Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.
The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.
Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a politician accuse Trump of just “not having a realistic idea to achieve” isolationist goals. They attack him for having isolationist goals at all (which he doesn’t actually have, really), because all of them are extreme interventionists.
Now you’re jumping from “deescalating conflicts” to isolationist goals. That’s not the same thing. However it beautifully illustrates the point of my original comment. It’s highly debatable if “isolationist goals” are a good thing he would be accused of.
(Actually) Deescalating conflicts would be a good thing, I think most would agree. He just won’t be able to, because his idea of deescalating is submitting to dictators. His interest isn’t solving anything, just blocking out the noise and taking credit.
Well, I mean, if you’re invested in the preservation of US hegemony for some reason, then I guess it’s debatable whether keeping up a constant state of war and bloodshed is a good or bad thing. I, however, am not. I don’t give a rat’s ass about US hegemony and I would love to have a president who’s willing to “”“submit to dictators”“” to avoid conflict.
The only people who actually gain anything at all from US hegemony are the people at the top. Nobody else, at home or abroad, benefits from it at all. Rather, we get all our domestic programs cut to fund a war machine that spreads fear and destruction to innocent people around the globe. Unless you’re part of the elite, invest heavily in companies like Lockheed Martin, or have confused national interests with your own, then yes, isolationist policies are a good thing.
You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?
When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.
That was a good thing. The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.
You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?
Absolutely.
The US is losing the peace to China because we’ve wasted so much money on bombs and invasions, while China’s been pursuing domestic development. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our healthcare system is completely unworkable, our life expectancy is in decline, our education is being gutted, and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Our country is falling apart at the core, this is no time to be fussing about shit on the other side of the world.
Only a few years ago, things were fine with Russia and China, and they could be fine again. The US pulled out of the Middle East and needed new conflicts to justify the military industrial complex, and so we got a bunch of sabre-rattling, proxy conflicts, and propaganda.
That was 70 years ago, and has been used as an excuse for every single major conflict since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, all had major US political figures drawing comparisons to Hitler and WWII to justify them, and all were unjustified, pointless wars of aggression that slaughtered countless innocent people.
NATO did not originate in response to the Nazis, it originated to counteract the Soviets. In fact, ex-Nazis were often brought on board, because they were reliably anti-communist. Adolf Heusinger, for example, served in the high command of the Wehrmacht and went on to become chairman of NATO.
Trade is fine. Love trade. Although I am critical of the system of neocolonialism that keeps many countries poor, but that’s more a question of returning the natural resources that were stolen during colonialism and letting them regain control of their domestic policies. I wish we focused more on trade instead of war.
Well countries may not want to trade with someone at least not on favourable terms if that country isolates itself in every other way.
My point about NATO was that it’s all about working together to defeat something, so okay, in that case communism if you say so (honestly don’t know that much about it).
The point is that Russia and China are dangerous. I suppose you’re okay with the Ukraine stuff because it’s all about America right? Okay with the Palestinian genocide?
Note that I’m clearly not supportive of all Americas wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
But to just not form military alliances with other countries? That’s dangerous. Because Russia and China aren’t gonna stop with their alliance. If the US was to just ignore them two slowly taking over the world, then guess who will be the last country left, isolated as is your wish? The last country left to be taken over? Which will be much easier once they’ve conquered the rest of the world.
You can’t let the likes of Russia stomp around invading its neighbours. It’s a very selfish attitude that ironically won’t benefit itself. As in letting Russia do that will eventually lead to America’s own demise. We also won’t be able to trade with the countries who have been bombed into oblivion by Russia/China/North Korea and whoever else joins them rather than die.
I’m not sure reducing military interventions is going to make countries less inclined to trade with the US. They’re a part of what’s pushing more and more middle income countries over to China, when we invade and devastate independent counties, when we seize assets held in our banks, when we put up sanctions and blockades, other countries have to wonder if they’ll be next.
Well, I’m a communist, so “working together to defeat communism” isn’t exactly a point in favor in my book.
I have no idea how on Earth you’re making that logical leap with regards to Palestine. The US is actively funding and supplying Israel. That’s the sort of thing I’m saying I want to stop.
As for Ukraine, I just want peace. If that means giving up some territory, that’s fine with me. It’s not as if life is that different in Russia compared to Ukraine. If you really care about Ukrainians, get the killing to stop and then spend the money we’re blowing on bombs on actually improving their quality of life. If we’d done that before, maybe the people in eastern Ukraine wouldn’t have wanted to split off in the first place.
I’m fine with foreign aid, so long as it’s going to actually helping people and not to blowing people up to line some executive’s pockets.
What indication is there exactly that they’re out to “conquer the world?” When was the last time China was engaged in a major military conflict? When was the last time the US wasn’t engaged in a major military conflict? Seems pretty clear which country is more intent on aggressive expansionism.
But that’s not really how empires fall, anyway. It’s the declining conditions in the core that you have to watch out for.
Pure fantasy.
