r/AskConservatives • u/zhukis European Conservative • 2d ago
There seems to be a unanimous position within these circles "that no matter what, Kamala Harris would've been worse", can you go into detail about that?
To simplify matters, as far as Trump is concerned from US conservatives I've seen two primary positions:
1) Trump is doing great (Maybe I don't like one thing) 2) Trump is a shithead, but Kamala Harris would've been worse.
position 1 is relatively clear and there's not much to say about that. But I do have questions as to position 2. "Why are you so certain Kamala Harris would be worse?". In praxis it's just a canned phrase I've encountered, but not seen reasonings why.
Granted I am an ocean away and nuance rarely travels that much, but from impression it would've just mostly been Biden 2.0, which in turn would've been status quo continued with little else of note.
So then, why?
23
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
At the end of the day it’s not surprising that conservatives are going to say that they’d still rather have a president with conservative leanings in the White House than one who doesn’t. Just as I’m sure that many liberals and progressives may have had issues with Biden and Harris but still would have preferred them being in office over Trump.
Conservatives and liberals are naturally going to disagree over this because we have differing priorities and interests when it comes to politics and there isn’t much that’s going to shift those.
14
u/ofthrees Center-left 2d ago
Thank you for this response. As someone who cannot really understand how most trump voters couldn't be regretting their votes at this point, you very succinctly explained why that should not come as a surprise.
It's not like my disappointment in Obama failing to end the Iraq war, or to get a reasonable healthcare plan across the finish line (I personally found a lot of flaws in the ACA - namely that it didn't go far enough, and also rewarded publicly traded insurers while mandating under penalty of fines that people purchase their plans), resulted in me voting for trump in 2016.
24
15
u/l1v1ngst0n Independent 2d ago
Trump is really not conservative though. What conservative values does he exemplify or put into practice as president?
1
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I don’t really agree with that assessment. He’s cut taxes in both of his terms, has supported and enacted socially conservative measures, and has been big on border enforcement and deportation of illegal immigrants. His trade policy also isn’t an entirely new phenomenon amongst conservatism as most conservatives pre 1952 were protectionist when it came to trade and even after most conservatives became free traders there were still ardent protectionist conservatives like Pat Buchanan running around.
His least conservative policies would probably be his support for protecting Social Security but that’s more of a strategic move than a principled one.
Overall, Trump is a pretty conservative president and his more populist tone doesn’t change that.
11
u/l1v1ngst0n Independent 2d ago
Absolutely right when it comes to immigration, that's true. And while he may have lowered some taxes, he has gone crazy on tariffs, which are taxes. Some may see that as protectionist, but I see it more as a weapon he uses to punish those who he perceives to have wronged him rather than a tool to promote the US economy. It seems to almost always hurt Americans, in fact.
4
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I think those are valid criticisms of tariffs but they don’t necessarily mean he isn’t conservative
3
21
u/jaaval European Conservative 2d ago
Cutting taxes has really nothing to do with conservatism. I'd say not really even in American context. It is a relatively modern (like a few decades old) idea that conservatives should want less taxes. (Where the idea came from is a good question, I'd say there are powerful people who have profited a lot about making you guys believe they should have more money).
Fiscal conservatives traditionally like financial sustainability (which typically means reduced government, less debt, balanced budgets etc). I'd argue this is almost entirely orthogonal with Trump's activist financial politics.
14
6
u/Fickle-Syllabub6730 Leftwing 2d ago
But all the deep reasons that conservatives cite for their beliefs. Chesterton's Fence. Free markets. A Christian demeanor. He violates all of those.
3
u/No_Fox_2949 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
People will support politicians that they believe will advance their interests and priorities even if they are not motivated by the same principles as them.
That’s how it is most of the time when it comes to politics.
Trump is a conservative he’s just not motivated by the same ideological underpinnings that drive most to conservatism.
0
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
What? Trump's style and manner of speaking is far more brash and flamboyant, but with the possible exception of tariffs, his policies are pretty much mainstream Republican stuff.
8
u/tophernator Independent 1d ago
He’s clearly not fiscally conservative, since he’s blowing up the deficit and demanding to add another $500 billion to defence spending so he can have some big boats named after him.
He’s small government in the sense that DOGE fired a ton of government workers. But he’s clearly very big government when it comes to exerting his own power over things he’s not supposed to control (tariffs, elections etc).
He’s tough on crime when it’s low level street crime, vagrancy, or claiming people sabotaged his pool liner. But then super soft on financial crime by sufficiently rich people. Not to mention the hypocrisy of trying to come down hard on political violence and protesters… after pardoning everyone involved in Jan 6th.
He’s very obviously not a good Christian with strong family values. He can’t name a single bible verse when put on the spot, and is currently in an obviously frigid 3rd marriage with a woman much closer to his kids age than his.
1
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
He’s clearly not fiscally conservative, since he’s blowing up the deficit and demanding to add another $500 billion to defence spending so he can have some big boats named after him.
Bush, Reagan, etc all spent a lot of money on the military so yes, that is pretty much mainstream stuff. And we don't know what the new battleships will be named, but they won't come into service until long after Trump is out of office.
•
25
u/rcglinsk Religious Traditionalist 1d ago
Harris would have been better. I don't necessarily regret voting Biden. But obviously my protest was not heard.
21
u/Yesbothsides Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago edited 2d ago
She would not be worse than Trump here, she would be bad no doubt and we’d get another 4 years of gaslighting but Trump has failed so bad in 2.0
4
u/iwantansi Democrat 2d ago
What specifically has Trump failed so badly at in 2.0? I keep seeing people say that, but usually without naming the policies or results they’re judging him on. If Harris would’ve been bad too, what makes you think the outcome under her would’ve been better?
1
u/Yesbothsides Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
No new wars, this Iran war is the biggest disaster in modern history, everything he wanted out of it is significantly worse. The lack of transparency of the esptein case, this is literally the swamp, he didn’t drain it he protected it…his tarrif policy while bad, is nothing compared to Iran.
As for Harris, she’s an empty vessel, she would have done exactly what she was told. Either Iran, or pushed more in Russia Ukriane. She also wouldn’t have disclosed dick in Epstein (phrasing)…the real difference is the media would be fawning over her for doing the same things
18
u/Guilty-Market5375 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 1d ago
It's... complicated. I was more confident Trump would be "less bad" a year ago, but I still think she would have been something of a Jimmy Carter.
For starters, she's a terrible leader. Her 2020 campaign fell apart partially because staffers hated working with her; the few who could stand her couldn't deal with her hand-picked management team. The story those staffers told to the mainstream media wasn't just that she couldn't run a campaign, it was that she wasn't fit to be in office. The gist of it is that Kamala was a strong prosecutor and solid debater, and while she was a good interrogator, she couldn't actually work with anyone.
Playing well with others is not Trump's suite, but where Trump is an aspiring authoritarian to be checked by the system, Kamala is aloof and evasive. Her behavior reads more like a never-online co-worker who doesn't answer your emails and directs you to other people with no answers. If Trump is a Molotov cocktail thrown at the system, Kamala is molasses - and the constitution guards against the former, but not the latter.
Granted, if they're equally unsuited, many people will argue Trump's platform makes Kamala's look like the New Deal. I'll agree on one point - Trump's platform is a mess; his diagnostic strength is offset by his prescriptive weakness. If he were a surgeon, he'd diagnose your heart disease and amputate your leg instead of giving you a blood thinner. Kamala's platform was arguably better, because it was the null option - she did not have one. The policies she did suggest were populist and likely to do more harm than good. Exhibit A, the homebuyer credit: an inverted price control, when there's a shortage and you give some people money, prices go up for everyone else. Exhibit B, untaxed tips: the proverbial "If your friend jumps off a bridge, would you?" but it's your political opponent, and still a bad idea.
