Social Question

MrGrimm888's avatar

Who would be a better POTUS ; Harris, or Vance?

Asked by MrGrimm888 (19323points) 1 month ago

Given the age of both POTUS candidates.
As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

gorillapaws's avatar

It’s like comparing eating a plate of shit to eating a plate of shit with sprinkles. I think there are some who would argue that the lesser of two evils is always better. Personally, I blame the people who force us to eat shit every election cycle, but I’m just a whacko center-left progressive.

seawulf575's avatar

Given the current state of affairs I’d say Vance. Our enemies around the world have been totally emboldened by Biden’s ineptitude and cognitive decline. Likewise they’ve seen enough of Harris (who couldn’t get more than about 1% of Dem support in a primary) go on TV and live appearances babbling like a buffoon to know she is even less of a threat than Biden. Both are puppets in my book. Vance, on the other hand, hasn’t proven himself to be weak or a buffoon. That isn’t to say he isn’t, but as the old adage says: It’s better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

I’ll take the plate of shit with sprinkles.

canidmajor's avatar

Once again, @gorillapaws, you compare the chicken to the shit with glass.

I’d pick Harris, who understands how it works and has experience and perspective, over the barely-out-of-shell white guy who is a shill for Peter Thiell.

gorillapaws's avatar

@canidmajor You can eat the shit and make-believe it’s chicken, but you’re not going to convince me that the shit is really chicken. When you take hundreds of millions of dollars from the worst people in the country to ensure that the status quo doesn’t change, then you’re not chicken. That’s going to keep getting Trumps and Vances and all the rest of the MAGA assholes elected.

Zaku's avatar

Harris . . . obviously? To sane people? This has been a very sane and effective administration.

Vance used to compare Trump to Hitler, but now wants to be VP with him? Ok, so he has no integrity or credibility, and is willing to stand with Trump and the “let’s toss out democracy and be kings” platform?

gondwanalon's avatar

The mainstream “news” media tries to feed up BS so I guess I can handle shit with sprinkles on top or on bottom (whichever the case may be).

elbanditoroso's avatar

Harris is smarter.

Harris is at least familiar with the duties of an administrator (running the Attorney General department in California and at some level assisting Biden).

Vance has no admin experience and is a senator, with no knowledge of running a complex operation. He would be ‘amateur hour’- – on the job training.

gorillapaws's avatar

@elbanditoroso “Harris is at least familiar with the duties of an administrator (running the Attorney General department in California…)”

Yeah like taking bribes from Trump’s pal Steve Mnuchin and then refusing to prosecute his bank for illegal foreclosures.

Back in the day, such overt corruption would get you tarred and feathered. Nowadays the DNC fastbacks you to 2nd in command.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Harris appears to be slightly smarter than a rock. (Being generous) I don’t like a lot of Vance’s views, but he appears reasonably intelligent and trainable.

Caravanfan's avatar

@gorillapaws It’s funny to me you think of yourself as center-left. I think of myself as center-left. It just goes to show you the normal left-right divides don’t apply any more. You’re more socialist progressive, and I’m more libertarian neoliberal. But we both consider ourself center-left.

In terms of the answer to the question I don’t like Harris, but I can’t fucking stand Vance. So I’m going to go with the shit with sprinkles plate.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Caravanfan I support a single-payer Medicare-for-all system. That’s further to the right of those that want all healthcare workers to be employees of the state. I support having private schools, which is further to the right of those that believe all schools should be public. I support progressive taxation including a modest wealth tax above obscene levels of wealth, which is further to the right of those who want ceilings on income and wealth. and those are further still to the right of those who want complete income equality. I’m not in favor of universal basic income. I don’t support reparations, other than massive investments in the communities made up of those who are the descendants of slaves to the point where if you sampled 100 people blind, there would be no discernible statistical difference between someone who was a descendant of a slave and someone who wasn’t. I’m ok with private banks (though I think there should be better oversight). There are areas where I’d like to see more state-run industries like municipal telecom/internet as a competitor to Comcast and Verizon, and I would like to see Marxist policies that incentivize coops and give workers the first right of refusal to buy a company before it’s acquired. But I’m happy for those to exist in a mixed economy alongside privately and publicly owned companies.

I think if you polled Americans on those ideas, you’d find broad agreement. My views are pretty moderate in comparison to an actual extreme leftist. The thing is, the media completely disregards those who hold far left views, but is all-to-happy to feature folks on the very fringe on the right. This framing results in people having a warped sense of left/right.

If you look on the Political Compass of 2020 candidates, that gives you a more balanced view into left and right.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

I thought Vance was the shit with sprinkles plate.

LadyMarissa's avatar

I’m NOT excited over either!!! Now that Vance has been radicalized, I’d probably choose Harris. I will be glad when this election year is in my rear view mirror. At least I’ll be able to deal with what is occurring in place of guessing what might happen.

