CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,922
Ok, I've had a chance to watch in full.
Here are my takes:
Vocal fry is annoying as fuck - RFK gets a pass for his voice; she chose that dialect to sound "cool" to her peers
She reluctantly sees the benefit of SCOTUS overturning Chevron - that's great
She talks about Citizens United and corporations buying politicians, but misses the point entirely. We don't need more government restrictions, we need to eliminate the power of politicians to affect commerce - then, there will be no influence to buy. In other words, she blames the corporations instead of the power of the state. It's backwards. It is the power of the state that creates the incentive for corporations to influence the politicians in the first place. I think with a proper education and more experience, she may be able to be brought around.
On inflation, she seems to know what she's supposed to say, but I don't think she has a firm understanding of monetary policy. I'm glad that she recognizes that reducing spending is the primary fix, but I'm not sure she fully grasps the connection. The interviewer had a better grasp.
I REALLY like that she understands that the same people controlling our currency are the ones who control our speech.
She was asked how to cut spending and she went on a weird diatribe about millennials and genX and boomers - which, in my opinion, completely misstated the differences. When she returned to spending, she talked about accountability (and then said the millennials are more accountable, which is why they jump jobs more - huh?!) She thinks government is a transactional body - um no, it's force. Sorry, hun. But somehow technology will help government spend less?
She talks about voluntary policy, but then talks about increasing inheritance tax to create economic stimulus. But you can avoid the tax if you put the money towards something the government deems "stimulatory". (as if giving the wealth I've earned during my life to my children to use as they see fit isn't stimulatory.) In short, she doesn't understand that wealth is created - she thinks there's wealth sitting around doing nothing - and we need to redistribute that according to government's needs.
Her idea of the basic functions of government are: clean food, water, public utilities and other "public goods". Sorry, sister. The role of government is to ensure individual liberty. That's it. And she doesn't want "smaller" government as much as she wants "efficient" government. (Make the trains run on time??)
She correctly named Trump's Achilles' heel as Big Pharma - but I think his real Achilles' heel was his need to be liked and seen as a hero and Big Pharma capitalized on his narcissistic need.
She trusts the leadership of Trump's team more than that of the Harris team. For me, it's not about trust as much as it is about track record. I've worked with the DNC department heads and they will do as much and more than they can get away with. If they lose in the courts, they'll just try again another way. They are actively trying to expand government scope in EVERY aspect - foreign adventurism, speech, entitlements, regulation, you name it. And they just do it without legislation and hope they don't get stopped.
In summary, I think she needs to learn more. She probably needs to spend more time with Ron Paul. Still a little naive. Her heart is in the right place, but I wouldn't want her in a leadership position just yet. I'm sure there could be a role for her, but VP isn't it. RFK has made some bad choices and she is one of them. (Israel is another) I am glad that she woke up from her support of Schumer and the DNC! I hope she can lead more people away from that in the future.
Here are my takes:
Vocal fry is annoying as fuck - RFK gets a pass for his voice; she chose that dialect to sound "cool" to her peers
She reluctantly sees the benefit of SCOTUS overturning Chevron - that's great
She talks about Citizens United and corporations buying politicians, but misses the point entirely. We don't need more government restrictions, we need to eliminate the power of politicians to affect commerce - then, there will be no influence to buy. In other words, she blames the corporations instead of the power of the state. It's backwards. It is the power of the state that creates the incentive for corporations to influence the politicians in the first place. I think with a proper education and more experience, she may be able to be brought around.
On inflation, she seems to know what she's supposed to say, but I don't think she has a firm understanding of monetary policy. I'm glad that she recognizes that reducing spending is the primary fix, but I'm not sure she fully grasps the connection. The interviewer had a better grasp.
I REALLY like that she understands that the same people controlling our currency are the ones who control our speech.
She was asked how to cut spending and she went on a weird diatribe about millennials and genX and boomers - which, in my opinion, completely misstated the differences. When she returned to spending, she talked about accountability (and then said the millennials are more accountable, which is why they jump jobs more - huh?!) She thinks government is a transactional body - um no, it's force. Sorry, hun. But somehow technology will help government spend less?
She talks about voluntary policy, but then talks about increasing inheritance tax to create economic stimulus. But you can avoid the tax if you put the money towards something the government deems "stimulatory". (as if giving the wealth I've earned during my life to my children to use as they see fit isn't stimulatory.) In short, she doesn't understand that wealth is created - she thinks there's wealth sitting around doing nothing - and we need to redistribute that according to government's needs.
Her idea of the basic functions of government are: clean food, water, public utilities and other "public goods". Sorry, sister. The role of government is to ensure individual liberty. That's it. And she doesn't want "smaller" government as much as she wants "efficient" government. (Make the trains run on time??)
She correctly named Trump's Achilles' heel as Big Pharma - but I think his real Achilles' heel was his need to be liked and seen as a hero and Big Pharma capitalized on his narcissistic need.
She trusts the leadership of Trump's team more than that of the Harris team. For me, it's not about trust as much as it is about track record. I've worked with the DNC department heads and they will do as much and more than they can get away with. If they lose in the courts, they'll just try again another way. They are actively trying to expand government scope in EVERY aspect - foreign adventurism, speech, entitlements, regulation, you name it. And they just do it without legislation and hope they don't get stopped.
In summary, I think she needs to learn more. She probably needs to spend more time with Ron Paul. Still a little naive. Her heart is in the right place, but I wouldn't want her in a leadership position just yet. I'm sure there could be a role for her, but VP isn't it. RFK has made some bad choices and she is one of them. (Israel is another) I am glad that she woke up from her support of Schumer and the DNC! I hope she can lead more people away from that in the future.