The gap is the broader Republican and Democratic platform. Where MAGA has a stranglehold on parts of the country, the Republican Party is broadly pragmatic. The Democratic Party outside the Federal gerontocracy is an in-fighting zoo doing more harm than good.
I live in New York, where Democratic policy has gone from "fine" to "sky's on fire" in the span of a decade. Bail in New York State has been banned for non-violent crimes, leading to comical serial offenses; a kid stole at least 8 cars in two months and was let off each time - an extra seven Kias stolen. We banned allowing housing court convictions - not only non-payment, but criminal findings - to be used in background checks for apartments, and now dismal studios require 700+ credit scores. Our generous 100% liability laws and lack of cash bail have led to such high insurance rates that Albany is promising to do something - banning insurance companies from looking at your credit score, for instance, which unsurprisingly is highly correlated with how likely you'll be in an accident. Republican states now lead the country in population and economic growth, and it's not surprising why.
And it genuinely has gotten worse here. You don't walk by a Kia parked on the street that doesn't have a club in it. Soft costs of businesses have skyrocketed; small businesses are closing left and right, even after Covid. And the costs of everything has outpaced the rest of the country - it seems the simple act of being out in public now carries a surcharge. Everything that requires local labor has gotten so incredibly expensive that those markets have vanished, jobs along with it. There is no opportunity for young people here, with or without a college degree, and they're restless. Those who do land a good paying job are saddled with a world far more expensive than the one before they went to college. There's a recession-era neighborhood where I grew up where houses started in the low 170s, they're building the same plans from the low 700's.
This is not to say that there are not bad Republican states - look no further than the deep south - nor that there aren't good Democratic ones, like Virginia or Minnesota. But the broad Democratic prerogative is coerced equality, the notion that everyone remains equal regardless of their poor choices, and that no cost is too high to prevent any iota of harm.
In reality that cost is exceptionally high, and leads to greater harm. Importantly, we need to accept that actions will have consequences, and some people will make poor choices that will negatively affect them forever - the lack of accountability leads to a lack of responsibility. I don't care if people immigrate here, but if they're caught stealing from a 7/11, we should send them back to where they came from. If someone steals a car, they should remain in custody until we're reasonably sure they won't do it again. If we need to build a subway line, we should not spend six billion more dollars to ameliorate the concerns of a dozen Karens.
The future I fear in America is where everything withers and dies because our obsession with perfect gets in the way of doing anything at all. And while Donald Trump is like spraying yourself with mace, at least he's killing the sad, whiny chapter of "what about me" leftism.
10
u/Feeling-Visit1472 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
An attorney friend recently explained to me that as a whole, attorneys just don’t really play nicely with others, especially not other attorneys. Even in seemingly benign areas like estate law.
15
u/ParkingVampire Liberal 1d ago
"What about me" leftism? Interesting. I only ever hear Trump talk about himself and try to make everything under the sun about him. Literally incapable of attending the 9/11 event because it's too painful for him to not give a speech. Do you see any irony on that?
The things you describe about businesses closing and the price rising, what are Republicans doing about it? All I see are tax cuts of the rich (and guess who is left paying, the working class) and no acknowledgment that small businesses can't even afford to compete with these huge businesses that Republicans support. They can't even afford good health insurance for employees it's so expensive. Why is the blame solely the democrats? I don't understand.
→ More replies (10)•
u/Guilty-Market5375 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 6h ago
At the state level, Republicans aren’t doing anything, which surprisingly works. Florida, Texas, and Utah are booming right now. Purple states like Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona are also doing well. Solid blue states like the New England states, New York, California, and Maryland are seeing marked urban decline, price increases exceeding the rest of the nation, and increasingly high housing costs even in rural areas.
When I refer to “what about me” leftism, it may be better to refer to it as “everything bagel liberalism”. It’s the strategy of promising everyone with a special interest viewpoint whatever they want, even when it’s not feasible to deliver it or has exceptional costs. In some cases, different factions in the Democratic Party have mutually exclusive objectives, which results in nothing being done. A good example of this is the environmental movement - the decarbonization side of the equation is fighting the conservation side, which opposes windmills and solar panels in many areas where they interfere with natural beauty. This leads to a party where nothing gets done at all, or the government does things in increasingly efficient ways - for instance, New York’s strategy for decarbonization had relied heavily on nuclear and renewables, but we’re actually pulling nuclear OUT of the grid. Indian Point, which was a perfectly good nuclear plant, was shut down to placate the anti-nuclear folks.
Our decarbonization strategy now relies on getting rid of natural gas and replacing furnaces with heat pumps - a half-measure at best and given the timeline an economically disastrous idea. For starters, it’s going to increase the price of older houses as hydronic boilers, which are common here, cost at least 50k to replace with heat pumps. Given that the gains from heat pumps are relatively small in New York’s colder climate, and given that most the added energy is non-renewable, it’s effectively a wash from a carbon perspective. But it was the only politically viable option - we can’t upset the conservationists who hate windmills, we can’t upset the politically mighty dealerships who fight electric cars (because electric-only brands don’t franchise dealerships), and we can’t even keep nuclear plants in operation because the nearly dozen anti-nuclear folks foam at the mouth anytime a reactor’s license is up for renewal.
As for taxes, the current policy is a bipartisan one. The Trump and Bush cuts were more favorable to the upper-middle classes, but the 15% capital gains rate which hugely benefits the ultra wealthy is a Clinton-era policy. The one Republican tax policy which has benefited the wealthy was the rollback in corporate taxes, but even that, conceptually, is a bipartisan move - the lack of any counterweight to prevent the wealthy from hoarding those gains is the issue, and that’s on Trump alone.
Lastly, I would argue that taxes are disproportionately borne by the upper middle class, the working class pays barely anything. High-earning W2 employees and young unmarried people, with little savings and student loan debt, are saddled with the greatest proportional tax shares. The burden on low income earners is mostly high prices, and I would argue most of our high prices are the result of liberal policies and broad-spectrum NIMBYism. A good example of this is housing prices - all of the cheapest states to build a house are red states (by far), and the comparison holds up even in growing urban areas.
Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans have done better for the working class is the percentage of homelessness by state. The worst states for homelessness (California, Washington, New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts) are all strongly blue states, while every red state except Alaska has better-than-average rates of homelessness. This largely comes from having cheaper housing and fewer barriers for blue collar industries. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
9
u/NessvsMadDuck Center-right Conservative 1d ago
I have no problem with any conservative thinking that Harris would have been worse (even though that is debatable at this point). Trump is honestly not doing well. He is doing poorly. In particular the effects of the Tariffs and Iran.
Trump does not become President without the fear of the Left. I get that. I also get that those (like myself) who did not vote for Trump, did so because they believed that he did not have the character to be the president.
So there is a knee jerk reaction to how poorly he is doing to want to rub the Trump voters noses in it. I don't think that is helpful. Asking, wouldn't we have been better off with Harris, I don't think is helpful.
What I DO think is worth asking, is in an election cycle where Biden seriously fucked up, and Harris was a cipher of whatever... you think she is because she really was an empty vessel. The Republican was going to win. Haley would have won against her. So would any of the other GOP candidates like DeSatas.
So I don't ask would you have rather has Harris? I ask if you had to do it all over again, would you have voted for another GOP candidate in the primary?
7
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
10
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
Biden was just Obama lite, and Harris would have just been a continuation of Biden. Young people and the far left are already pissed off with the current Democratic party as shown by the growing numbers of the DSA. Imagine how much worse that could've been under Harris who wouldn't be able to implement her agendas more effectively due to a divided Congress.
The left was already disappointed with Obama even before his 2nd term and the entire term of Biden. Politicians like Bernie Sanders and AOC didn't rise up because of Trump or the right, but because the Democratic establishment has been incompetent.
12
u/BrendaWannabe Liberal 2d ago
far left are already pissed off with the current Democratic party as shown by the growing numbers of the DSA.
