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.”
He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants. The fact that he isn’t ideologically invested in stupid pointless conflicts is literally his only positive quality, so of course it’s where a lot of criticism gets directed, in order to uphold the grand American tradition. Of course, he’s not actually ideologically opposed to stupid pointless wars, so the machinery still gets to run uninterrupted, but he did at least give us an excellent roast of John Bolton, a notorious hawk.
I wish we could ever get offered a candidate who’s actually as isolationist as Trump gets accused of being, but unfortunately he’s not it. We got rising tensions and a trade war with China, which Biden normalized, and we got pushed to the brink of WWIII with the assassination of Soleimani, which Biden’s also following up by supporting Israel’s antics. Voters will never be given any sort of choice or input about such matters, and Trump is no exception, despite what people say.
Just going off e.g. the stunt he pulled with moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I would say this sentence is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.
The way see it, what he is mostly accused of is claiming to want to do those things (and most candidates would claim they wanted to “solve” e.g. the middle east conflict) but not actually having any kind of realistic idea of how to achieve any of them. Possibly besides pulling out of NATO, which, given the current state of the world, is a stretch to call this a “good thing”.
Also, when it comes to stupid pointless conflicts, I think we can rest assured that he will always be invested in them on the side he believes he can personally profit off the most. Which is an ideology too if you think about it.
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.