Caravanfan's avatar

@gorillapaws Okay, then you and I are closer than I thought. Thanks for clarifying!

SnipSnip's avatar

Is this a trick question?!?!

JLeslie's avatar

@Caravanfan The biggest difference is @gorillapaws is not a “never Trump” voter. He will vote third party and risk Trump, and some of the third party stances you probably have big disagreements with. I think that’s why I perceive him as far to the left even if my perception was slightly off overall.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie The difference is I share your concerns about how bad a Trump presidency is. I don’t try to make light of how terrifying it is. But I understand that the DNC is the bigger threat because they created Trump and will continue to create Trumps in perpetuity. Trump is a symptom of an even more terrifying problem that you and others seem to be capable of ignoring or at least deluding yourselves into thinking it’s less bad than the immediacy of the Trump threat.

We’re on a timeline with climate change and having our future as a species being determined between neofeudal hyper-capitalist Christian nationalists and neoliberal hyper-capitalists all of whom are bought and paid for by the same few hundred elites and who coordinate to prevent meaningful change, undermine any uncorrupt and well-intentioned politicians, and to maintain the status quo as the world burns is even more terrifying than someone as horrible as Trump.

If the Democrats had tacked progressive—and meant it. Not only would there not have ever been a Trump, there would barely be a Republican Party left. They’d be a 35% marginal party of religious zealots, racists and investment bankers.

JLeslie's avatar

@gorillapaws I semi agree with you. I do partially blame the Democrats for helping Trump, and my fears about the hyper-capitalist Christian Nationalists is right up there with you. I do think many Democrats also answer to corporations, but I cannot put them in the same basket as the Republicans.

You and I diverge the most when progressives get too progressive for me.

jca2's avatar

I saw part of Vance’s speech at the RNC. it’s ironic that the Republicans are now positioning their party as the party of the working class when traditionally, and officially in what they stand for is cuts to social programs that help the poor and needy.

janbb's avatar

@Caravanfan The big difference I have with @gorillapaws is that he sees the Democratic Party as equivalent to or worse than the Republicans. Whereas I see their many flaws but still feel they have helped working people, immigrants, gays and women more than Republicans for sure. My gay and trans friends are terrified of a Trump administration. If for only the protection of a woman’s right to choose, I will vote for whomever the Dem candidate is although I hope it isn’t Biden. If there were ever a viable Democratic Socialist candidate with a chance of winning, i would probably vote for them. And I don’t see the DNC as all powerful in this election; I’ve been getting solicitations texts from a million little PACs but no mail from the DNC.

But this is an old, old argument between me and my friend @gorillapaws.

Caravanfan's avatar

@janbb I’ve had the same discussions with him. His point is that if we continue to “settle” nothing will get changed. That’s a good point, but not one I’m willing to accept given the alternative. Civil rights are already being stripped as a result of the last MAGA goaround.

janbb's avatar

@Caravanfan Well, yes. I understand his point but I agree with you as you say, given the alternative.

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s so obvious, in this thread, how much we know each other.

@Caravanfan I believe understands GP’s stance in this matter. As I have had the same conversations with GP. Whom I greatly respect…Just don’t agree that Trump is the hemorrhage, and should be the priority.

But. I respect the opinion, about the DNC. And as far as voting goes, it’s up to just the individual.

janbb's avatar

And as I said, I haven’t heard anything from the DNC but I did just give a monthly contribution to the Congressional Progressive Caucus after getting a request from Bernie Sanders.

jca2's avatar

My guess is Biden will be dropping out very soon, so Harris as VP won’t be a question.

janbb's avatar

@jca2 No, she may run for President.

jca2's avatar

Exactly my point, Janbb.

Caravanfan's avatar

What would be awesome is if he announced it tonight. It would totally step on Trump’s big moment and be a super ballsy political move. He’s probably too nice to do that, though.

seawulf575's avatar

Yes, Harris may run for president…if they let her. My guess is it will be Michelle Obama as the surprise announcement very soon.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 That would be a bold choice. I don’t think it will happen, though.

JLeslie's avatar

Michelle Obama wasn’t happy her husband wanted to run for President.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Michelle Obama is not qualified.

seawulf575's avatar

Just remember, you heard it hear first. Michelle O is the only one that makes any sense at all. The Dems have no policies to run on…people don’t like them. They have relied so heavily on “Hate Trump” to get them elected that they have nothing else. Harris couldn’t get but about 1% of Dem support when she was running for POTUS and Repubs see her as a joke. She was VP so no one would dare to impeach Biden. None of the other candidates that have been thrown around hold any real appeal. Newsom is probably the only one that could get any support, but he has so destroyed California that the rest of the country doesn’t want him. Trump’s support is growing in leaps and bounds so the Dems need someone that can shock the left into voting for them again. Enter Michelle. She is popular with the left. She has no political history to be used against her and her suddenly showing up would make people cheer without understanding what they are cheering. The Dems could continue using “Hate Trump” as their campaign foundation.