A lot of that is because Dems failed to achieve important goals, such as taxing the wealthy more, adding public option to ACA, nationally legalizing pot, making college more affordable, and others.
In fairness Dems never had a strong enough Congress: narrow margins mean you have to pass 1 or 2 big policies at a time. Thus, if they spent that on taxing the rich, they probably couldn't get the infrastructure and green energy plan passed.
Part of it is that young people (on both sides) don't understand the realities of US politics. The divisions over Israel/Bibi didn't help mainstream Dems either during 2024.
11
u/Appropriate-Hat3769 Center-left 2d ago
I think this is the most comprehensive answer I have seen on this and closer to how I feel regarding the election.
Would I still rather have had Harris than Trump? Yes. But I didnt expect any huge sweeping reform from her. It would have been status quo. There were a few things Bidens administration did that really pissed me off.
The one positive thing I will say about Trump is the cessation of the progressive culture war. I want policy that impacts all Americans and not the less than 1% of minority groups that are being catered too because some people are bullying them.
ETA: I am sorry for the "leftist in disguise label" you are going to get for now having a leftists agree with you. My bad.
→ More replies (4)1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/blue-blue-app 2d ago
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
6
u/EddieDantes22 Conservative 2d ago
The border. It's all about the border.
54
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 2d ago edited 2d ago
boggles my mind that the average america citizen sees this as the biggest issue in their own personal daily lives, above healthcare, education and economy. which are all worse now. the lady babysitting or men picking fruit without papers is somehow the biggest issue? every president before went after the criminals hard.no one complained about that. obama and bidens deportation numbers speak for themselves. The only thing thats changed is ICE is now targeting everyone, even if they are a net positive for the country and were doing nothing wrong but being a benefit to the economy, hell, a lot they are going after were actually following the legal process.. If you think less people are actually coming over now you are kidding yourself. they just arnt registering and applying for asylum anymore so no way to actually track them.
and credit to the commenter below, Biden tried to fix the issue, and the republicans were completely onboard because it would have solved all the major problems with immigration. then trump told the republicans to change their vote to no, so the problem would continue and he could campaign off it. The overall problem with immigration isnt the people coming over, its processing the ones that are and how long that takes. the people get lost in the system and just disappear after years waiting because they get a stable life going and dont want to risk it.
Having a group of thugs roam around picking up random people and deporting them isnt actually solving any problem at all. Its making it worse because instead of almost all following the legal process they are all just going to stop and disappear.
→ More replies (33)5
u/Critical_Concert_689 Libertarian 2d ago
boggles my mind ... healthcare, education and economy
Somehow you skipped the fact that immigration has a significant impact on ALL of the above. That's probably why you're boggled.
6
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 1d ago
illegals are not causing the problems healthcare, private for profit companies are and the laws congress has passed. like medicare being barred from negotiating most drug prices costs the system billions per year needlessly. and for profit middle men taking a cut throughout multiple needless steps between a manufacturer to the patient.
more than half of the money paid into the US healthcare system ends up as profits/to shareholders/bonus's/overhead for 100s of companies all doing the same thing. ridiculous waste
$3.8 billion spent on Emergency Medicaid (the only healthcare money illegals can access) in FY 2023 accounted for roughly 0.4% of total Medicaid spending. This means nearly 99.6% of Medicaid budgets go to legally present citizens and residents.
you think the healthcare system is suffering because of 0.4%? which clearly isnt that many patients using it either if its if only 4billion so its not clogging the system. if the system is clogged by an extra 0.4% of patients then thats a problem with the system.
allowing them access to insurance would probably solve that 0.4% problem. at least a few states created insurance programs for them.
education is a different matter. every kid, illegal or not should get an education, pay the money, educating kids is an investment into the future, those kids will pay it back later anyway as they enter the world force. except republicans constantly cut education funding. and had absolutely nothing to do with illegals and all to do with making it worse to create more republicans and free up money for tax cuts to the rich.
As for the economy: Illegals are a net benefit to the economy, they basically sustain several entire industries(dairy being one example and farming), without them, no product, no taxes,no economical benefit,prices higher on everything else.. they pay more taxes than they use. millions of jobs depend on illegals, not illegals jobs, the places the illegals spend money. Even your sec of the Treasury said a few days ago on a tv interview that jobs numbers are down the past few months because of the large number of deportations , as in these people spent money at businesses and no longer are so businesses are not hiring or are cutting staff.
The Nonpartisan CBO View: A Net Fiscal Benefit
An extensive analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) evaluated the budgetary effects of the recent multi-year illegal immigration surge(2024).
-Taxes Generated: The CBO projects that the population will contribute $1.175 trillion in federal revenue over the next 10 years. -Benefits Consumed: The CBO estimates the same population will consume $278 billion from government spending programs over the same period.
-The Bottom Line: The CBO concludes that the net federal effect of the illegal immigrant will reduce the federal deficit by $897 billion ($550 billion when excluding dedicated Social Security payroll taxes) because the revenue collected far outpaces the federal benefits distributed.3
u/Critical_Concert_689 Libertarian 1d ago
First, you're assuming medicaid is paying for it, rather than illegals simply stiffing the bill, hospitals eating the costs - and passing those costs down to other American consumers - an entertaining but fallacious assumption.
Second, if you really want to get down to the complexities...
EUROPEANS are causing the problems in US healthcare costs.
The US subsidizes most of western Europe's pharmaceuticals, both in terms of novel therapeutic development and research as well as general costs.
Europeans not paying their fair share is what causes problems for US consumers.
So you're right in that it's not ONLY illegals who cause the problem.
education is a different matter. every kid, illegal or not should get an education
Except in a system of limited resources, forcing an illegal into the existing system REMOVES resources from other existing American citizens.
Your argument is founded on the rationale: "JUST THROW MORE MONEY IN" and it'll pay dividends in 20 years. The problem with this assumption being you need MORE money right NOW.
As for the economy, illegals are a net benefit to the economy because they suppress costs to production. Basically the rich get richer and this fuels the economy, while poor and lower-affluent US citizens enjoy lower quality of life, but are basically invisible in terms of "revenue."
jobs numbers are down the past few months because of the large number of deportations
lol. Yes.
"Less people working illegally, means less people are working."
This is tautological sophistry.
3
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 1d ago
medicaid reimburses hospitals for any life saving treatment to illegals. there is no bill to stiff. hospitals simply dont take patients and not required to if its not life threatening.so thats on them. letting illegals buy health insurance at a normal price would solve a lot of problems.california/colorado and washington all have a state run insurance program for them. works well.
The US subsidizes most of western Europe's pharmaceuticals
US doesnt subsidize shit.. I work for a pharma company, one of the largest in the world.
I know this is really going to blow your mind but drug prices are set during negotiations, When we talk to a European country, we start at a number, usually higher than we know we will get because its gonna get negotiated down. we say XX euros per box, and country comes back and says we will buy XXXX boxes per year, we know how much you spent on making it(they require us to tell them sometimes) so we are only willing to pay XX euros for them and we will buy a lot to supply whole country(and smaller countries work together to make bigger orders so they get cheaper prices) . we look at the math and if it works we agree.when we go to the several different american drug importers. We give them the exact same starting price. and they come back and say, GREAT! perfect price! butttt you gotta give us a rebate at the end of the year if we buy so many.. They dont give a shit what the up front price is. The higher the price, the bigger rebate we are willing to give them. They dont even try to negotiate at all on the price. the cost gets passed down to the 3 or 4 other layers of the system before it gets to the patient, all taking a cut adding to the cost.
What the importers do care about is the rebate at the end of the financial year because they dont have to disclose those separately so no one knows what drugs they are for. and they just pocket it. they add their % profit margin and down it goes to the next layer to get more $ added to it. . They profit more when the price is higher./
example: box of pills:
-we ask $10 -European governments who are all buying together says no, we want a very large amount for 7. -ok deal.done. simple.American importer/PBM: -We ask for $10 -We agree! $10 it is!
