What's new

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Why didn't you respond to my post? You know the one that actually addressed your post without insulting you.
I’m amazed at the patience you show people who are dumber than rocks and show zero curiosity to learn. Like it’s amazing how people whine about inflation while then praising Trump’s policies. What do people think mass deportations and tariffs will do to inflation?

It just makes no sense to me to waste time trying to spoon feed correct economic thought to people who show zero curiosity about it. Talk about tossing pearls at swine.
 
I definitely think a “sunk cost” mentality is taking a toll on a lot of Americans. Deep down they know Trump is awful. But they can’t admit now that they were wrong. You see it all the time, especially on this board. If you justified, “grab em by the *****” you can easily justify everything that came after. And even if you don’t want to, the desire to save face and not admit that the tribe you hate more than life itself was right about Trump, is just too strong.

People are suffering because of Trump and Vance’s lies. This is the real grooming. This is far worse than a student reading a history book or a book with a rainbow cover.

More projection and hypocrisy. Certainly there are folks out there that have spend a decade or longer circle jerking about their hatred for Trump on a sports message board with a bunch of other like minded morons. After spending that amount of time just convincing yourself you are correct about everything and Trump and his supporters are “swine”. Talk about “sunk cost” how could anyone so far down this road admit they were wrong about anything? Even when every third party candidate is out there telling everyone they can the democrats are doing everything they can to rig the election and kick people off ballots? Even when the democrat party candidate is someone nobody likes and nobody voted for they still can’t admit that something smells fishy and they were completely disenfranchised by their own party.
 

The economy has been a major talking point in this year's election following high inflation in recent years. Even though inflation has decreased, falling to its lowest level in three-and-a-half-years in August, many Americans are still feeling its effects.

The Federal Reserve is expected to cut its benchmark rate, known as the federal funds rate, during next week's meeting by either a modest quarter-point or a larger half-point cut. The Fed raised the rate 11 times in 2022 and 2023 to curb high inflation, which hit both the United States and countries around the world after the COVID-19 pandemic. The expected rate cut would be the first in over four years. The cost of consumer borrowing, including for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards, should go down over time with a series of Fed cuts.

So, which presidential nominee has the better economic agenda to get Americans back on track? According to nearly 40 economists from America's top schools surveyed by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business' Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets, it's Harris instead of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.
When asked which nominees' economic policies would be more inflationary—in other words, which would be more likely to cause inflation—70 percent of the economists said Trump's while only 3 percent said Harris'. Meanwhile, 27 percent said there is no material difference in each economic platform's inflationary consequences.
A total of 70 percent also thought Trump's economic platform would produce larger federal budget deficits, while only 11 percent said Harris' platform would and 19 percent said there would be no material difference.


Harris wants to expand tax deductions for small businesses, restore and increase the child tax credit and lower housing costs by giving first-time homeowners down payment assistance. The vice president plans to pay for these social benefits by raising taxes on the wealthy and big corporations. She also wants to crack down on price-gouging to help with Americans' grocery bills.

Trump, meanwhile, plans to continue the tax cuts he passed in 2017, which largely benefited the rich (remember trump is worth 9 Billion and Kamala is worth 8 million) and big businesses. He also proposed 10 to 20 percent tariffs on all imports and a 60 percent tariff on imports from China. The former president has also promoted deregulation.
 
Last edited:
Is this making America great again? Do we really want to empower a man who keeps doing this to our country? How many people have been hurt or killed because of this *******?


And when given a chance to denounce his cult for making bomb threats, he doubles down on the racism.


View: https://x.com/kamalahq/status/1835084894843589036?s=46


If you’re still going for this ****, you’re a ****** person and deserve the contempt of normal responsible citizens, like me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Truth hurts, oh and do I look like someone that knows anything about Facebook? Lmao.

I was never a Trump supporter till after Biden was elected and making a living turned to ****. I’m not a Trump fan, in fact we don’t share the same life values. In my life time I’ve voted democrat more than anything else. That party has slowly changed over the years, become more radicali

First, I’m a simple man and do I look like someone that even knows how to use Facebook? Lmao. Truth is the only reason you waste even 5 minutes with “trash like me” is that the truth hurts.

