The New Lounge

[Mac9192]

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Harris for how this played out. She wasn’t put in a good situation by the party. Biden had indicated early on that he would likely step down after one term—but he didn’t. Without a real Democratic primary, there was no chance for alternatives to emerge. By the time he exited, Harris was the only candidate with the infrastructure ready to go. It wasn’t about excitement—it was survival.

At the time, the logic made sense: Biden was seen as the “safe” choice—the one person who had already beaten Trump. But in hindsight, that assumption turned out to be badly flawed, and the party had no real backup plan when it mattered. This all goes back to that underlying fear.

The June debate was a wake-up call for a lot of mainstream Democrats. I don’t think many truly grasped Biden’s decline until they saw it live. At that point, rallying behind Harris wasn’t about hype—it was the only viable move if Democrats wanted to stay in the race.

I also agree with your points about the media. Trump exposed how badly the press is built for this era. But it’s bigger than bias—it’s structural. The same oligarchs who fund political campaigns also own much of our media and communications infrastructure. Just look at 60 Minutes: a senior producer resigns over “narrative control” while the parent company chases a merger that still needs government approval. You may hate 60 Minutes, but imagine if it were a program you agreed with. When survival depends on pleasing regulators, honest journalism becomes impossible—and trust collapses.

Harris didn’t create the situation she inherited. The real failure was systemic. It wasn’t just media or messaging—it was underlying economic issues voters didn’t feel were improving. Plenty of Trump voters genuinely like Trump, no doubt about that. But there’s also a big group that puts up with the chaos because they associate him—rightly or wrongly—with economic prosperity. They’re not voting for drama; they’re voting for a better financial future. Part of earning people’s votes is being honest about why you lost—and Democrats must show they’re serious about fixing it.

Trump has been harping on how crooked the media is since he threw his hat into the political ring in 2015. It wasn't until the rise of social media people like Joe Rogan and Charlie Kirk in 2023 though that non conservatives started to notice. It also didn't hurt Trump that he had an attempt on his life made, and one foiled. That's when a lot more people took notice.

All of this made it impossible for the Democrats (and other elitists) to rig the election of 24 like they did in 20. No, it can't be proven, but it's a fact. The phrase too big to rig was true.

I totally agree with you on Trump's supporters. I don't like how he talks sometimes, but I overlook it because I think he cares, and the system is so f n crooked. In my opinion, he's the best option we have.

 

[Th0r]

I think you are misreading the plan. Small business, which accounts for 85% of the businesses in the US, were crushed by regulation and tax under Biden, and did not see any way to improvement... bankruptcies exploded. Trump is looking to cut regulations, lower their tax burden, and help promote US small business growth by reversing decades of unfair trade practices across the globe. If you built a business on cheap chinese imports then I'm afraid you are part of the problem and have the choiceto adjust and embrace US supply chains or not. This imbalance has been allowed, by both sides i may add, for decades and has hidden in the shadows..much like the waste of our tax dollars...and it will take a period of readjustment to get healthy. Patience is in short supply these days and it isnt help by the fear mongering of all the so called experts on the left shouting about the sky falling. Decades of imbalance won't be fixed in a month, two months, etc...it will take time...but we will emerge healthier as a trading nation if we stay the course..imo...as a small business owner

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree both parties helped create this mess. But I’m not defending the old system—I’m saying the way this shift is being handled is reckless and putting small businesses in an impossible spot.

If the goal is to rebuild U.S. supply chains, great. I support that. But you can’t flip a switch and expect small businesses to retool overnight. Real strategy needs timelines, support, and investment—not just tariffs with no plan. Otherwise, you’re not rebuilding—you’re just wiping people out and hoping something better grows later.

Nobody expects overnight results. But patience doesn’t mean blind loyalty to a strategy that isn’t thought through. Decades of imbalance won’t be fixed by collapsing half the economy without a plan to replace it.

I’m just pushing for a smarter, more stable approach—one small businesses can actually survive long enough to benefit from.

 

[Th0r]

How has the executive branch over the years, illustrated vividly the past couple of months, usurped Congress’ ability to regulate our nation’s trade and commerce? The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution seems clear. How did we get here. Congressional approval and buy in would outlast the whims and knee jerk decisions our recent Pres have been known for and give our nation a chance for long term manuf growth and consistency, rather than the harem skarem approach we’re seeing now. Are checks and balances even taken seriously in DC anymore?

Over the years, Congress handed off a lot of trade authority to the executive branch through stuff like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the IEEPA. It was supposed to be used in limited cases, like real national security threats—but now presidents use those powers to sidestep Congress on trade whenever they want. There are lawsuits in progress right now challenging whether the president’s use of these powers is legal. You’re right—if we want real consistency and long-term growth, Congress needs to take that power back and reassert its role.

As a side note, this is also why, a couple months ago, Trump cited fentanyl as the “emergency” to justify tariffs on Canada—even though fentanyl isn’t actually flowing from there. It shows how stretched the definition of an “emergency” has gotten just to work around Congress.

 

[denverexpat]

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree both parties helped create this mess. But I’m not defending the old system—I’m saying the way this shift is being handled is reckless and putting small businesses in an impossible spot.

If the goal is to rebuild U.S. supply chains, great. I support that. But you can’t flip a switch and expect small businesses to retool overnight. Real strategy needs timelines, support, and investment—not just tariffs with no plan. Otherwise, you’re not rebuilding—you’re just wiping people out and hoping something better grows later.

Nobody expects overnight results. But patience doesn’t mean blind loyalty to a strategy that isn’t thought through. Decades of imbalance won’t be fixed by collapsing half the economy without a plan to replace it.

I’m just pushing for a smarter, more stable approach—one small businesses can actually survive long enough to benefit from.

Dont identify a problem and not offer a solution...how would you approach it differently? Saying you dont like something without offering any alternative is just complaining. What is a smarter more stable approach? If we think we know the entire strategy, then I think we are fooling ourselves...we are not privy to all the steps.

 

[Th0r]

Dont identify a problem and not offer a solution...how would you approach it differently? Saying you dont like something without offering any alternative is just complaining. What is a smarter more stable approach? If we think we know the entire strategy, then I think we are fooling ourselves...we are not privy to all the steps.

I discussed that in great detail in a response to Ghost yesterday morning.

 

[GhostOf301]

I'm not a narcissist. I just have a better vocabulary than you. I'm entirely capable of being civil, as you well know.

You are not helping your cause for not being a narcissist by gloating about your amazing vocabulary. And yes, you are entirely capable of BEING civil. But you don't have the ability to remain civil through disagreements. As I said. Especially those pertaining to the topics that you feel inferior on, like race and LBGTQS+APV shit.