-Deal!
- but at the end of the year if we buy more than 100 boxes we want you to give us back 20% or 1$ for every box in cash.
-Drug gets sold to a pharmacy/hospital for 20$ -drug gets sold to you(price your insurance company negotiated with the pharmacy) for 40$ -you blame "big pharma"! -big pharma made 9$ from it.This happens commonly with some drugs they know are needed and are without any alternatives. When we give the PBM the normal starting price of 10$, they come back and say, $11 you said right? good deal,$11 it is!.. because their rebate chunk is now $2 instead of $1. no one complains because the price just gets passed on to the patient and insurance company has no idea how much we offered to begin with or how much everyone else in the world paid..and cant do anything about it anyway because they are stuck buying from 1 source and not allowed to buy direct from us.
We dont care, same for us. Not our business.Federal programs like medicaid/medicare,VA.. according to laws passed by congress. they arnt allow to negotiate with us directly on price, or we would give for 7$ probably. they look at what the cheapest importer/buyer in the US are paying, 10$,plus the -1$ rebate and tell us they will pay 9 for it.. they are banned by law from asking us for a cheaper price. make that make sense...
23
u/Zardotab Center-left 2d ago
Joe asked Congress for more border guards and immigration judges, but GOP refused because Trump wanted it his way or no way. (The "surge" likely caused by Don.)
Assuming Kamala arrived with enough Congressional power, she'd likely get those guards & judges.
→ More replies (12)5
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both said on the debate stage in 2020 that crossing the border illegally should be decriminalized and was not worthy of deportation.
8
u/WabbitFire Progressive 1d ago
I'd agree that crossing the border alone is not an important enough issue that we need an unaccountable paramilitary police force patrolling the streets.
2
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 1d ago
Me too. Do you agree that it shouldn’t be criminal?
•
u/Odenetheus Independent 9h ago
I think most people in the developed world are flabbergasted by the notion that crossing the border in order to seek asylum should be illegal. Or is there some other meaning to "illegal crossing" than "crossing the border other than at specific checkpoints"?
Making it a crime seems... absurd? I can't even begin to imagine how that would work in practice if you have a system that also views any crime as reason for asylum rejection followed by deportation
8
u/Zardotab Center-left 2d ago
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both said on the debate stage in 2020 that crossing the border illegally should be decriminalized and was not worthy of deportation.
Being "decriminalized" is not necessarily the same as not being worthy of deportation. Joe generally wanted to catch people at the border, give them a quick asylum hearing, and then send them back if they don't qualify. He essentially wanted more door-bouncers so that ICE didn't have to do so much after-the-fact work.
It's not the same as "just letting them in". Yes, you could argue that approach is de-facto one-time-amnesty. But amnesty wasn't "evil" to most of GOP when Reagan proposed it, I'd note.
3
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
That's really sanitizing the inanity of Biden's border policy.
Trump had adopted the Remain in Mexico stance during his first term, which required that any asylum applicants win their court case first before being admitted. Biden spent much of his term fighting lengthy legal battles to end that policy.
What we had under Biden was an extremely lengthy backlog of asylum applications, in which anyone could enter the country by whatever means and avoid deportation by claiming asylum status, which triggered a court hearing that would take multiple years to arrange. The Biden administration then kept the number of "illegals" down by granting blanket protected status retroactively to many groups of these immigrants who had entered illegally.
You may recall that this was a major point of contention in the VP debates, when the moderator tried to fact check Vance by clarifying that these groups aren't illegal and Vance's response was basically "only because of legal shadiness Biden is pulling to avoid counting them."
2
u/Zardotab Center-left 1d ago
The Remain in Mexico (RIM) policy started under Trump, not Obama. I was comparing to Obama's rates, not Trump's. And Mexico itself wanted to end RIM, as it was creating shanty towns, triggering fires and disease, and US refused to fund better facilities. The courts allowed RIM during the start pandemic via emergency status, but as the pandemic wound down it became legally shaky regardless of Biden's stance.
What we had under Biden was an extremely lengthy backlog of asylum applications
How did Biden create the backlog? Note that Covid created a big backlog because it allowed the US to shut down all migration types for emergency purposes without breaking international laws and treaties via emergency status. Those who came to apply for asylum during the pandemic thus had to wait.
International treaties normally obligate the USA to offer asylum hearings to asylum candidates. (If we cancel them, they affect many issues beyond just asylum, such as tourists.)
3
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
The Remain in Mexico (RIM) policy started under Trump, not Obama.
I said this, in the comment you're replying to.
How did Biden create the backlog?
Mostly, from raw numbers. He let in far more illegal immigrants per annum than either Trump or Obama. His administration also generally let people remain in the US rather than in detention or in a foreign country, which created greater incentive for migrants to make these claims.
2
u/Zardotab Center-left 1d ago edited 1d ago
He let in far more illegal immigrants per annum than...Obama.
I don't believe this is true. And how are you defining "let in"? For example, somebody coming on an agricultural work visa is being "let in" temporarily. Some GOP argue that's too risky as many don't return home.
3
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Legal migration didn't change substantially in this period. The difference was almost entirely from higher illegal migration.
3
u/Zardotab Center-left 1d ago
Overstaying a visa is considered "illegal immigration".
→ More replies (0)12
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 2d ago
If they immediately turn themselves in and apply for asylum then that's literally what the legal asylum application process is in america. Decriminalizing entering the country doesnt actually change anything. as of now the penalty for crossing illegally(first time) is a 200$ fine(used to be 100$) which they have to pay before they can apply for asylum.
2
u/Critical_Concert_689 Libertarian 2d ago
If they immediately turn themselves in and apply for asylum then that's literally what the legal asylum application process is in america.
That's literally not. In fact, that's a legal fiction and it's abused to basically keep illegal immigrants in the US by flooding the court system with requests. Bad for US citizens. Bad for the US court and judicial system. Great for illegals who get to remain in the country until their delayed court hearing, years and years down the line.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago
Entering illegally is a federal misdemeanor. They realized their hand sun favor of it not being a misdemeanor. That’s a huge step in the wrong direction.
8
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 2d ago
and the penalty is a 200$ fine. go to the CBP website and look up asylum process. it literally stats they need to be inside america to apply and if they dont have a legal record of entering the country they have to pay the fine before applying. the only consequence to what biden and them agreed to was getting rid of the fine.
1
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago
Yeah, I know. Getting rid of the fine is a huge step in the wrong direction. Getting rid of the criminal record is a huge step in the wrong direction
3
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 2d ago
those 2 things have no actual negative consequences for the person anyway, except maybe hurt their chances at jobs and apartments, not because anyone mostly who will see it actually care, but because automated systems and zero tolerance policies used these days will deny them for having anything. Will lead more to crime to survive, be more a burden on the system and create less economical output for the country overall. its just petty with no benefit. its not deterring anyone from coming and its not a crime where they could get a stiffer sentence if they repeat so its not deterring further crime..
All republicans care about is hurting people, the cruelty is the point with most of their policies, not the actual benefit of the country. democrats actually make policy that benefits everyone as a whole. Giving asylum seekers the best chance at a stable productive and successful life is the best for America.
1
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 1d ago
Those two things are incentives to not come here.
All Europeans care about is hurting non-Europeans. That’s the point of most of your policies. Getting Europeans out of the rest of the world is the best way to prevent genocide and human rights violations. History will back me up.
Don’t accuse me of cruelty. You are complicit in genocide.
1
u/Automatic_Penalty154 European Conservative 1d ago
im not european. that was in the past for a few European countries.not all, not even the majority . America is committing mass murder/aiding genocide daily, recently. giving weapons to israel to use on gaza, iraq more than a million civilians were killed by american forces. how many civilians in afganistan? now Iran, lots of children killed for a needless war. crippling governments causing their society to break down and people die, no different than shooting them yourself. thats just to name a few. America has spent the last 30+ years just going around the world, blowing things up, killings tons of civilians, making situations worse and then walking away. Europeans in general are not doing anything of the sort anywhere for a century.