The part that makes the whole thing particularly onerous is that for the third time in a row the Dems will bypass democracy to put the presidential candidate in place that the elites want, completely ignoring the democratic process. That is the part I think of when the Dems scream about Trump being a threat to democracy.

MrGrimm888's avatar

What in THE fuck, could one smoke or ingest, to think Michelle Obama has ANYTHING to do with the price of tea in China?

Can you say the part about dems and democracy again? I want to get a better pic so I can make a meme.

jca2's avatar

A lot of people would love to see Michelle run for the Dems. From what I’ve heard, she’s not interested.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Yes, that’s the story. So she will martyr herself. Beside, it would be Barack who is POTUS, calling all the shots. Everyone knows that.

elbanditoroso's avatar

This is funny. @seawulf575 doing strategic thinking about democrats.

Snake, meet grass.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Wulf. I stand immediately corrected.
I have ZERO problems with MO.
Admittedly, she would have maybe better experience than Trump. But I don’t get her as POTUS. Is this just how bad the possible candidates actually are?

I certainly thought the idea of Trump being even jokingly considered, was CRAZY.

I suppose anything is possible.

Michelle, with all due respect, is a comical consideration, at this time.

That’s not the DNC, I know…
I struggle to see how they get out of running Harris, honestly.

They’ve essentially already endorsed her, by running her with an octogenarian.

Now Biden is (suddenly) a wash, AND not running Harris is like the DNC saying “we were just kidding when we said Harris could fill in for Joe.”

Am I wrong, I thought Harris is the only one who could legally use ANY funds Biden raised?

IF the DNC had put her on Hillary’s path after Hillary lost, MO might be ready by now…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I don’t see MO as a serious candidate. But just like Joe Biden, the DNC needed someone that might even vaguely help. As I said, they have no policies to run on. Joe’s decline combined with Trump getting shot at has vaulted Trump well over Biden. It’s hard to campaign on Hate Trump right now without sounding callous and heartless. Many Dems are getting dejected and some are moving to Trump. MO would only bring shock value and false hope. She wouldn’t be talking policies, she’d be talking Hate Trump again. Many Dems would say “Aahh….we’re back to normal again. Hurray!”. I don’t think she would be a great POTUS but again, I seriously doubt she would be POTUS. She’d be the same kind of figurehead as Biden has been. Barack would be calling the shots, doing whatever his masters want him to do.

As for how to get Harris out of the way, that’s easy. It’s the DNC. Two elections ago (Trump/Cinton), they let Hillary buy the nomination. No democracy involved. Last election they forced every candidate out except for Biden who wasn’t blowing anyone’s hair back to start with. No democracy involved. So forcing Harris out or claiming they are in uncharted waters and just appointing their nominee, either way they can easily get her out of the way. They have shown democracy is for rubes. They don’t believe in it and certainly don’t feel like they have to justify themselves to anyone…except their globalist masters.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^The result is practically the same,” but in my opinion Biden is falling more than Trump ascending.

Maybe there will be some M. Night Shyamalan twist, like in October.

Maybe some Epstein videos on YouTube. With pics of everyone. Even MO, and Harris.

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575
“The Dems have no policies to run on…people don’t like them.”
– Most of their policies are quite popular, even among Republican voters, if not some MAGA voters and MAGA Senators & Congressfolk.

” Joe’s decline combined with Trump getting shot at has vaulted Trump well over Biden.”
– Not really.

“It’s hard to campaign on Hate Trump right now without sounding callous and heartless.”
– No it’s not.

” Many Dems are getting dejected and some are moving to Trump.”
– Only in MAGA fantasies.

seawulf575's avatar

@Zaku ” Most of their policies are quite popular, even among Republican voters, ” Really? What are they?

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575 Things such as:

* Separation of church and state.
* Tolerance, equal rights, and non-descrimination.
* Abortion rights.
* Solid commitment to NATO.
* Supporting Ukraine against Russian invasion.
* Negotiating solutions on the southern Border (blocked by GOP at the request of Trump).
* Qualified, non-partisan SCOTUS appointees.
* Action against climate change.
* Environmental protections.
* Sustainable energy.
* Consumer protections.
* Business regulations.
* Making it easy for all Americans to vote.
* Affordable health care.
* infrastructure improvement bills that Republicans who voted against them, tend to claim credit for later.
* Basic gun control laws.

seawulf575's avatar

@Zaku Separation of church and state is part of the Constitution. That isn’t a Dem policy, it’s law.

Yes, they are all for Tolerance, equal rights, and non-discrimination. they are also for men in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms and for helping elementary school kids decide they need to transition. Most Americans are not supporting this.

