

I’m not old enough to vote but I have been following this election very closely and this is what I think will happen

Democrats will take the house

Republicans will secure a slim majority in the senate

Kamala will win the White House by a close but comfortable margin in the electoral college.

"He knew that America wanted a Caesar, but to be one would mean the end of America", this is from the book "World War Z" and I believe it is very relevant to everything going on now. America was built on the idea that all men are created equal, and no one man should have all the power. That is why we have elections and term limits. Yes, when the Founding Father we're far from perfect, but they knew that times will change and people will change, and America must change with it. I believe with all my heart that we are better then MAGA and the racist rhetoric they are pushing. DJT time and time again has said he would be a "Dictator on day one". The fact of the matter is that this is not American. We should be helping one another, not trying tear each other down.

Racism and hate is un-American. Fascism is un-American. Time and time again people keep saying not to take all he says seriously. But that's the problem, we should be taking every word, every letter that comes from his mouth seriously. That is how Caesars come to power. America needs todo better then a man like DJT. We can do better, we have better on the ballet.

I mean, people are lighting mail-in ballot stations on fire for god sakes. MAGA will do what every they can to scare people, to threaten people, to burn peoples ballots to make sure DJT wins. He will deny it, he will scream from every where he can think off that the election was stolen from him. J6 will happen again, but it will be worse.

I know this is rambling but I feel like this is truly one of the most important elections in our history. It is not just about Right or Left, Republican vs Democrat. Its about the soul and future of America. So I ask you, please go out there and vote against Donald J. Trump. Go out there and vote against a Dictatorship in the making. Go out there and vote for a better tomorrow. Thank You.

I hear a lot of people saying how bad the electoral college is and how it's not real representation. I actually like the electoral college for it's main purpose, giving smaller states more representation. However, I do have to agree with a lot of arguments about how it's not exactly as representative as I would like.

I don't know if this quote is actually true or who it's from, but I've heard it a couple years ago and it says something along the lines of "You know what state has the most republican voters? California" and it really put me into this mindset of how the electoral college is terrible and should be removed or whatever.

But after careful thought, I believe the best thing to do is not get rid of the electoral college, but to make it more representative with proportional representation. I'm going to use Georgia as an example because I hear about it a lot on the news. It has 16 electoral votes and let's say a candidate wins 53% of the vote, that means all 16 electoral votes go to that one candidate, even though 47% of the state didn't vote for them. So why not just split the votes with 9 going to the winning candidate and 7 going to the other?

And I know that Maine and Nebraska do something similar with splitting up the state and I do enjoy that idea. The only problem is that it's only Maine and Nebraska.

I think if we were to do this, it would lead to a more honest representation of the people in our country, a chance for third parties to get elected, and less division between the parties.

Especially when looking at data relating to political contributions and finding that 9 out of the top 10 individual political donors are Republican, and those 9 consist entirely of hedge fund managers, wealthy businessmen, and heirs to vast fortunes. Upon further inspection, I found that the Soros-funded Democracy PAC actually ranks as the 8th highest contributing organization, the top 6 of which are all Republican.

The more I read about political donations as a whole, the more I come to realize that George Soros is being scapegoated by the right into some sort of puppet master pulling the strings of government, but the real names; Timothy Mellon, Jeff Yass, Kenneth Griffin; these people who have outspent even Elon Musk go unheard. I’m still learning more about these people, but it’s already becoming clear that what George Soros donates to various causes is but a drop in the bucket compared to how much these guys are willing to spend to stay on top and enrich themselves.

Is it a good thing to be feared (Trump)?

I am noticing something about the Trump crowd. I was thinking if they are actually behind harris and needed more votes, who would they reach out to?

It seems like crowd that backs Trump is at it's limit. I see this because I see those who are behind JD vance and Trunp as Hierarchical and too tight net.

To me, the American right wing is very much for those who are part of it and is very toxic to those who are not. The right wing embraces a world of musical chairs and feeds of exiling those who don't get a seat. The Trump Adminstation's speeches and promises have only feed into this anxiety, using JD's rants about those who do and don't have a stake in society.

Harris has been outright incompetent but she is still pulling in a lot of support. She is not present, she is not transparent, and she has no plan. Do you think the anxiety against the right is that major of a issue for people to vote in a white house shut in over right wing Roosevelt?