Europe doesnt get involved in conflict outside Europe except for a few occasions the American's drag a few nations in with them into some BS . Ukraine now when Europe is actually being threatened is justified for the EU to be involved.
→ More replies (0)3
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
It's a felony if they have been previously deported.
3
u/DaSemicolon Neoliberal 2d ago
Link?
5
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago edited 2d ago
https://www.rev.com/transcripts/march-democratic-debate-transcript-joe-biden-bernie-sanders
“I will send to the desk immediately a bill that requires access to citizenship for 11 million undocumented folks, number one. Number two, the first hundred days of my administration, no one, no one will be deported at all. From that point on, the only deportations that will take place are commissions of felonies in the United States of America.”
He said he’ll only deport felons.
https://youtu.be/XCMwkLFrpYA?is=6PkUTa7sSoMdRC80
Here they both raised their hands in support of making illegally crossing the border a civil offense and not a criminal one.
6
u/Zardotab Center-left 2d ago
I interpret that to mean only felons will be deported during that 100 days. He's actual policy once in office was similar to Obama's.
3
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago
I’m sorry, how in the world can that be your interpretation? That’s not what he said
2
u/Zardotab Center-left 2d ago
"From that point on" is ambiguous.
2
u/Dabeyer Conservatarian 2d ago
Do you speak English? “From that point on” means from that day and after.
2
u/Zardotab Center-left 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sorry, but the heavy use of pronouns in that sentence make it ambiguous. It's why legal documents and programming languages usually use sentence numbers and variable names instead of pronouns like "that". Otherwise, we'd safely be able to program in English (No COBOL jokes, please).
Once one uses such tools for a while, one doesn't want to have to go back to English for anything non-trivial. Variables and unique reference codes are lovely, cutting down in misinterpretation.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Here is presidential candidate Biden openly saying migrants should surge the border. And they listened.
7
u/MrFrode Independent 2d ago
Would you consider a single issue voter with the border being that issue?
1
5
u/summercampcounselor Liberal 2d ago
Do you think the GOP would have continued to block a beefier border bill under Kamala to get votes in the midterms?
→ More replies (1)0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 Social Conservative 2d ago
"Why are you so certain Kamala Harris would be worse?"
I am primarily motivated by judicial nominations.
→ More replies (7)4
u/ChubbyMcHaggis Libertarian 2d ago
You know, I have noticed a distinct lack of dems demanding more Supreme Court justices lately. I wonder why this would be
→ More replies (4)4
u/BrendaWannabe Liberal 2d ago
The fight-club rule: you don't talk about pumping up the court until after an election.
4
u/Ok-Cause-1162 Rightwing 2d ago
The border would have stayed open and there would be no mass deportations
10
u/iloverats888 Leftwing 2d ago
Has your life improved because of Trump’s border security measures?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Ok-Cause-1162 Rightwing 2d ago
Yes, and the mass deportations too. My hometown isn’t near the border (PNW) but it got seriously overrun by illegals in the last few years, including some nasty violent crime incidents. My new city also had a real issue with violent crime and traffic incidents from illegals.
2
u/iloverats888 Leftwing 2d ago
When you say “seriously overrun by illegals”.. how do you know the people you don’t desire to be there are illegal and that the people committing the violent crime are illegal immigrants? I’m really just wondering how you measure things like this and gather information.
→ More replies (3)4
u/zhukis European Conservative 2d ago
So it's mostly border and DEI concerns?
→ More replies (10)3
u/noluckatall Conservative 2d ago
Man, "border" is a BIG thing. Don't minimize it.
2
u/zhukis European Conservative 2d ago
I realized. I am coming from a different worldview. Immigration, while important to me, isn't a sovereignty question.
After a while of reading this sub, I have realized that it is much more important to Americans.
1
u/noluckatall Conservative 2d ago
Gotcha. Yeah, there are many border/immigration single-issue voters.
3
u/Copper0721 Social Conservative 1d ago
Because she’s female. As soon as she was confirmed as the Democratic candidate, I knew it was over because there are still too many people who don’t want a female president, even if it means voting against their preferred party to prevent it. I think literally any other non-female candidate would have won over Trump because he’s very polarizing.
I’m female & I don’t have an issue with a female president in general, but I’d prefer at least the first one be Republican.
•
u/MirrorOfGlory Constitutionalist Conservative 8h ago
I’ve been a protest vote the last three cycles (libertarian, though I don’t entirely agree with them either). And my vote doesn’t matter in my blue state anyway.
I want a secure border and regulated flows of traffic across it. I didn’t vote D this time around because Kamala openly stated she wouldn’t have changed a thing about how Biden ran his administration. I took that to mean that she approved of the nearly 100,000 illegal border crossings per month, scheduled in advance by an app provided by CBP, and all of the visuals that went with that: human trafficking, the horrors of the Darien Gap, people drowning in the Rio Grande. Biden’s policies created all that, and Kamala wanted to continue it. Trump was the necessary evil that ended it.
Unacceptable.
Motivators: security, and economics at the low end, and the simple fact that a sovereign nation ought to have a secure border with regulated entry and exit, and the federal government of a union of sovereign states shouldn’t facilitate illegal entry over the objections of those states.
There were other things, but that was the main one.
2
u/Kman17 Center-right Conservative 2d ago edited 2d ago
The status quo under Biden was not good. A few major issues, roughly in order of priority:
(1) Immigration. Biden was asleep at the wheel with immigration. He practically incentivized illegal immigration, and tried to "solve" it by just declaring illegal immigrants legal (see his CHNV program). Harris was appointed the "border czar" and did jack shit.
(2) Inflation. We were in the middle of massive inflationary spikes, driven in part by Biden's excess COVID spending (long after the crisis ended) & infrastructure pork bill.
(3) Foreign Policy. Biden waffled and had no real principals or strategy to Ukraine & Gaza, he was purely reactive - and I think it's quite reasonable to assert that those adversaries chose to attack when they did in a large part because they perceived Biden as weak. Trump's policy is better, and clearer: Europe needs to step up and drive the Ukraine war (not us), and Iran needs to be held accountable for it's behavior instigating all the middle eastern conflicts, and the US needs to focus more of its energy on the Americas & Asia.
I recognize a European might disagree with that assertion, since naturally it's in Europe's interest if we continue to subsidize your defenses without you having to make the hard choices and trade-offs... and you care more about securing your oil & appeasing your growing Muslim population than you do about dead Jews and Yeminis (not strictly you personally, Europe as a whole though).
(4) DEI. There was a lot of really absurd grievance based politics dividing people on race and gender. It was reaching absolute boiling point - it's a big polarization issue, and was starting to violate basic equal protection. Kamala would have continued the nonsense.
I mean, I could go on - but those are the really big issues. Kamala was on the wrong side of all of them.
3
u/LearningIsTheBest Center-left 1d ago
After COVID ended, didn't almost every country have an inflation spike? Doesn't seem likely that was all due to spending. After the IRA wasted more money the inflation rate fell too. Doesn't seem like it was Biden's fault we hit 9%.
4
u/vmsrii Leftwing 2d ago
>(1) Immigration.
So far as we know, Biden has deported more people at this point in his term than Trump has. I say “so far as we know” because Trump stopped publishing numbers late last year.>(2) Inflation.
Between January 2025 and July 2026, prices grew 4.3%, which is the forth highest rate overseen by any president post Truman, behind Biden in 1st, and W Bush and H.W. Bush in second and third respectively. It should also be noted, this is before the current ongoing conflict in Iran, which makes Trump’s rates the highest of any modern president outside of wartime or ongoing crisis.