Truth is I was a democrat all my life. Just like my parents, but the party has mutated into something that attacks my way of life, and a party that does all the hating and turned away from what it once stood for. It more closely resembles a communist faction more than anything. They now cling to and lie to the people of this country and does everything it can to hold on to the idea of racism being every bit the problem it was 200 years ago. Going even as far to want me and you to pay the price of slavery even though at the time our parents weren’t even born. They’re the ones that want to take simple freedoms away, and take money out of our pockets to give everything away free to illegals, things we have to work our asses off just to afford things that help us live each day. Our country is literally being snatched from us.

I guess all of your degrees and high living newspaper reading ways still ain’t enough to see how your own party is taking everything away from you and me and everyone in between.

Everything you posted is a joke and a facade. But by all means keep thinking you are better than me or anyone else because you read a news paper rotfl who do you think you are? Other than gods gift to high society. You can lift yourself over me all you want but don’t forget that your life is better because of the culture of hard working unlearned men who do the jobs you don’t want to do that make your life easier, and mine.

This year I will vote for Trump. I’m not voting for the man but the policy he will govern this country by. I’m still trying to figure out what the hell Harris’s policies are.

The only reason we don’t know is because even you won’t like them. All I know is that she has contradicted herself more times than I can count. He’ll can you even name anything of note she’s accomplished as VP? I know I can’t

There’s some simple truths right there. That’s how I feel. There’s nothing pasted off Facebook, I don’t even use Facebook and if you ever paid attention to anything about me you never would’ve accused me of pasting anything from Facebook.

Waiting for five more minutes of your time Mr Amazing.

Slavery reparations for the most part are some over-the-top BS. And there are other things I disagree with regarding the Left for sure. But the cost of handing over the country to The Rapist makes the cost of reparations and any other misgivings I have with the Left insignificant by comparison.

What do you think of this post by Fish, TIMV? Are you willing to throw away democracy in order to pad your bank account?



"Ya and in regards to him saying Kamala will be a dictator its interesting to see how each responded to lock them up chants. trumps crowds chant lock her up. He tells his supporters he will lock her up. Kamala crowds chant lock him up. She says "that has nothing to do with me. The courts will handle all that"

trump says he will be a dictator on day one.
trump tries to bash the media constantly to get us to distrust everything but him.
trump fires those who disagree with him.
trump tries to overturn elections and tries to get us to distrust the election process.
trump blackmails/extorts foreign leaders to try to get them to investigate his political opponents.
trump praises Putin, Kim Jeong Un, Vicktor Orban, Xi.

trump shared a post that depicted various people including Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Kamala Harris, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates in jumpsuits. He shared a post to his followers that said that the House committee that investigated the January 6th attack on the Capitol should be indicted for sedition. And he said that there should be public military tribunals against former President Barack Obama without explaining what for.
Richard Painter, who was a White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, likened the comments to a vision of President Vladimir Putin's Russia, where Putin's political opponents end up behind bars on charges such as "extremism" or "treason" after criticizing his regime.
The former president has previously suggested prosecuting his rivals would be legitimate revenge for his own legal troubles, which include one criminal conviction in New York state court and three other criminal cases.

Painter said that argument ignores some stark differences between Trump's own situation and what he is threatening to do.
Robert Gordon, a Stanford law professor, said even though Trump is "given to bluff and bluster," there is good reason to believe he means it when he says he will use the legal system to get revenge. Gordon noted that Trump tried to get the FBI and Justice Department to investigate and prosecute rivals during his first term. That broke with post-Watergate norms for keeping law enforcement investigations independent from the White House.

For instance, according to the Mueller report, Trump's first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, told federal prosecutors Trump asked him to reverse his decision to recuse himself from presidential campaign-related investigations and direct the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton around the summer of 2017.
In the spring of 2018, Trump also told White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute both Hillary Clinton and James Comey, the former FBI director whom Trump had already fired during an investigation into Russian interference to help Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, according to the New York Times. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo warning Trump that if he ordered law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could be impeached.