For context, I'm a right-leaning independent. I think both parties have some policies and tendencies that are good for the country, but I lean a little right; especially on economic issues. I also believe we need right and left balance in Congress to keep either side from going overboard. This will be the fifth presidential election where I genuinely don't want to see either candidate in office. I've never voted for a Democrat for president, and I don't see Democrats as evil or wrong, they just align with my views less than the right. I held my vomit in my mouth while casting my vote for Hillary because Trump is clearly an unhinged moron. I did the same in 2020 by casting my vote for Biden (who I did not want as my president) to kick Trump out of office. Because I'm in a state that's absolutely guaranteed to vote blue down the line, I'm considering voting for senate seats and ballot measures, but not casting a vote for president. If my state allocated electoral college votes the way Maine and Nebraska do (proportionally), my vote for Kamala would matter, but it currently doesn't. I hate this system that keeps giving me only two bad candidates to choose from.

A brutal war in Europe has revealed the truth about the Global South. And let me be frank. I am no diplomat, just an ordinary soldier. I don’t need to choose my words carefully. And here’s what I’ve seen over these three years of war.

For years, the Global South has been a victim—in many senses. Europe truly thought little of the future and therefore took too much and gave too little. We were used to the idea that being European meant bearing responsibility for numerous crimes committed against countries of the Global South in ancient times.

Time went on. We heard about the terrible West: “Look at the victims from the actions of the USA! Look at the wars and the dead! Look at what the UK has done. Oh, the horrors committed by France! And Germany? And the Netherlands? And Belgium and Spain? Imperialists!” The familiar narrative. It’s true—much harm was done. But we learn and strive to correct it.

Then came the war in the heart of Europe. An Asian country attacked a European one. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A war lasting longer than World War II. A war causing global hunger. A war impacting everyone on the planet, disrupting connections and cooperation. This isn’t a local conflict between two neighbors. It’s a world war affecting everyone, everywhere. And everyone must speak up and act to stop this and bring the occupying forces home.

It was a golden opportunity for all who wanted to show: the Global South is different from the West. The Global South stands for equality and cooperation, justice and peace. The Global South is about civility and high culture, where human dignity and life are at the center of worldview and actions, where building relations and harmony in interaction with other countries is a core, dominant feature.

That’s how it should have been. But the Global South took off its mask. And after three years of active hostilities by Russia against Ukraine, it showed only one thing.

It turned out that behind endless criticism of the West, there were no principles or stance. All we saw was money, money, and more money. Nothing else interests the leaders of the Global South. Nothing else matters. All the words, speeches, and abundant criticism of Europe turned out to be hypocrisy. Their silence seems to say, “Let them die. After all… they’re white Europeans.”

The Global South wiped away centuries-old tears shed “because of the actions of the West” and decided that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the hundreds of thousands of deaths it caused are no reason to stop doing business with Russia. Moreover, countries of the Global South are actively supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine. So why can’t I say that they are as much butchers and cannibals as the Russians? Because that’s the truth.

Iran — sent drones to kill Ukrainians, actively supports Russia with weapons. North Korea sent shells, rockets, and soldiers to kill Ukrainians. China and India became the pillars of the Russian war economy. And they continue to do so, while simultaneously criticizing the West.

South Africa, Egypt, UAE, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia—all still went to Russia for “Putin’s forum” in Kazan amid an aggressive war, betraying their principles. It seems there were no principles at all, just a desire for profit. And the murder and kidnapping of children? Their actions seem to say, “Well, those aren’t real children—they’re white Europeans.”

Sri Lanka, Mauritania, Cuba, Turkey, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam—after this, do you have any right to speak about the West’s mistakes? You’re no different from the stories you tell about the “West.”

To stand alongside a murderer and child kidnapper wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague—is this the value of the Global South? It seems the only value is money.

Azerbaijan, Algeria, Mongolia, Palestine, Republic of the Congo, Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Bolivia, Armenia, Laos, Malaysia—how does it feel to stand on the same stage as a global criminal and child kidnapper? And what right do you now have to say anything about the West? You are co-authors of the mass murder in Ukraine.

The Global South has shown us all how to act when the next war begins somewhere in the Global South. All of us, the collective West, should express concern, suggest that the victim accept its fate, and start building even closer relations with the aggressor. We should be guided by money and our own interests.

And next time I hear from some hypocrite from the Global South about the “terrible West” and the need to fight for global equality and justice, I will show them the list of participants at the forum in Russia, where representatives of their country stood on the same stage with a child kidnapper and murderer of hundreds of thousands of white Ukrainians in the center of Europe.