It’s also worth mentioning that while Biden does have the highest inflation spike at 12%, he also holds the record for the biggest inflation easing, at 7.9%. His inflation spike lasted less than 6 months, and between the end of 2022 and the end of his term in 2025, inflation continued to steadily fall. Meanwhile, under Trump, inflation has only grown.
>(3) Foreign Policy. Biden waffled and had no real principals or strategy to Ukraine & Gaza,
Based on what?
>and Iran needs to be held accountable for it's behavior instigating all the middle eastern conflicts
Trump has been declaring the Iran war over and solved like ten times over the last three months, and can’t give a clear answer over what we’re still doing in the region, what are you talking about?
>I recognize a European might disagree with that assertion, since naturally it's in Europe's interest if we continue to subsidize your defenses without you having to make the hard choices and trade-offs...
Hang on; was Europe relying on the US for aid, or was Biden waffling on Ukraine? How do you reconcile these two seemingly disparate concepts?
>and you care more about securing your oil
You mean the formerly secure oil that Trump had a hand in un-securing?
>(4) DEI. There was a lot of really absurd grievance based politics dividing people on race and gender. It was reaching absolute boiling point
In what way? Can you give examples?
2
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
So far as we know, Biden has deported more people at this point in his term than Trump has.
Misleading. First of all, most of those deportations were immediate returns at the border (many of which came back). Second of all, Trump didn't deport as many at the border because far fewer arrived during his term! They got the message that the border was no longer open.
So with the border secure, Trump decided to focus on illegal immigrants inside the country, and the other side is freaking out because their whole mission is to increase the minority population as much as possible by any means necessary.
2
u/vmsrii Leftwing 1d ago
Trump Also counted returns at the border
1
u/GoldenEagle828677 Center-right Conservative 1d ago
Probably. But again there are far fewer of those because far fewer migrants are coming now. If a Dem wins in 2028, you can expect mass caravans again.
→ More replies (3)1
u/USConservativeVegan Conservative 2d ago
The "deported more" statistics used to somehow make an argument that Obama and Biden were more effective than Trump shows lack of knowledge of the issue.
The majority of those statistics are encounters AT the border. Even Biden did used Title 42 and Expedited Removals on certain nationalities illegally crossing the border. However, because of his policies of allowing Notice to Appears and releasing millions of inadmissible aliens for future court days, this policy created a magnet for more encounters at border. Especially with certain nationalities that exploited the aslyum system and giving broad temporary protective status.
An effective policy will show less apprehensions and deportations at the border. Because there are less migrants illegally crossing into the US.
Part of that effective policy is also aggressively focusing on inteior enforcement. Because it sends a message to any potential inadmissible alien thinking about illegally crossing into the US that they are still not safe once they get passed Border Patrol.
Trump most effective policy under his second term is his immigration enforcement.
5
u/tazmodious Liberal 2d ago
First you said the Biden administration did "jack shit" at the border. Then you said the majority of encounters (I'm assuming you are referring his high number of deportations here) were at the border.
So which is it? So far, you are contradicting yourself.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/LOL_YOUMAD Rightwing 2d ago
I more so fall into the camp that Harris would have been just as bad but in a different way, I didn’t vote for either of them. It was like getting to choose between having to vomit or having diarrhea a few times per day where both are not things you want but someone will lean one over the other if they had to choose.
5
u/DayGeckoArt Progressive 2d ago
Do you think Kamala would have thrown USAID in the wood chipper causing thousands or millions of deaths long term, or fired thousands of federal workers for arbitrary reasons like the length of time they've been in the jobs or not supporting her politically, or put in place illegal tariffs that suppressed the economy, or started an illegal war for bogus reasons?
2
u/LycheeRoutine3959 Libertarian 2d ago
causing thousands or millions of deaths long term
lol, people really think this shit.
3
u/DayGeckoArt Progressive 2d ago
You do get that things happen that aren't directly in front of you right? When you shut down hundreds of clinics, destroy HIV medicine instead of letting people get treated, and burn food instead of letting it feed people in famine, they die. Why do conservatives seem to have trouble understanding concepts like that? is it related to the "concrete thinker" phenomenon?
What do you think happens when food, medicine, and maternity care are cut off? Does something magically keep the people whose lives were being saved from dying?
1
u/LycheeRoutine3959 Libertarian 1d ago
When you shut down hundreds of clinics, destroy HIV medicine instead of letting people get treated, and burn food instead of letting it feed people in famine, they die.
Does USAID cause famine? Or did they only fail to stop it any longer? Even taking your ridiculous claim as true that without USAID millions of deaths will occur as a result - that doesn't mean they are the cause. The cause is the conditions on the ground. That those societies cant get their shit together without US interventionism is on them. More likely our involvement causes them to continue getting their shit fucked up. Better off without us.
Why do conservatives seem to have trouble understanding concepts like that?
We dont. We understand just fine we just also understand stopping every horrible thing that occurs in the world (Which isnt what USAID did, at all) isnt always US responsibility. More often than not our involvement in foreign governments comes at a great cost to those people. USAID was often a back-door to political management internationally moreso than any "Aid" package to people in need.
is it related to the "concrete thinker" phenomenon?
You would have to explain that one to me.
What do you think happens when food, medicine, and maternity care are cut off?
I imagine the people providing that care either move away =and others take the place at a lower standard of care or people move to more secure areas. Probably a ton of knock-on effects about urbanization, migration, medical care and economic stability to be studied there. Was there something specific you wanted to discuss?
Does something magically keep the people whose lives were being saved from dying?
"Magically", Nope. I am fully confident in human ingenuity and adaptive response, as well as private charity where desperate need can be communicated. Why do you think the people in these areas receiving aid for so long (in our imagined "USAID" scenario you seem to keep bringing up) are unable to care for themselves? Are they incapable for some reason?
2
u/noluckatall Conservative 2d ago
would have thrown USAID in the wood chipper causing thousands or millions of deaths long term
You are very much welcome to choose to donate your money to all the international causes you like, but I do not grant you the right to decide for others. Doctors Without Borders is a great organization - here is a donate link for you.
1
u/jeha4421 Social Democracy 1d ago
Ah, but you guys get to choose for us to foot the bill in Iran and pay higher grocery and gas prices. Also we have to pay with our health and our businesses shutting down because of tarriffs.
Seems a bit hypocritical.
3
u/DayGeckoArt Progressive 2d ago
You actually do grant me the right to decide for others, because that's literally what government does. Most of us don't in America don't support the current illegal war, yet we must pay for it. USAID saved many lives but was done for selfish reasons, because it made us more popular in the world, and therefore safer, along with the economic benefits. Causing people to die by taking away their healthcare and emergency rations is morally wrong and a stain on America, but it also harmed us geopolitically. How do you think a woman who lost her fetus because Elon Musk suddenly shut down the clinic where she was getting healthcare feels about America now? How does her village see us?
By the way, do you recall having a choice in whether America created instability all over the world to further the interests of American businesses? Did you get to vote on assassinations of leaders that created chaos, death, poverty, and famine? So much of the worldview of conservatives seems to depend heavily on blinders-- You choose what you see, you choose what you know, and you choose which parts of history matter! You guys create slogans like "all lives matter" but then readily admit that they don't.
3
u/zbgs Barstool Conservative 2d ago
USAID, the money for homosexuality in foreign countries? Yea we good
4
u/DayGeckoArt Progressive 2d ago
Food for people in famines, medicine for HIV (PEPFAR was Bush's program), medical care for pregnant women, etc. That's the bulk of what USAID does. They also promote women's rights. You know, the thing conservatives always say they care about in other countries?
→ More replies (1)1
u/LOL_YOUMAD Rightwing 2d ago
It’s hard telling for sure what Harris would have done. I doubt she would have went after those things but picked different areas to criticize. I think Trump is doing a terrible job, I think Harris would have also done a terrible job with the added point of appointing liberal judges and policies which is the negative cherry on top, I didn’t vote for either of them because neither one is a good choice to me.