Ok my point about Palestine was to prove that I wasn’t on America’s side in most of its wars. Like I’m largely in agreement with you on US’s interventions in other countries.
Just not completely. Not if we are counting Ukraine. Ukraine were attacked by Russia, we are trying to help them defend themselves and in the process hopefully put Russia off pulling a stunt like this again. They’ve had a pretty sharp shock that it wasn’t the walkover they thought it would be.
Where America piss me off in regards to the Ukraine though, is this trickling of weapons. Basically America have given Ukraine everything they have asked for… just a year after they ask for it. Had they given them everything they have given them now at the start of the war, then Ukraine may well have won this war.
I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about saying Ukraine isn’t much different to Russia??? Dude they were fucking invaded they don’t want to be part of Russia. They are a democracy - Russia is NOT, they are not similar at all. The Ukrainian people aren’t fighting and dying for nothing dude??? If Russia wasn’t that different they would have immediately surrendered rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this.
In regards to sanctions, we sanction countries that need sanctioning. We sanction North Korea because they openly say they want to destroy America given the chance, so we aren’t making it easy for them to fund their nuclear program.
I’m a socialist. But if you’re somehow saying that STALIN is someone we should have left alone because Russia was communist, like dude have you been on the crack or something cos you appear to have lost your mind.
You say you want peace in Ukraine and giving up territory blah blah. Holy shit. Crimea. 2014. Do you remember that? That was them giving up territory. That was the western world not responding to Russia, not interfering. That has led to their invasion of Ukraine. That literally proved that Russia will not be happy until they’ve restored USSR borders.
You’re literally promoting appeasement. Do you remember world war 2? The policy of appeasement worked wonderfully there didn’t it?
You mentioned China. Have you heard of Taiwan? Taiwan is China’s Ukraine.
The reason China haven’t been involved in any major conflicts is literally because of the current situation where we have NATO.
You’re advocating to get rid of all that. To isolate. If we did that, that’s when you’ll see a major military invasion from China and Russia and whoever fucking else has the means to bully their neighbour.
You clearly haven’t thought this through very well. I’m not really sure I’m going to be able to get through to you at this point.
The major thing that’s hit me with your response is the way you’re saying how big shit hasn’t happened with Russia and China trying to take over the world. Well for one, Russia have clearly already started with Crimea and then Ukraine. China are eyeing up Taiwan. But yes they aren’t going full on world war 3 yet as I say, LITERALLY BECAUSE OF NATO PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO. They wouldn’t dare invade a NATO country.
You take away NATO and the situation completely changes. So obviously things would be massively different.
Ukraine is not a democracy. The current government came to power via coup and banned their major opposition party, which was most popular in eastern Ukraine. The people in eastern Ukraine didn’t like the direction the government was taking, and had been cut out of the political process, so they rose up and seized control of some regions from the government, which began a civil war. The separatists asked for Russian assistance, and Russia sent troops in.
They aren’t fighting because one country has more rights or freedoms or a higher quality of life, they are fighting for the interests of their state. The state’s interests are separate and distinct from the people’s interests. It would have been better if they had pursued peace rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this, even if it meant territorial concessions. Even if they won, it wouldn’t be worth it.
We did more that leave him alone, we joined an alliance and fought alongside him. But NATO’s fight against communism wasn’t just about countering Stalin. Democratically elected leaders all over the world, from Iran to Guatemala, were forcibly overthrown the moment they tried to do something to help the common people, and were replaced by fascists who hunted down and exterminated leftists of all stripes.
This is the second time you’ve made that comparison.
As I said before, this comparison has been used in every major conflict the US has been engaged in for the past 70 years, and we can look back at them and see how ridiculous the comparisons were and how unjustified the conflicts were. They said the Vietnamese were like the Nazis, that if we didn’t stop them there, they’d take over the world. How’d that play out?
You say that you don’t agree with those wars. Alright, but that’s very easy to do after the fact. When the US went into Iraq, many Americans were critical of Vietnam, and yet, the war had overwhelming support - just as Vietnam did, at the start. You’d get called a terrorist sympathizer if you opposed it. Then, after the fact, we can look back and see that it was no different, that it was just as unjustified. But it means nothing to say you’re “anti-war” if it only applies after the fact, when it’s too late to do anything about it, and if the moment our leaders roll out the propaganda machine and tell us “this time, it’s different,” you just go along with it. At the very least, you should be applying extreme skepticism to everything they say. These aren’t just the same types of people who lied us into wars in the Middle East, in many cases, it’s the exact same people in the exact same positions. I don’t trust them and would never follow them into a war under any circumstances.
I’m not gonna debate this here further. The fact that we obviously disagree proves my point.
What, that not everyone agrees with me on what things are good or bad? No shit, that’s why politicians are constantly accusing each other of doing good things as if they were bad.
I’d love it if you could point me to someone not in the defense industry, politics, or journalism who actually benefited from the Iraq War. What a great idea that was, to avoid “”“submitting to a dictator”“” by randomly invading a country on the other side of the globe.