Right now, the Global South is helping Russia stay afloat, so that these cannibals have money to continue killing even more Ukrainian children. So the Global South will not speak up. It already has—through its inaction. As for principles—the Global South has buried them as deeply as it buried its tongue—in the narrow economic confines of Russia’s economy.

Let's be blunt here. It isn't even most Americans who vote Trump. It's most rural Americans. Plenty of city dwellers didn't vote for Trump. And rural Americans would be hard pressed to make their society function without the economic value the city dwellers provide.

As such, I propose that Democrats and independents make a plan for a mass exodus in the event Trump wins.

And I don't mean "to Canada" like they usually promise and rarely follow though on. We have a housing shortage as it is and I don't think most Americans are prepared to spend a Winnipeg winter in a tent. I mean to spread out throughout the world. Tens of millions of Americans would overwhelm Canada. Tens of millions of Americans wouldn't necessarily overwhelm a world of 7 billion people.

The benefits of this are at least threefold:

A. It puts to the test Trump supporters' claims of being these resilient, tough survivalists, who can handle anything. Fine. Let's test that theory. If they can run a society properly without urban Americans' help, this will be their chance to prove it.

B. It frees Democrats and independents from having to deal with Trump supporters. Sure, in some countries it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire, but not in all countries. Plenty of European ones are run better than the USA. Even the ones that aren't run better will at least have the novelty of having different problems to deal with than usual, which often is weirdly emotionally satisfying. It sure was for those of us from Canada who worked in China for a few months.

C. It also provides to the rest of the world the unique lived experiences of coming from a country that started as unusually democratic and gradually backslid to become... relatively less democratic than other democracies. Sure, Trump threatens democracy directly, but corporatists and the lobbyists to whom they kowtow set the stage for Trump in the first place. What better way to hear the cautionary tale of what not to let a democracy turn into than those who've been there and lived it?

I'm an 18 year old Canadian who has never been interested in politics, Canadian or otherwise. I saw the Donald Trump Joe Rogan podcast and decided to give it a listen, got 105 minutes in before pausing it. This ignited a small interest in me to look into the American election. I couldn't find a similarly long-winded interview from Kamala Harris but watched a 20 minute interview she did with NBC. Aside from this, I've only ever seen short clips from either candidate.

If I was an American in the upcoming election, at this moment I would abstain from voting. I didn't hear anything compelling enough from either candidate from my limited exposure to them. However, my impression of Kamala Harris as a politician is slightly more favourable than mine of Trump's as a Politician. Broadly speaking, my personal ideology aligns with neither party but my values probably lean more right than left.

My impression of Trump during the JRE podcast was that he didn't seem as bad as other people have led me to believe. At the same time, he didn't really say anything substantive. He seems like an interesting personality but he also makes a lot of grandiose claims and statements, their authenticity seems questionable. He also seemed to go on an awful lot of tangents. Joe Rogan would ask a question about something, Trump would start answering the question but start telling a story about something vaguely related, he would then start talking about a random person involved in the story he was telling, at which point the original point was lost.

An off-handed remark he made that stuck with me was about how it's a good thing that he had a close relationship with divisive leaders like Kim Jong Un, Putin, and Xi Jinping. Kamala Harris seems to believe it's a negative and momentarily brought it up as a point against Trump, which I disagree with. I think there are very few people in this world who are truly evil, and as such most people can be reasoned with. If you can come to understand these people, like Trump did, you can minimize the potential for conflict. I obviously don't support the Russo-Ukrainian war and I'm not sure whether I buy the notion that Trump would've prevented the war but that's the most politically interesting point he made during the interview. I also found it interesting how Trump's opinion on Kamala Harris strongly contrasted the inverse but I'll circle back to this point.

In terms of actual policy, Kamala Harris' short interview provided far more insight than Trumps. She still addressed things in a depth-less manner but at the very least, I got to know some of her plans as President. She touched on a "$25,000 down payment assistance for first time home buyers", which I believe is a good idea. There's still nuance to the topic like whether it has to be paid back and how to prevent people from abusing but I get that the interview is short. She also talked about increasing tax credits for mothers with children, which I'm all for. I also appreciated how, despite the interviewers best efforts, Harris didn't emphasis racism or sexism as a challenge she had to overcome. I'm not obtuse, there are definitely people out there that vote for her because she's a woman or because she's mixed race but those are people who won't be swayed by an extended rant into why women are fit for the role. I think it's more meaningful to convince people through merit, which is what she attempted to do. Her "I care about the people"(paraphrased) was something I liked hearing, division is an increasingly significant problem and it's nice to see that the potential future president isn't fixated on furthering it.

Considering the fact that the election is near, Trump addressed Kamala Harris surprisingly few times. I think his overarching position on her is that she lacked intelligence. She didn't say anything during her interview that indicated a high level of intelligence but she didn't come off as stupid either. Kamala Harris' position on Trump is far more extreme. She painted him as a massive risk to the country, people's freedom, and seemed to imply he had radical beliefs by noting his close connection to dictators. She also referenced how her economical plan for the presidency is something economists praised while his is something they denounced. I take most of her claims on him with a grain of salt, an argument contingent on an appeal to authority or one without evidence isn't something I value. I actually remember the 2016 election, I was 10 at the time and was genuinely afraid of Trump becoming president. There were people who made it seem like the world would end had he been elected but that wasn't the case.

I had two major issues with what she said during her interview, her stance on abortion and her presentation abilities(if that's the right phrase). This might seem irrelevant but I found her genuinely difficult to listen to, her voice was shaky and harsh. I tried to go back to the interview to get her position on transgenderism but couldn't sit through the interview a second time. I believe her opinion was something along the lines of "I think people should have the right to decide" which is a stance I agree on. Joe Rogan and Trump mentioned how she wanted to or already has made it so prisoners and illegal immigrants have access to free gender affirming surgery, which, if true, is baffling. I addressed the less controversial takes first because abortion is highly contentious.

I want to begin by saying that I think abortion is morally reprehensible and I take issue with how firmly "pro-choicers" support it. Many of the people whose opinions I've heard on the matter seem to make light of abortion, calling fetus' a "clump of cells" or "parasites". That's a perspective I find genuinely depraved. Kamala Harris took a similar stance, she simply said "women should have freedom to decide what they do with their bodies". When someone gets an abortion, they make a decision that ends a human life. It isn't something inconsequential like a haircut. I'm not a good person so I'm not trying to take a position of moral superiority.

The beautiful thing about life is that we can, within reason, do whatever we want. The downside to this privilege is that we are also held accountable for our actions. If you rob a bank, you go to prison. This is why I can't wrap my head around the people who defend abortion by saying "some people aren't ready to be parents" or "they can't financially support the child". When I have sex, I accept the implication. If my girlfriend were to get pregnant, that would be the result of my actions and I would need to "step up" accordingly. I view anyone who has got an abortion for the above reasons similarly to someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. I'm not rude to people unnecessarily so I wouldn't outwardly express my opinion but I would be silently prejudiced against them. If there is someone who is proud of the fact that they got an abortion or has gotten several abortions, I would never associate with them.

To sum up, abortions are deeply serious. Women should be reluctant to get an abortion and we don't need to destigmatize it. Someone who brags about getting abortions should be viewed as abhorrent by both sides of the political spectrum. I strongly oppose pro-choice because abortion shouldn't simply be a choice in the vast majority of cases. With all of this in mind, I also don't believe in criminalizing abortions. There are cases when women should be given the option. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't be forced to keep that child. I still feel deeply remorseful for the fetus but I can also strongly emphasis with the mother, it's a horrible situation all around. Another case where abortion is permissible(personally speaking) is when the fetus poses a significant risk to the birth mother. It's difficult to weigh the value of two lives but the sole person who should get a say in this instance is the mother, she shouldn't be pressured to sacrifice her life. These are the two instances that I immediately think of but there are probably more. For these reasons, I don't believe abortion before ~20 weeks should be criminalized. There are victims of rape who wouldn't want to come forward and by making the abortion process more difficult, they might decide to keep the baby against their will. This particular segment was very long-winded but that's because it's one of the issues that's most important to me.

Tl;dr I watched 2/3 of the JRE podcast with trump and a 20 minute Kamala Harris interview. I still don't support either person but found that Harris made more actual points about her intentions as president. Trump is a far more interesting personality but politically speaking, he isn't compelling. I agreed with a few Harris' political statements but heavily disagreed with how casual she was about abortion.