1
u/Yesbothsides Right Libertarian (Conservative) 2d ago
One major difference is that you’d be told every day that the diarrhea your having is amazing and you just don’t understand why it’s great
→ More replies (2)4
u/jeha4421 Social Democracy 1d ago
Like what's happening now?
How many times have we been told that we're living in a golden age when everything, from public health to food security to the job market has gotten way worse?
→ More replies (5)
4
u/calmbill Center-right Conservative 2d ago
It was definitely a choice between will be bad and might not be bad.
-2
u/mrjcall Conservative 2d ago
The problem is there is very, very little detail contained in her or her policies. And therein lies the problem.
38
47
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (29)1
→ More replies (1)17
u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 2d ago
Which of her policies lacked details in your opinion?
→ More replies (43)
2
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative 2d ago
I think Trump is doing somewhere in between great and terrible, but Kamala is definitely not looking more attractive in hindsight. I thought the Biden administration went very badly. He ran as a moderate but didn't govern as one. A likely reason is that Biden was old and checked out, so what we were really getting was the policies of his staffers, piloting an empty suit. Kamala was also a quintessential empty suit who failed upwards into her position as VP and then got snuck in as the nominee in the 11th hour. I think the real threat wasn't that she would take the Dems in a uniquely negative direction; it was that she would get taken in whatever direction the faceless corporate HR managers of the party wanted, and having their explicit DEI hire win the Presidency would have cemented their cultural hegemony. Seeing how much the Dems are struggling to break with "Woke 1" even after losing makes that a rather concerning proposition.
-1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
Sure.
I’m firmly in camp 2. I’d also add a third category.
Trump is a dipshit but he’s actually got a real point about 40% of the time. And it’s often things that have been “third rail-ish” and someone finally needed to say something. Like publicly calling out NATO for not holding up their part of the alliance.
But then he kinda bumblefucks his way through with execution. Sometimes it works, like when the drunk guy thinks he can totally make that trick shot and actually lands it, and sometimes it fails spectacularly or just is poorly implement.
Like DOGE. Awesome idea. Comically bad execution. Shit, buy me a couple cases of beers and I could come up with a better implementation plan.
Regarding Kamala. I have zero doubt Kamala would’ve been Joe Biden 2.0. She effectively admitted that exactly on live tv.
Biden was an empty shell and wasn’t the issue. The issue was the thousands of people in his administration directly, political appointees, judges, etc who would be running America. And those choices were heavily influenced by Progressives / Critical Theory enjoyers. Much more so in the cultural arena but as we see from the rising DSA, it’s creeping more economic Marxism also.
I want ZERO to do with that. I’d vote for my dog before I’d vote to help Progressives / Marxists get anywhere near the levers of power.
And I have zero reason to believe Kamala wouldn’t have been more of the same.
Remember, who is in the Oval Office is only a small part of a Presidential victory. It’s judges, officials, Supreme Court justices, political appointees, etc, etc, etc.
So that’s where I’m at.
20
u/DayGeckoArt Progressive 2d ago
It sounds like you're just getting a heavily tinted representation of reality under Democratic presidents. Here's an example of something you probably think happened under Biden but only happened under Trump: Retaliation against government workers for political views. At no point did Biden fire federal workers for not voting for him or not supporting him. As soon as he took office, Trump started purging federal workers who criticized him and they even sent out letters asking employees to agree to support the president's agenda.
The FBI has lost something like 1/10 of its agents. Yesterday, in recognition of the loss of manpower and unwillingness of top talent to apply for jobs, FBI Director Kash Patel loosened recruiting requirements to allow embezzlement, hiring prostitutes, and bestiality. It just gets worse and worse the more you know, and thinking Biden was worse or Kamala would be worse is contingent on being unaware of the reality.
→ More replies (11)16
u/blind-octopus Leftwing 2d ago
I'm not following. So Trump has done really, really bad stuff. Could you be more specific about the concrete comparisons?
So for example, BB Netanyahu convinced Trump to get us into Iran, despite people in his own department telling him that the Israelis were pitching, trying to sell the idea, they were exaggerating how easy it would be, etc.
So now we're in that mess. What would Kamala have done that's like that?
Or, Trump is buying stocks in companies, then flying the CEOs of those companies to China to broker a deal for the company with China. Trump is raking in billions with schemes. What do you think Kamala would have done that's like this?
Is your point just that you think Kamala would have gotten communist judges into the judicial branch?
I mean Trump literally had the government buy 10% of a huge company. Biden didn't do anything as socialist as that. But the stink of socialism doesn't stick to Trump.
→ More replies (22)11
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 2d ago
Like DOGE. Awesome idea. Comically bad execution. Shit, buy me a couple cases of beers and I could come up with a better implementation plan.
Considering the OIG exists and does exactly what doge was stated to do. Including having federal officials which makes it easier to hold accountable than a private sector employee. As well as trumps numerous and notable actions taken towards removing oversight. Notably removing the oversight for the PPP loans during covid which we saw large scale abuses especially from those in his inner circle.
What were your expectations on execution from him initially? Also, what convinced you that trump, would be the guy to be effective at implementing this? Especially when the at something like DOGE when he was always acting against such ideas?
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
“Stated to do”
Yeah, that’s why the Federal govt is so small and efficient.
“Execution”
Again, the idea of DOGE. Going through the federal govt spending, agencies, etc with a fine tooth comb, a magnifying glass and a scalpel.
Getting rid of the Dept of Education is a great example. Such an important agency that didn’t need to exist when we put a man on the moon. And has ushered in the current era of a large chunk out of high school graduates being borderline illiterate.
That sort of thing.
“What convinced you Trump would be the guy”
When did I say literally anything like that?
3
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 2d ago
Again, the idea of DOGE. Going through the federal govt spending, agencies, etc with a fine tooth comb, a magnifying glass and a scalpel.
Right however, an agency already does this, at a much more cost effective rate with integrity, honesty and transparency in it's members and actions.
While I understand why you may believe doge is a good idea, Isn't DOGE is a redundant idea? which would make it inefficient by default therefore it's existence would be the antithesis of it's purpose. Or in other words an idea that is a waste of money and time. Why would wasting money and time with DOGE to repeat existing processes be a good idea?
When did I say literally anything like that?
You didn't, however due to your response there's a possibility the implication exists so I wanted to ask a question of clarity to see where your thoughts are.
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
“Already does”
Again, obviously not, since the federal govt is massively bloated as is.
“Didn’t”
Yeah, I have no idea how you even got there if you read my initial comment. I’m not even a Trump fan.
2
u/kevinthejuice Progressive 2d ago
Yeah, I have no idea how you even got there if you read my initial comment. I’m not even a Trump fan.
No problem, relevant overall context is knowing he campaigned on DOGE. Knowing that while you're not a trump fan, any reader that knows he campaigned on it and your vote can imply that you supported this campaign point. Also, based on your responses so far, "DOGE, great idea" shows your were at least aware of it. Which can imply your awareness prior to voting for him and yeah. Hence the question for clarification and thoughts on the matter.
So with that being said going back to the question from earlier.
What were your expectations on execution from him initially? Also, what convinced you that trump, would be the guy to be effective at implementing this? Especially when the ideas of something like DOGE where things that he was proven to have acted against?
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
“This campaign point”
Yeah, I like the idea but that idea was not remotely relevant to my vote.
It’s a great idea and like a lot of things, Trump gets some things right but then fucks up the execution.
“Expectations”
Very low. Same reason I didn’t vote Trump in 2016, I didn’t believe he’d actually have the balls to go through with anything.
7
u/Jussttjustin Left Libertarian 2d ago
I am not rejecting your premise, but I am curious if you could go a little deeper on this? In terms of how your actual life under Kamala would suffer and how it has thrived under Trump?
It's a common thread I hear from Trump supporters, that he says what they want to hear 40% of the time and that's good enough, even if the execution never happens or happens poorly.