After the March, 2019 release of the Mueller report, which looked at Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump also called for federal officials to "investigate the investigators." Bill Barr, Trump's chosen attorney general after Sessions, later appointed special counsel John Durham to do just that.

"He made clear his position that as head of the executive branch, he has both the power and right to direct federal criminal justice enforcement at any targets he chooses; and does not respect the 'independence' of the Attorney General and of US Attorneys," Gordon told USA TODAY in an email.

Amanda Carpenter, a former staffer to Republican Sens. Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz, who now works for Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit, told USA TODAY it will be easier for Trump to get underlings to go through with a prosecution − even without strong evidence − because checks on the president's power will be weaker.

"The prosecution he's threatening against people who challenge his authority is based on smears, conspiracies, and lies, and that is why, when he has gone to court for those election lies in the aftermath of the 2020 election, his claims are rejected again and again," she said.

Carpenter noted plans from Trump allies to erode Justice Department independence along with the Supreme Court's July 1 presidential immunity decision and the dwindling number of congressional Republicans who supported Trump's Jan. 6-related impeachment.

"Trump and his allies have spent their time out of office creating plans to systematically gut the checks and balances that stopped him from excessive law breaking in his first term," Carpenter said.

During Trump's first term, appointees from the Republican establishment slowed or blocked some of Trump's efforts to test or break legal boundaries.

Bill Barr, for instance, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins in an April interview that Trump "would lose his temper" and say that people he was upset with should be executed. "At the end of the day it wouldn't be carried out and you could talk sense into him," Barr said.

Vice President Mike Pence resisted Trump's multi-week campaign to get him to reverse the results of the 2020 election during Pence's constitutional role in counting the electoral votes.

Trump advisors and former aides have said that he will prioritize personal loyalty and commitment to his agenda in choosing appointees to his next administration.

One such person has already been chosen: Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has said he wouldn't have certified the 2020 presidential election results, unlike Pence.


But Kamala wants social media to not allow children to be bullied to the point of committing suicide or something. Oh noes!"
 
Last edited:
And we really need reforms to promote a healthy democracy. We need regulation of social media to bring some accountability to Facebook and twitter as these two media platforms serve to disinform Americans against each other. We need ethical reform on justices and term limits. And voters should be picking politicians not politicians picking voters.

We need government regulation on social media because they allow people to post things I don’t like. This is modern day book burnings, censorship and an extremist view. Same view Kamala and Tim have.

You’re for putting inappropriate aged books in elementary schools, yet you don’t want to have people speak about things you don’t like. You care more about immigrants than American citizens.

The constitution is an amazing creation that we could all live under for 240+ years with the desired outcome which was eloquently stated in the preamble and now the extremes from both sides are trying to chip away at it because they are morally superior beings that know better especially in the more modern world. Monitor speech 1a, monitor guns 2a, abolish the electoral college 12a, open borders and amnesty 4a, ect… the extremes and their positions are what’s hurts our country and moving forward in a successful way.
 
The very last thing we need is government regulation over free speech.
The same was said about the FDA 100 years ago.

We absolutely need regulation of social media companies that are exploiting consumers to wreck our democracy. Their algorithms are leading to mental health issues in teens, communities coming under attack by paid Russian actors, and rampant disinformation in our politics.
 
Food and speech are both covered under the 1st amendment.

Social media is completely overtaken by right wing Russian assets, and MAGA disinformation. Nothing wrong with us on the very left. We only tell the truth, are not corrupt and we have all absolute knowledge about every topic. It’s the other side that has the problem. Let’s regulate the social media sites to weed all of the right/center people out. They make a meme that makes fun of me = hate speech, ban them and send them to jail. They have a different view on medicine than us, ban them and shame them. They talk about another ethnicity other than white, racism, ban them, book them under hate speech. A comedian has a joke about a trans person, transphobia, ban them, cancel them and shame them. Make fun of a Christian white person, spread it, influence others to be apart. A candidate running for president who says something about democracy , ban them for wrecking democracy, put them at a disadvantage just because.

Yeah, no thanks.
 
We need government regulation on social media because they allow people to post things I don’t like. This is modern day book burnings, censorship and an extremist view. Same view Kamala and Tim have.