Abortion Rights are a thing for the states to decide, so it really has no bearing in the national elections other than word salad.

Yes, they are all for NATO and the ware in Ukraine as well as the war in the ME. Most Americans aren’t that enthused about getting involved in wars and spending billions of dollars to support those wars.

Negotiating solutions at the southern border. What is there to negotiate? Americans are fed up with the flood of illegals entering this country. They are tired of the crime they have brought and the treatment they are getting at the expense of Americans. The negotiation you are referring to is the crisis they created that has pissed everyone off. They want to negotiate to make it legal to let them just pour across the border. Again, most Americans are not on board with that policy.

Qualified, non-partisan SCOTUS appointees. Great. Where are you going to find them? There isn’t a single non-partisan justice to be had. Fortunately, the justices often rule for or against things in ways that most people don’t expect. Face it, the left would be happy if they had a bench full of left-wing activists. They would call that non-partisan.

Action against Climate Change. That started off as a great scare tactic, but people have gotten wise to it now. Climate Change might be real, it might not, it might be imminent and it might be something that might happen centuries from now. But here’s the rub: if the USA went entirely emissions free today, it wouldn’t put a dent in global climate change. We are not the big contributor. That would be China and India, neither of which anyone wants to hold accountable for change. And as Kamala (or whomever) jets around the country to talk for an hour here and an hour there, she (or whomever) can tell us all about how concerned they are with carbon emissions.

Environmental protections. Yes. But not radicalized. The “clean water” program the EPA started under Obama was ridiculous. It was governmental overreach to the nth degree. There are places now that make it illegal to even own a rain barrel to use the water for your garden. This sort of thing is moronic and designed to do nothing but give the government more power over the people. Besides, much of the environmental policies that came out in the past 20 years have all been from bureaucrats. They are given the power of law, but they are coming from the Executive Branch.

Sustainable Energy is great…provided it is done smartly. Setting goals and then seeing if we can figure out some way to meet them is foolishness. Want to sink some money into research to make wind turbines more efficient? Great. Want to find ways to make solar panels more efficient with a longer life span? Cool. But that’s not what the Dems have shown they want. Besides, many of these “sustainable energy” efforts end up polluting the world far worse and depleting natural resources far worse than fossil fuels.

Consumer protections and business regulations are both job killers. It puts the power for production, distribution and even consumption into the hands of the government which is Socialism. Hitler had that. But hey, if you say the Dems want it….

Making it easy for all Americans to vote. How about making it so that all Americans can vote and nobody else can? How about making sure that the person voting is who they say they are? How about making sure the counting of the ballots is secure? I (and many other Americans) would rather have secure elections that don’t have shadows of doubt all over them than to just have a bunch of ballots coming in and calling it good.

Affordable health care. We can agree on this. But we don’t agree on the way it is done. When you talk to doctors, nurses, admins, etc in the medical field, they are disgusted with how things are done. Here’s a novel idea: get a random group of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical admins, and middle class people, put them into a room together and let’s first identify where the problems are and then offer solutions that might fix the problems? I say random and mean random. If it is putting everyone’s name into a hat and pulling 3 names from each discipline/function then do it. Don’t ask for volunteers, don’t appoint people, don’t have any government people involved at all. Once the solutions are considered then send it to the government with the order that they can’t change the solutions. If they want to change the solutions, they need to get back together with the group to explain why it needs to be changed.

Infrastructure improvement bills are great. Trim all the pork out of the way and then put it through. AAahhh….that is the rub. Every time a bill is put through, there is a ton of pork and other spending tagged on. Look at the much vaunted border security bill Biden was whining about not getting passed. It was looking for a ton of money to be spent. The majority of it was for Ukraine and Israel. A very minor part was for the border and all that did was legalize illegal entry for the first 2 million people every year. It also spent a ton more money on processing them into the country where they can ignore any further actions for their amnesty claims. It did nothing about actually securing the border.

Basic Gun Laws. We have them. You can’t just go buy a gun. You have to get background checks prior to getting approval for the purchase. But here’s an interesting side note: one of the things that will preclude you from being able to legally buy a gun is if you are a convicted felon. The Dems are working diligently to not prosecute criminals. They are turning them back out on the streets. They are reducing the level of what is considered a felony. They are reducing police forces to make it harder to arrest criminals. So if you don’t arrest them or if you reduce the charges, drop the charges, opt to not prosecute, etc you are hiding things that will show up on a gun purchase background check. Are you now all for getting tough on crime?

So now you know why many people don’t like the Dem policies. Yes, they are great talking points with names that sound familiar, but they are garbage policies. They want to spend money without expecting results and, in some cases, hoping they don’t get results. I honestly believe they just want to give money to cronies that can claim it in some of these many fields.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther