Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[cradleandshoot]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

[OCanada]

Seems you should listen to yourself and look in the mirror. That was pathetic. But if you get the opportunity get Trump's cujones back for him. He can’t do it for himself

[old salt]

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

We invaded to get OBL. We got him. Now these idiots are telling us that we failed to succeed in a mission invented from Whole Cloth.

Mission creep. Same as always, and you and your military wonk pals act shocked...shocked!....that the idiots in charge ALWAYS move the goalposts when we do this stuff. We were there to get OBL. Period. But because you guys think it makes perfect sense to have hundreds of military bases all over Earth beacuse you think war is the answer to every question, we stayed there for an absurd 20 freaking years....and you wanted to stay forever.

And I like that the WSJ thinks that NATO troops were metaphysically incapable of staying in Afghanistan. No one made them leave.

Yet the WSJ-----and you, of course, are claiming that Biden made NATO leave. Nope. They can do as they please. They CHOSE to bail. That's on NATO. But nope, you don't want to hear that, because Dems are bad.

The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Not true. The reason Putin invaded is that we had a woman VP in America.

First of all -- those aren't my words you quoted. You're just too dishonest to remove my name from the quotes.

Your childish "logic" is simplistic & stupid. We didn't invade just to get OBL. We invaded to deny a safe haven to AQ & later IS & other terrorists.
Our NATO allies get it. They're targets too. That's why they were there with us & wanted to stay.
If you knew anything about the issue you'd understand why the rest of NATO could not stay without us.
The hard fighting & bleeding was over. It required only a small US force to stay behind in Bagram to enable the ASF.

The US is a global power. No amount of your retro-hippie whining is going to change that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

We invaded to get OBL. We got him. Now these idiots are telling us that we failed to succeed in a mission invented from Whole Cloth.

Mission creep. Same as always, and you and your military wonk pals act shocked...shocked!....that the idiots in charge ALWAYS move the goalposts when we do this stuff. We were there to get OBL. Period. But because you guys think it makes perfect sense to have hundreds of military bases all over Earth beacuse you think war is the answer to every question, we stayed there for an absurd 20 freaking years....and you wanted to stay forever.

And I like that the WSJ thinks that NATO troops were metaphysically incapable of staying in Afghanistan. No one made them leave.

Yet the WSJ-----and you, of course, are claiming that Biden made NATO leave. Nope. They can do as they please. They CHOSE to bail. That's on NATO. But nope, you don't want to hear that, because Dems are bad.

The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Not true. The reason Putin invaded is that we had a woman VP in America.

First of all -- those aren't my words you quoted. You're just too dishonest to remove my name from the quotes.

Your childish "logic" is simplistic & stupid. We didn't invade just to get OBL. We invaded to deny a safe haven to AQ & later IS & other terrorists.
Our NATO allies get it. They're targets too. That's why they were there with us & wanted to stay.
If you knew anything about the issue you'd understand why the rest of NATO could not stay without us.
The hard fighting & bleeding was over. It required only a small US force to stay behind in Bagram to enable the ASF.

The US is a global power. No amount of your retro-hippie whining is going to change that.

Your old boss signed an agreement that stated no troops would be left behind. Even let Taliban prisoners loose. What did Taliban give up when Trump struck his great deal? How did you win the negotiations?

[cradleandshoot]

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

We invaded to get OBL. We got him. Now these idiots are telling us that we failed to succeed in a mission invented from Whole Cloth.

Mission creep. Same as always, and you and your military wonk pals act shocked...shocked!....that the idiots in charge ALWAYS move the goalposts when we do this stuff. We were there to get OBL. Period. But because you guys think it makes perfect sense to have hundreds of military bases all over Earth beacuse you think war is the answer to every question, we stayed there for an absurd 20 freaking years....and you wanted to stay forever.

And I like that the WSJ thinks that NATO troops were metaphysically incapable of staying in Afghanistan. No one made them leave.

Yet the WSJ-----and you, of course, are claiming that Biden made NATO leave. Nope. They can do as they please. They CHOSE to bail. That's on NATO. But nope, you don't want to hear that, because Dems are bad.

The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Not true. The reason Putin invaded is that we had a woman VP in America.

First of all -- those aren't my words you quoted. You're just too dishonest to remove my name from the quotes.

Your childish "logic" is simplistic & stupid. We didn't invade just to get OBL. We invaded to deny a safe haven to AQ & later IS & other terrorists.
Our NATO allies get it. They're targets too. That's why they were there with us & wanted to stay.
If you knew anything about the issue you'd understand why the rest of NATO could not stay without us.
The hard fighting & bleeding was over. It required only a small US force to stay behind in Bagram to enable the ASF.

The US is a global power. No amount of your retro-hippie whining is going to change that.

Your old boss signed an agreement that stated no troops would be left behind. Even let Taliban prisoners loose. What did Taliban give up when Trump struck his great deal? How did you win the negotiations?

There really is a first time for everything. Your whining about terrorists being released from captivity. I always thought that was a beautiful thing from your perspective? The US was about to leave Afghanistan, in case you didn't notice they were going to be free anyway. We could have lined them all up and shot them but you probably wouldn't have liked that Al all.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

[SCLaxAttack]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

Cradle criticizes Harris because she doesn’t convey a plan for replacing bolts on the third shelf in the galley of cargo ships, but nothing about Trump’s “I have a concept of a plan” after 10+ years of ACA complaining and telling us years ago he was weeks away from presenting one.

[cradleandshoot]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

Cradle criticizes Harris because she doesn’t convey a plan for replacing bolts on the third shelf in the galley of cargo ships, but nothing about Trump’s “I have a concept of a plan” after 10+ years of ACA complaining and telling us years ago he was weeks away from presenting one.

Wrongo again. Harris wants a strong military. The US Navy has critical shortages of sailors and replacement parts. When the USS Iwo Jima can't deploy because of mechanical issues and has to head back to port for repairs that is a big problem. Since we have a defense budget of over 800 billion dollars is any of that money going for spare parts? Biden as usual is clueless so since Harris is always in the same room she is equally as clueless. If she is unaware of the situation chances are she won't to anything to address it either. These ships were built to defend this nation. They can't do that sitting in a port collecting barnacles while the propulsion system doesn't have the spare part they need.

[NattyBohChamps04]

I wonder if the military has extra ships and parts and plans for this kind of thing, or runs a "just-in-time" fly by night shop. One ship goes down for repairs and we are cooked in cradles world

[cradleandshoot]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

Yet again you are wrong. Why hasn't Harris had a press conference where reporters can ask her specific questions and she can give specific answers. I don't hate her yet. I don't trust her worth a damn. You hate trump so much your gullible enough to believe everything she says. You don't even have the ability to be even a little bit skeptical. Do you know how many politicians running for major offices have opined about their intentions to help middle class America? Do you know how many have kept that promise? Why should I believe Harris' promise will be any less empty? Does she have a magic wand that no other politician has had? It always starts with the promise of a tax cut for the middle class. The same promise that never gets off the ground. Her values are her policy my man. If she says different,and she has she is flat out lying.

[cradleandshoot]

I wonder if the military has extra ships and parts and plans for this kind of thing, or runs a "just-in-time" fly by night shop. One ship goes down for repairs and we are cooked in cradles world

Your axing the wrong question. The question is why doesn't the Navy have the spare parts? You seem to be clueless as to the importance of being able to deploy a ship such as the Iwo Jima when needed. In a circumstance such as that my man we are cooked. Apparently that is not important to you or you just don't care one way or the other.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Old Karen needs to see this:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_ya49XP ... E3Y2Q1YnE1

[MDlaxfan76]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

Yet again you are wrong. Why hasn't Harris had a press conference where reporters can ask her specific questions and she can give specific answers. I don't hate her yet. I don't trust her worth a damn. You hate trump so much your gullible enough to believe everything she says. You don't even have the ability to be even a little bit skeptical. Do you know how many politicians running for major offices have opined about their intentions to help middle class America? Do you know how many have kept that promise? Why should I believe Harris' promise will be any less empty? Does she have a magic wand that no other politician has had? It always starts with the promise of a tax cut for the middle class. The same promise that never gets off the ground. Her values are her policy my man. If she says different,and she has she is flat out lying.

She had a press conference yesterday taking questions. She also did a second major media interview. You just ain’t paying attention. That Chinese feed of yours is letting you down again.

You are moving the goalposts. You claimed “not a peep”, which was flat wrong. Now you are admitting that she’s taken specific positions, but want to know why we should believe her. And claim I believe everything she says…again factually false. I have plenty of healthy skepticism about any politician’s campaign positions as I know full well that governance can be a heck of a lot more complicated than campaigning. Flat lying aside, I don’t expect campaign claims and promises to be exactly what will happen.

But I do expect some directional consistency.

I expect her to care about multilateral and bilateral alliances, and to be a collaborative leader in world affairs, with the awesome strength of our economy and military behind her. Details within that framework I may well quibble with as she makes hard decisions as President but I do expect that consistency.

Likewise, flat lying aside, I expect Trump directionally to continue to bend the knee to dictators who flatter him, to operate a nationalist and generally isolationist policy diplomatically, but bull in china shop on trade policy…unless flattered…

I also would expect a continuing and expanding nativism to imbue immigration responses, consistent with his pledges of massive deportations. I think this is serious and MAGA Unbound will cheer.

As to taxes, Harris will follow through on the child care tax credit for sure if Congress does the legislation and she’d otherwise let the Trump tax cuts expire. She’d keep some of the middle class cuts in exchange for big increase on those making over a million annually.

Trump would try to keep and expand the tax cuts for the super rich he has promised them and a massive tariff regime which will flow through in large part to consumers and likely start a trade war.

So, yeah, I think we have a pretty good sense of the differences in their likely governance.

[cradleandshoot]

Old Karen needs to see this:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_ya49XP ... E3Y2Q1YnE1

Blame Lester Holt and the World News Tonight. They never covered any of them dammit.
I'll simplify it for you. I don't trust trump...I don't trust Harris. I will not vote for either candidate.

[jhu72]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

You must be dizzy as hell after all of that spinning. Has anyone informed Kamala about the troubling issue our Navy has with a lack of sailors and replacement parts. The USS Iwo Jima just had to return to port because of a mechanical problem. The same issue with the USS Boxer. Does she have a plan to address that? Harris is parroting what her boss has said and done. Will Harris allow Ukraine to use the long range surface to surface missiles we have them? Her boss won't do so because he is scared about Putin escalating. Your problem is MD your hatred towards trump has allowed you to be gullible and easily bullchited by the other team. Let me know when Harris has a plan of her own. All she is yappin about now is regurgitating her bosses policies.

You must have fallen out of a coconut tree..

You said “there hasn’t been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy”.

Flat wrong.

She, herself, has been very clear.

You just want to hate her.
Not based on what she actually says, but because of your own biases.
And that’s sad.

Yet again you are wrong. Why hasn't Harris had a press conference where reporters can ask her specific questions and she can give specific answers. I don't hate her yet. I don't trust her worth a damn. You hate trump so much your gullible enough to believe everything she says. You don't even have the ability to be even a little bit skeptical. Do you know how many politicians running for major offices have opined about their intentions to help middle class America? Do you know how many have kept that promise? Why should I believe Harris' promise will be any less empty? Does she have a magic wand that no other politician has had? It always starts with the promise of a tax cut for the middle class. The same promise that never gets off the ground. Her values are her policy my man. If she says different,and she has she is flat out lying.

She had a press conference yesterday taking questions. She also did a second major media interview. You just ain’t paying attention. That Chinese feed of yours is letting you down again.

You are moving the goalposts. You claimed “not a peep”, which was flat wrong. Now you are admitting that she’s taken specific positions, but want to know why we should believe her. And claim I believe everything she says…again factually false. I have plenty of healthy skepticism about any politician’s campaign positions as I know full well that governance can be a heck of a lot more complicated than campaigning. Flat lying aside, I don’t expect campaign claims and promises to be exactly what will happen.

But I do expect some directional consistency.

I expect her to care about multilateral and bilateral alliances, and to be a collaborative leader in world affairs, with the awesome strength of our economy and military behind her. Details within that framework I may well quibble with as she makes hard decisions as President but I do expect that consistency.

Likewise, flat lying aside, I expect Trump directionally to continue to bend the knee to dictators who flatter him, to operate a nationalist and generally isolationist policy diplomatically, but bull in china shop on trade policy…unless flattered…

I also would expect a continuing and expanding nativism to imbue immigration responses, consistent with his pledges of massive deportations. I think this is serious and MAGA Unbound will cheer.

As to taxes, Harris will follow through on the child care tax credit for sure if Congress does the legislation and she’d otherwise let the Trump tax cuts expire. She’d keep some of the middle class cuts in exchange for big increase on those making over a million annually.

Trump would try to keep and expand the tax cuts for the super rich he has promised them and a massive tariff regime which will flow through in large part to consumers and likely start a trade war.

So, yeah, I think we have a pretty good sense of the differences in their likely governance.

... absolutely!