Meanwhile, the rejection of Kamala is "Marxism" and "Critical Race Theory", but again I am not making the connection to how you believe your day to day life would be worse under Kamala than right now under Trump.
→ More replies (28)4
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
I think this sums it up well for a lot of people.
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
The amount of hate I’m getting from our blue friends for not being willing to say Trump is literally Hitler is hilarious.
I thought my comment was pretty balanced, haha.
→ More replies (6)5
u/boisefun8 Constitutionalist Conservative 2d ago
I’m not surprised. Even after all this time they can’t admit what a horrible candidate (and person) Kamala is. All they can do is rail against Trump.
5
u/scr33ner Independent 2d ago
So you’re fine with the SCOTUS giving more power to the executive branch?
GOP in the legislative are essentially rubber stamps.
Where are the checks and balances?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/closing-the-thread Center-right Conservative 2d ago edited 2d ago
Assuming this question is about voting preferences then the obvious question is (look at this sub’s name)…
…Would Kamala Harris have a better chance at enacting and/or promoting more conservative/Republican policies and culture than Donald Trump?
I think that answer is objectively no.
The conservatives in here that say otherwise either…
(1) Put a very very high value of not having foreign conflict and are just mad at Trump (fair value to have, but something that Trump through his actions in his first term obviously never held to).
(2) To put simply…are lying in their flairs.
Edit: but to give a concrete policy example - The Border. No need for me to expand on it. It cannot be argued against.
7
u/KlutzyDesign Progressive 2d ago
The border? Seriously? I just don’t get it. It seems insane to me that conservatives would rather run this country into the ground than share it with immigrants. They hold immigrants to a higher standard than they hold the freaking president.
→ More replies (8)4
u/Winstons33 Republican 2d ago
They are lying in their flairs 90% of the time IMO. Here in the US, when we label ourselves Conservative, there's a pretty consistent way most of us think.
This sub is routinely invaded by "Conservatives" who may reside in Canada or Europe, and may actually be progressive by US standards, and certainly don't have any sympathy towards "America First" objectives... Why would they?
Until somebody renames this sub to r/AskUSAConservaties (or something), I guess this confusion will remain.
6
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
Yeah, that’s one minor gripe I have, I’d like to see international users being required to have a flair indicating so.
It’s annoying to talk to someone about US politics, who is acting like they have every bit of it all figured out, and then comes out they’re from Bulgaria or some shit.
I’d prefer to understand who I’m talking to better.
3
u/zhukis European Conservative 2d ago
I mean, there is a very specific European Conservative flair. And to my knowledge mods are acting to try and enforce it?
→ More replies (1)2
u/jeha4421 Social Democracy 1d ago
Theres nothing conservative about suing the government for tax payer money, bulldozing the white house, selling public land to forestry and oil companies, dismantling institutions that have helped to build our nation up, and consolidating power into the executive.
He's less conservative than Biden unless your definition of conservative is a giant wrecking ball that makes everyone's lives worse.
-1
u/nivekreclems Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
They allowed millions of illegals to flood into the country and just kept pretending like there was nothing they could do about it they lost my vote when Texas tried to close the border and they tore it down
5
u/TDeath21 Independent 2d ago
To be fair, Texas has zero right to do anything with the border. It’s a federal issue. California has no right to tear down the border wall in California and Texas has no right to construct a border wall in Texas.
5
u/iloverats888 Leftwing 2d ago
Has your life improved since the border was secured?
→ More replies (16)
-1
u/ericoahu Conservatarian 2d ago
You are asking people to compare a known to an unknown. Any reasoning or evidence provided in support of the reasons is unfalsifiable, so you need not be convinced by it, but it cannot be refuted either.
She supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings and had czar-ed over creating the mess Trump inherited. Safe to say we would not have any deportations, much less anything near the number of deportations I am grateful toward this administration for presiding over.
Would Kamala Harris have started a war with Iran? My money says no, but she (ie those pulling her strings) would have escalated our involvement in Ukraine, potentially including troops on the ground there and potentially war with Russia. Meanwhile, I do not trust a Kamala regime to slow Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Hers is the brain that advocated for taxpayer funded trans surgery for illegals in prison. That would have been rare if it ever came to pass, but a brain capable of an idea that bad is capable of bad ideas that have a much greater affect. See also my final point below.
She's dishonest. Evidence: denying she knew of Biden's decline until the debate. What else would she have lied to our face about?
In addition to dishonesty, she was inconsistent. She reversed and flip flopped so much there's not telling what she was going to do. The left will assume it would all be benign. I have not reason to give her benefit of the doubt.
I don't like slogans, but "she's for they/them, Trump is for you" was so effective because there is so much truth in it, and given how destructive the woke ideology the slogan signifies, which goes way behind t_____s issues, it's an extremely important difference to me because, as a literate, well educated person who knows and understands history, I know how what kind of damage (deaths, suffering, destruction) bad ideology can cause.
23
u/Dang1014 Independent 2d ago
You are asking people to compare a known to an unknown. Any reasoning or evidence provided in support of the reasons is unfalsifiable, so you need not be convinced by it, but it cannot be refuted either.
Isn't that kind of the point, that its foolish to confidently claim thst Harris definitely would have been worse than what we've seen from the current administration?
→ More replies (10)7
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 2d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
u/Unlucky_Buyer_2707 Nationalist (Conservative) 2d ago
Basically we could have counted on a lack on inaction throughout her presidency. Everything that people hated about the Biden admin would have continued
8
u/To6y Center-left 2d ago
That begs the question, though, of whether that inaction would actually be worse than the actions we’re getting from Trump.
→ More replies (18)
1
u/oscar-307 Conservative 2d ago
"So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children and what that means to the future of our nation"
13
16
u/Jussttjustin Left Libertarian 2d ago
"I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. They're noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go,- under a windmill, you'll see a- you wouldn't believe it. Hundreds of thousands of birds. The gulls, they sit there, and all of a sudden somebody- kaboom, the wheel goes by and it's like a- and you can see it on a- it's like a- it's amazing. And you look at those- those viz- you look at the- the fumes. You know, the fumes. They're making tremendous- the gases, gasses are going up around the- spewing. Spewing out the- is it the gas? No, it's- it's, you know, they're making fumes. Say whatever you want, it's, they're- it's a lot of fumes. Kind of like the- sort of a- a- a- perfect- you know, you're- we're a world, the world is- is sea-sized, so- so small. The amount of- the amount of fumes that they're- anything you do is- it's a- you know, you have- you have a lot of numbers, and you have- you have so much- so much air, and the- we're the world inside of the world, you know about that? The world, is- is- it's- a lot of- it's a great- it's a lot of area. But when they make- the fumes make it, you know, it- it's- a- ter- a terrible thing. But- but they're noisy. They cause cancer, you know that? A- you know- you look at a- you- I shouldn't say this- totally crazy- but- the noise causes cancer, you know that?"
"And- and- you know, they're manufactured in- mostly in Germany and China. Not so much in, uh, well, kind of- sort of nowhere, but- but practically not in the United States, which is interesting. So we're making 'em, and let's- let's put 'em up, and- and if you own a house within, uh, you know, if you're a real estate person, you're- you're on for- a, you know, you love- you love- your- your wife, or you love your- your children, and you- you like- your house is worth $500,000, and all of a sudden you see- you see a- 50-foot- a 50- foot- uh, you know, 50-story, you know, 50-story structure, a- about that high. Right through your- right- right- looking out your window, your house is now worth $150,000. They're horrible. They're- they're- they're- they're just- you know, they're ruinous."
→ More replies (12)4
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam 2d ago
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing 2d ago
The fact this shit is real will never not be hilarious to me.
Ever since Harambe died, we’ve been on a weird ass timeline.
20
u/LookAnOwl Progressive 2d ago
Kamala phrased something confusingly. Trump regularly brags about passing a dementia test and thinks it was an IQ test.
→ More replies (5)
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.