It was the American colonists who waged a war of independence against the British so that they would no longer be subject to the arbitrary rule of an autocrat. It was the Americans who played a very important part in stopping Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

This country, of all places, is about to be taken over by Christian fascists. Why? How did it get to the point where 50% of Americans believe Christian fascism is the right answer to their problems?

I think that the Republican elite believes that this Christian fascism is the only way to regain their old dominance. Time is running against them as the USA is becoming more and more liberal and diverse. The white population only makes up 60% of the population while Latinos already make up 20%. By 2060, the white population will shrink to 43% while Latinos will make up 30%. According to statistics, the USA, once dominated by white Christians, is slowly but surely being replaced by Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans. But it is this white Christian population that is the foundation of the Republicans. From their point of view, a fascist dictator is needed to close the borders, deport illegal Latinos and make abortion illegal so that the birth rate of white Americans increases again.

What we see here is at first glance a culture war but i think in reality it is a battle between races. Which race will take over the dominant role in the USA in the future? White christians or Latinos/Foreigners.

What is your opinion?

The factors I consider to be overall most consequential issues across the board are primarily these two:

1. preserving the climate in a moderating way, encouraging renewable energy generation technology and research, and preventing further (literally and bipartisanly) unmanageable disasters by discouraging reliance on non renewable fuels and materials, and not mimicking janky ancient styles of governance.

The things trump talks about sounds like he would let oil and plastic waste leak left and right, which also encourages other countries worldwide. That could mean that in a short while so many things could go sparse that the world all around relies on (e.g crop harvests, seasonal resources, etc.) that... it may spark a sh ton more conflicts here and there that I don't think trump or musk have the ideas or willingness to lend guidance on, which means s*** could just escalate over food and water further later on, and the only thing maga style policies might have to address such intellectual issues might be... murk them? Plus the "let's discourage education and devalue science" stuff is also worrying for similar reasons. America didn't prevail by mimicking village style politics... Hurricane milton and helene were just teasers for the kind of s*** that could be next, and climate disasters don't care if it's a church, an airport, a bridge, a cathedral, a republican's house, a golf resort, a democrat's mansion, a research or military facility; climate disasters don't discriminate. No amount of thoughts and prayers will avert that, and certainly not southerners that are too hesitant to venture towards science and invest in R&D.

2. Regression/downgrade of civilization modernity/progress/method/capability: I don't want the world, especially developed countries, to regress to rations and shambles of economies reliant on annexing democracies and such things. We've been way past that. Why abandon gd nato for circuses like RSS and NK? huh? As if they're doing better than us? I don't get this simping sentiment trump is showing towards putin, kim and orban. he really be twirling his hair and twiddling his fingers next to them, while they're literally smirking so much it looks like they're gonna start snickering any second. I don't know if that kind of strategy and dynamic would be helpful for preventing more wars like trump keeps saying he can. And I really don't get it, he talks about exuding strength and american confidence but then why is he so soft about and bowing to these unstable nation leaders? They're not doing very well and haven't for a long time and are constantly worried about how under developed and prepared they are despite being autocratic n stuff...

I understand the need for show of might and firmness from the leader of the US and I get that trump and his supporters are partially concerned that dems seem like they act way out of touch and soft n s*** as if all countries act like suburban nato countries; I get that we really do have places like china, russia, iran, NK watching our every move and looking for our weaknesses and that not seeming firm and strong in demeanor can make them act up a lot more, and Iget that's the concerncing perception of biden's run in the office and that it can be quite concerning for diplomatic and negotiating power and prowess. But pls not by gd turning the shining city on the hill into a wheat and sugar rationing heat wave riddled barren fields low yield RSS import reliant state for the aforementioned critical reasons. Pls.

Overall:

lf the republican party/conservatives today were showing eagerness to just address these concerns then I wouldn't be nearly this conflicted or hesitant.

I just wanted to express these main concerns and maybe get any similar concerns or anything you guys relate to. But these main things really are the few critical factors that determine whether humanity can go in the direction of thriving and flourishing long term rather than, running out of resources and time and regress back to bare-bones survival lifestyles again due to lack of intellectuality and societal infrastructure growing or being intact or fostered to address more nuanced, complex and situations and issues that can't quite budged by just intimidation and military prowess and such, as important as those things may be during contentious times. And there can be room for these issues to be better addressed by republicans | believe, but the way they talk about these issues these years worries me. It's not as robust of a plan in these areas as they seem to think.

