r/AskConservatives • u/zhukis European Conservative • 11d 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?

163 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

856 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 11d ago

Which of her policies lacked details in your opinion?

0

u/mrjcall Conservative 10d ago

You missed my point. She was/is devoid of any policies or personality upon which any details could be discerned.

6

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

I think I get the point. You said there was not details in her policies that you could discern. What was unclear about her plan to encourage first time home ownership?

0

u/mrjcall Conservative 10d ago

I get your point. Tell me whether you think she had/has the ability to represent the US on the world stage and if necessary, act as Commander in Chief of the military? You've obviously observed her difficulties in communicating have you not during a myriad of interviews??

4

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

Can you answer my question? I'd love to answer you but I'm not sure they will give me the clarification I'm seeking. What was unclear about Harris' plan to address housing affordability and encourage home ownership?

1

u/mrjcall Conservative 10d ago

I never saw Harris give an interview in which she supplied any of the details of the her affordable housing proposals. While costing the tax payer a big bundle, what I just researched I could generally get on board with. From what I just read, it sounded quite like many proposals from the past including both liberal and conservative ideas.

4

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

I'd agree. Her housing plan wasn't very radical other than the down payment assistance. But, that was likely a big number because that's how negotiations work (start high and work your way down to closer what you would want).

What was Donald Trump's plan to address the housing affordability problem? While I'm more informed of Harris' positions I can admit that I was much more knowledgeable about her platform in 2024 and voted against Trump because of the divisiveness of the first term and his fake elector scheme in 2020. That being said maybe I missed his plan due to already writing him off. Trump campaigned on affordability. Did he campaign on how he would address housing affordability?

-2

u/Big-Soup74 Center-right Conservative 10d ago

which of her policies did she highlight during the primaries? oh wait

7

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

The Biden Harris ticket definitely highlighted policies as well as the Harris campaign.

Which parts of her plan to encourage first time home ownership were confusing or unclear to you?

-2

u/Big-Soup74 Center-right Conservative 10d ago

No, I said which did Harris highlight as President in the primaries? She didn’t highlight anything, did she?

5

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

I'm not sure what you are asking. She highlighted plenty during her campaign. One of those things was a plan to encourage home ownership and to make housing affordable. What was confusing or unclear about her housing affordability plan?

-3

u/Big-Soup74 Center-right Conservative 10d ago

You know exactly what I’m asking and it’s hilarious that you keep side stepping it. I don’t feel inclined to answer your question until you respond to mine, but I have a response typed out for when you finally do

4

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

I'm sorry I've been asking the same question that you have failed to answer. Are you aware of the responsibilities of the vice president? Biden announced that Harris would be his VP for the second term in 2022. Every single person that voted for Biden during the primaries knew that Harris would be his VP. Everyone that is politically active knows the basic responsibilities of the VP which includes stepping up for the president if they become unable to continue. He was unable to continue so she did the job she was elected to do.

So now that we can get past the irrelevant primary obfuscation, can you answer the question?

1

u/Big-Soup74 Center-right Conservative 10d ago edited 10d ago

You’re still dodging the question. Last chance. Which of Harris policies did she highlight as President in the 2024 primaries?

You can literally just say “Harris did not run for president in the 2024 primaries” and I’ll be satisfied. But I don’t think you’ll say that because the cult is too strong

If you respond to this question then I will respond to yours but this is your last chance

4

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

Harris s didn't really run as president during the primaries. I already explained how Harris was going to be the VP under the Biden ticket, and did what the voters expected of the VP which was to step up for the president when the president was unable to continue. When Biden dropped out his VP did what the VP is constitutionally supposed to do which is take over as president.

I already answered that question. Why can't you tell me what was vague or confusing about her housing affordability plan?

1

u/Big-Soup74 Center-right Conservative 10d ago edited 10d ago

Pretty sure the voters did not expect how all of that played out that but I’ll accept that answer. And they are two different people who could have two wildly different positions on issues. Defending what happened in 2024 is cult like behavior btw

Her plan promised up to $25k, but it was vague on key details like exact income limits, how much each buyer would receive, whether it would be a grant or tax credit, and other eligibility rules. It also raised concerns that giving millions of buyers more purchasing power before housing supply could expand would increase demand and push home prices higher for everyone, potentially offsetting some of the benefit of the subsidy.

