Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[DJC]

Another classic moment came when Aurangzeb was asked whether, after railing against Obamacare for a decade, he had a plan to replace it:

"I have a concept of a plan..."

[Lods]

Think back to how Aurangzeb monstered Hillary Clinton in 2016 to see how well Harris's team prepped her for this debate.  Still, it shouldn't be too difficult to get the better of an extreme narcissist with cognitive decline.

There were plenty of low points but it's hard to go past:

"In Springfield, they [immigrants from Haiti] are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there."

Sadly, Aurangzeb and Vance aren't backing away from this baseless claim but, then, Aurangzeb said that he saw it on TV so it must be true.

Just watch out for this one.
There was a video of an Ohio nutter who killed and started eating a cat.
She's not an immigrant. She's just mentally ill.
...but I've seen it used on a site as an example of Trump's claim

[PaulP]

I wouldn't vote for either party, but the GOP can't even be bothered challenging their audience with something original, instead resorting to the old "dog eating" trope, straight out of the Asian slander playbook.

I really don't understand how people can watch even 30 seconds of that sh1te. It's purely performative, the triumph of spectacle over anything of substance, and another step in the seemingly limitless degradation of public discourse and the political process. 

[Lods]

I really don't understand how people can watch even 30 seconds of that sh1te. It's purely performative, the triumph of spectacle over anything of substance, and another step in the seemingly limitless degradation of public discourse and the political process.

I don't think folks watch it for any reason other than the spectacle.
If you have an interest in politics, how it works, how it can be manipulated and how it can influence our lives... you watch.
It not about who has the best policies, it's about who performs best because in the end policy counts for absolutely nothing unless you win the election.
You can have the best policies in the world, but if you're not in a position to implement them, they're useless.

In my opinion Harris won the debate clearly.
Do we know a lot more about her policies and how they would differ from Biden's
Nope.
She was a bit vague, using some 'facts' out of context, but not as many as Trump who basically told a few 'porkies.'
What we do know is that she stood toe to toe with Trump and more than matched him.
So in terms of the election it must have had some benefit however minimal.
Does that matter to us?
Of course it does.
Like it or not what happens in the USA affects us and the rest of the world.
America would be very different places under Trump as opposed to Harris.

[LP]

Just watch out for this one.
There was a video of an Ohio nutter who killed and started eating a cat.
She's not an immigrant. She's just mentally ill.
...but I've seen it used on a site as an example of Trump's claim

They freely allow guns in the USA, and hunting just about anything is largely unrestricted in some areas, I have US associates who regale me with stories about walking out there backdoor on suburban fringes to go deer hunting on foot, lying in wait in camouflage gear with hunting rifles just a few hundred metres off a normal suburban street.

Apparently, the pet eating trope was partially triggered when some nutter used an AI altered images / video of a local carrying birds caught legally via trapping / hunting. The person who was filmed carrying the birds has come out to expose that lie already but the media don't broadcast the correction. He may now sue and he should be within his rights to do so.

In both cases I believe they were locals, as in US citizens, they were not illegal immigrants.

[PaulP]

I don't think folks watch it for any reason other than the spectacle.
If you have an interest in politics, how it works, how it can be manipulated and how it can influence our lives... you watch.
It not about who has the best policies, it's about who performs best because in the end policy counts for absolutely nothing unless you win the election.
You can have the best policies in the world, but if you're not in a position to implement them, they're useless.

In my opinion Harris won the debate clearly.
Do we know a lot more about her policies and how they would differ from Biden's
Nope.
She was a bit vague, using some 'facts' out of context, but not as many as Trump who basically told a few 'porkies.'
What we do know is that she stood toe to toe with Trump and more than matched him.
So in terms of the election it must have had some benefit however minimal.
Does that matter to us?
Of course it does.
Like it or not what happens in the USA affects us and the rest of the world.
America would be very different places under Trump as opposed to Harris.

America will be different under Trump for some people, but for the majority it won't matter. Democrats have hitched their wagon to identity politics, so you may see a little improvement on abortion, LGBT issues etc., but anything that negatively impacts their corporate donors (the same corporate donors for both parties) won't change. The twp parties are virtually identical on anything to do with fossil fuel, big pharma, banking etc.

The GOP under Trump are basically the Democrats with the mask of civility ripped off, and the crudeness, vulgarity and crassness of corporate America has been laid bare for all to see.

[LP]

The GOP under Trump are basically the Democrats with the mask of civility ripped off, and the crudeness, vulgarity and crassness of corporate America has been laid bare for all to see.

I'm not sure it's fair to paint everyone with the same brush, it may even be as extreme as those under criticism.

But it's open season on the contradictions, the problems in the USA are primarily corporate and / or religion.

For example, I know of a researcher working on a cure for anaemia, it involves the use of CRISPR. The budget for the development of CRISPR was about US$2M total, it took several years. Compared to historical methods CRISPR costs almost nothing, yet a treatment for anaemia in the USA will cost you(as a single individual) US$2M. That is the whole multi-year budget of the R&D that lead to the CRISPR invention in the first place. Most of that US$2M cost is profiteering and legal liabilities, hardly any of it goes to the scientists and medical professionals involved in the treatment, the direct material cost is effectively zero, you can make a batch of a cure and send it soaked into a piece of paper by mail to the medical centre conducting the treatment at the cost of a postage stamp. So the direct cost a treatment would currently be 1/50th of that asking price, the materials, people, hospital stay, post care, etc., etc., and it is a cost rapidly falling as those with the capability and knowledge to do the treatment grows.

Much of the legal cost comes out defending court cases driven by religious ideology, or profiteering of risk / liability, which also forms the basis of much of the politics.

[DJC]

It’s interesting how the Republicans and Democrats have changed/evolved.  The Republicans were the progressives who were opposed to slavery.  The Democrats were pro-slavery and allied with the KKK - although prominent Republicans were also KKK members.

I guess we’ve seen similar at home with the Liberal Party becoming far more conservative than the party Menzies founded.  Labor has always had a wide range of philosophies but is now firmly centre-left.  Of course, that’s nothing like the dramatic changes undergone by the US parties … but we’ve never had a civil war to hone our politics.

[LP]

Labor has always had a wide range of philosophies but is now firmly centre-left.

I think that's a generous description, there is very little centre remaining in either the left or the right of Aussie politics.

On the extremes. I have an associate who copped a water bottle in the head yesterday leaving the (Land Forces Expo)IWE. He was there because he is funded by the military to develop life saving "In the Field" 3D printed scaffolds for on the spot use in emergency medicine, like skull cap or bone graft scaffolds. Of course the military will pay for the all the R&D, but the main recipients of the commercialised technology will mostly likely be people in the 3rd World or Disaster zones. Ironically, if he'd been hit with something a bit harder than a water bottle, like some of the rocks and brick being randomly thrown, he might well have become a recipient of his own technology.

btw., I thought the gutless mask wearing at public protests was banned in Victoria, it seems to be making a comeback?

[DJC]

I think that's a generous description, there is very little centre remaining in either the left or the right of Aussie politics.

On the extremes. I have an associate who copped a water bottle in the head yesterday leaving the (Land Forces Expo)IWE. He was there because he is funded by the military to develop life saving "In the Field" 3D printed scaffolds for on the spot use in emergency medicine, like skull cap or bone graft scaffolds. Of course the military will pay for the all the R&D, but the main recipients of the commercialised technology will mostly likely be people in the 3rd World or Disaster zones. Ironically, if he'd been hit with something a bit harder than a water bottle, like some of the rocks and brick being randomly thrown, he might well have become a recipient of his own technology.

btw., I thought the gutless mask wearing at public protests was banned in Victoria, it seems to be making a comeback?

By all measures, the ALP is a centre-left party with probably more right-leaning parliamentarians than left-leaning.  The Greens have largely captured the left.

Mask wearing isn't and has never been banned in Victoria.  VicPol and PSOs have the authority to require people in designated areas to remove face coverings, but it is a very limited power.

I get that people want to demonstrate against war, and particularly in the context of Israel's disproportionate response to Hamas, but surely peaceful, orderly protests with a clever hook would be more effective ... and it would be nice if they devoted some time and energy to protest against Putin's invasion of Ukraine.