Other than these I'm not too concerned attitudes towards immigration, border, supporting israel, hindering chinese tactics, encouraging production of american goods, economy - those can be understood and addressed by political skills - but knowing how to talk and speak to groups of people alone doesn't suffice for the particular 2 issues I mentioned, though it could if they adjusted their stances just on those.

Many people say that the current level of internal strife and division in the U.S. is very high. Some even claim it's worse than in the 1960s and 70s, and there are those who compare it to the period before the Civil War.

In my opinion, saying that the internal division in the U.S. is the worst it's been in the 21st century isn't an exaggeration, but it still hasn’t reached the level of the 60s and 70s, and of course, it's far from the pre-Civil War state. There are two major indicators of social division from the 60s and 70s that we haven’t seen yet in the U.S. today.

The first is a series of political assassinations, which we haven't experienced so far. The closest we've come is the failed assassination attempt on Trump, which might hint at something along those lines. But when you consider the assassinations of figures like the Kennedy brothers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King in the 60s and 70s, we’re still far from that level.

The second indicator is the forced alignment with the China to counter Soviet Union. At least from the perspective of the Shanghai Communiqué, the concessions made by the U.S. were far greater than those made by China. If you want more analysis on this, you can check out the relevant chapters in my long-form article on the Cold War. These days, while some people talk about aligning with Russia to counter China, we haven't seen any concrete actions in that direction yet. And by the way, considering the current state of U.S.-Russia relations, if the U.S. were to align with Russia against China, it would almost certainly require the U.S. to make far more concessions to Russia than Russia would make to the U.S. I also believe that, at best, this would only pull Russia closer to a neutral stance. The idea that Russia would fully side with the U.S. against China is highly unlikely.

Based on the points above, I think the level of internal division in the U.S. during the 60s and 70s was a tier higher than it is now.

Could the U.S. in the future experience a level of division greater than that of the 60s and 70s? I think we can use the following indicators to judge whether or not the division has surpassed that era. Only if these things happen could we say the division is worse than in the 60s and 70s.

The first indicator would be if there's a crackdown on major capitalists in the U.S. By crackdown, I don’t necessarily mean physical elimination, but possibly less severe measures like framing them for crimes, imprisoning them, or confiscating their assets. It's important to note that, given the capitalist nature of U.S. society, this would actually be more of a challenge to America's political foundation than political assassinations. After all, the U.S. has seen multiple waves of political assassinations throughout its history, but imprisoning major capitalists and confiscating their wealth is exceedingly rare.

The second indicator would be if U.S. politicians seek reconciliation with China or Russia as a way to deal with their domestic political rivals. This goes beyond Nixon's alignment with China to counter the Soviet Union. Nixon ultimately aligned with China to deal with an external enemy, but what I’m imagining is politicians aligning with foreign powers to combat their internal enemies.

Front page right now on r/pics (a political sub now, apparently) is a picture of Trump in 2020 commemorating the day he apparently told everyone to "inject bleach" to cure covid.

Anyone with google and 10 free seconds and quickly verify he at no point said this, but that doesn't stop insane things like this from getting promoted and circlejerked up to the top of the front page every day. The hatred for him is so strong that it doesn't even matter if what he said or did was true. It equates to: Trump = bad, upvote/promote.

This doesn't serve to turn people against Trump. This serves to drive people further toward the right when they find that the claim is false and you've painted yourself as a deceptive disinformant.

There are countless things to criticize and be against Trump for. Promoting content that represents him dishonestly only weakens the position against him and makes you discredited.

I hate to say it, but this could prove to be a fatal mistake for the campaign.

Naturally, Trump's appearance on the Joe Rogan show was a 3 hour puff piece and was probably a net positive for his campaign.

For Harris, it's no doubt that Rogan would have been harder on her than he was on Trump, but since Harris is many orders of magnitude more lucid and coherent than Trump, she could have spun that in her favor. It's not like Joe Rogan could outsmart her. No disrespect to Rogan, but when he has intellectuals on his podcast, he's the one doing all the learning. Harris could have survived an interview with Rogan easily, even if it was hostile.

By doing this, Harris could have spent 3 hours showing Trump supporters the real Kamala Harris, as Joe Rogan is not in the habit of heavily editing his interviews, as their span of time indicates (2, 3, even 4 hours in some cases). It's possible she may have drawn some undecided voters or even some lukewarm MAGA types.