717
Trump rejects second Harris debate
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
717 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19240 readers
2148 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't really see how he would be better on national security, given that most, if not all, of our national security agencies regard Trump as a threat. He frequently gives out secrets to foreign powers (whether this is accidental or purposeful is debatable), has a distinct disregard for the military, (including doing nothing about Russia putting bounties on US soldiers, instituting a trans ban in the military against the advice of the military, calling captured soldiers losers, etc.), and he also tried to overturn an election he consistently called fraudulent in spite of no evidence found to support that conclusion and loads of evidence to conclude that the election was fair through a number of methods (fake slates of electors, organizing a mod and several senators and representatives to delay certification of the election, getting Pence to not certify).
If you meant border security, then why did he help kill a bill that would have fixed many of the things he's complaining about?
What most Republicans took issue with the bill was that it actually somewhat ties the president's hands and limits how long the border can be shut down:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/new-immigration-asylum-reform-bill-released-senate-text-rcna136602
Don't Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?
Yeah that's fair, and I do think the bill would have been a step in the right direction. I don't like absolutist advocacy, I see this in the pro life movement also. If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill even though I'm a Republican.