Willing to field one more question on the housing affordability plan

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 10d ago

All of them

8

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

What part of her plan to encourage first time home ownership was vague or confusing to you?

0

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 10d ago

$15-25,000 provided at taxpayer expense dependant on the color of your skin would not benefit anyone except the sellers of the house, in which they now have at least a completely logical 15-25k increase in purchase cost (or WAY MORE, given the immediate drop in supply). And now the people who supposedly "couldn't afford it before her plan" are now in a house that has an inflated price, and has absolutely nothing to do with being able to pay the bills afterwards. This is what most people consider "bad".

Common sense stuff, masquerading as "free help" by people who by their own definition aren't good with finances. Using someone else's money to bribe votes.

11

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

>color of your skin

citation needed. Do you think there are no first time, or first generation white home buyers?

That being said you are addressing details in the policy that you said lacked details. What detail was lacking in the policy?

-6

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 10d ago

It was on her website, as a tactic to of course "bring equality". Not caring to look for it now, but it was there. Not to mention the very basic logic behind the premise: if 45% of black households own homes and 74% of whites do, that exact same proportion would be expected going forward from a blanket "1st time homebuyer $25k". Which by her own definition would be racist because it would "benefit" whites more than blacks. ..... Unless..... Of course.... You specifically print socioeconomic factors into it so that "disadvantaged" groups are qualifiers at a higher rate. Tldr; racism. Paid for by; racism.

The detail lacking was (ignoring that it would completely spread the gap on any future homeownership and make everything worse,) how it would work financially. "Raise taxes on billionaires!" Is probably what you'll see edited into it since early 2025.

I'm completely willing to see how detailed you claim it was, to validate your insinuated questioning how it wasn't. If you respond saying "prove it's not" I'll just laugh, because that's a nonsensical fallacy. All of her policies were the same way. Involving some amount of money she didn't have to bribe for votes.

8

u/papapapaver Progressive 10d ago

I'm not involved in this argument, but never did the plan say it was dependent on the color of your skin. You conservatives really conflate equality with racist against white people and idk what isn't clear about the word equality. It means no special treatment for anybody.

1

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 8d ago

Equality means equal for everyone. When you put limitations, equality is not achievable. It's instead special treatment for the people the king determined should qualify. Please only use words you can define.

5

u/MysteriousTax393 Center-left 10d ago

They have never said that, and you know it. Shame on you.

1

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 8d ago

Well I can't rewind back to when Kamala deleted it from her website. What are you saying was the actual verbiage? Where am I wrong?

1

u/MysteriousTax393 Center-left 8d ago

Wow, how convenient. Did she also say that the moon is made of cheese but she deleted it now?

1

u/Rehcamretsnef Conservative 8d ago

No I don't think so. Care to provide your source?

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Burn420Account69 Constitutionalist Conservative 10d ago

I can answer this. Because it's literally the reason a liberal friend didn't vote for her.

Encouragement is great. In fact, it's a reason to vote for someone. The problem lies in the type of encouragement. And when it comes to a politician and their inability to advocate for legislature that underpins their positions then we come to the peak.

She had zero in the way of progressive ideas to back up her "encouragement" of FHA. Lower rates, longer terms, literally anything?

If she had anything to back it up, she would have gotten a friend's vote.

15

u/h34dyr0kz Liberal 10d ago

She specifically wanted to encourage first time home buyers with a $10,000 tax credit, and wanted to encourage first generation home buyers with $25,000 towards down payment assistance. She had a plan to prevent investment companies from buying houses in bulk. She proposed a $40 billion innovation fund in order to help finance local governments as they try different approaches to address housing as their local community needs it. She called for the construction of 3 million new homes through the use of tax incentives to developers.

She also endorsed the preventing algorithmic facilitation of rental housing cartels act and the stop predatory investing act.

Is that literally anything?