You’re for putting inappropriate aged books in elementary schools, yet you don’t want to have people speak about things you don’t like. You care more about immigrants than American citizens.

The constitution is an amazing creation that we could all live under for 240+ years with the desired outcome which was eloquently stated in the preamble and now the extremes from both sides are trying to chip away at it because they are morally superior beings that know better especially in the more modern world. Monitor speech 1a, monitor guns 2a, abolish the electoral college 12a, open borders and amnesty 4a, ect… the extremes and their positions are what’s hurts our country and moving forward in a successful way.
Add burn books to the list as well. Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns. Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.

The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period. Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.

In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra. Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.
 
Add burn books to the list as well. Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns. Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.

The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period. Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.

In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra. Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.
Just a quick question for you, does cheap labor help or hurt American Billionaires?
 
Add burn books to the list as well.
If someone could show me actual burning books, where I can't go online or pick one up at a book store right now, then I would be behind this.
Also add no funding for mental health as a sub-point for controlling guns.
This is a big issue, and mental health is just not about controlling guns.
Heck if we go the other extreme we're looking at bankrupting social security within a decade as well, so add abolish social services except for the rich. Now we're getting somewhere.
Agreed
The question is, which extreme is more livable for the majority of Americans. Which does the least harm and potentially the most good, as limited as that might be. We've already seen the mess trickle down economics has made of our social support structure which affects millions of Americans, but the counter point is we have seen a gigantic increase in billionaire wealth in that same time period.
What other economic system has brought more people out of poverty than capitalism? There will always be an unequal result.
Extreme health care costs due to deregulation, but more money in the coffers of the medical industrial complex and big pharma.
I think we both view this issue the same. There needs to be a complete overhaul of our medical system.
In the end, since we are a 2 party system, it's almost always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I'm just shocked how many see less money for billionaires and more services and support for the poor and middle class as "evil" in the first place. There's a huge cult movement in America, and that's it. It's been building for decades, but it is firmly entrenched now. Worship of the rich at the expense of the masses is the mantra.
The top 1% are paying in the most taxes:
  • The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.
The top 1% of income earners are paying almost half of the taxes. How much more of their income should go to taxes? How much of a budget cut across the board should there be in the federal government? Because I see there are multiple issues here.
I think most Americans are happy helping with people of need. When you take in millions more in poverty and focus on them over existing Americans is where the issues start. More resources are needed to help the immigrants and so the resources are not spread across everyone. It's a resource and spending issue for services and supports, which is because we let millions of poverty into our country that need help. We haven't even taken care of our own.

Trump is their destroying angel, bent on destroying the last vestiges of the systems that make societies strong in the first place, the fact that we willingly give some of our excess to help those less fortunate. But that's all shifted now. So yeah, let's talk about the evil of suggesting limited individual rights a little bit so we get fewer school shootings perhaps. We have limits on rights all over the place, necessary to support a functioning society. No other developed nation collapsed under extreme tyranny when they limited gun access, but they also have barely the tiniest fraction of mass shootings and violent crime we do. We lost sight of the fact that the rights were enshrined for a specific end, and that the rights themselves are not the end envisioned. But they have become holy to the point of sacrifice of anything else that supports a functioning society so we do not violate the sacrosanct "rights" the founders placed into the Constitution.
Limiting the rights of many because of the few? That's the policy you want?

Remember, they also gave us an amendment process because they knew times would change, clear and present threats to them in they era would fade and change, and new threats would emerge. None of them had an inkling about anything akin to school shootings, but they gave us the amendment process so we could adjust as needed to address the threats of the time. But we are happy to bury our heads in the blanket of rights which in many ways is just no longer sufficient for what our society needs. How easily we lose the lessons of the past.
What amendments are needed or rights limited to fix America? I don't see any. I see almost all our issues as an economical one. Fix and Help Americans first, then help others. Same with a family. Would people be upset if their parents gave away resources to others they don't know over their children who are in need? Same with this country. It's not a race, gender, wealth issue, it's an economic one. Can the wealthy help more, absolutely.
 
Back
Top