Kamala can’t win

[Hammster]

No, it has not. Free and democratic elections still occur in the US and there is no excuse to be advocating for deposing one would-be president for the one who didn't win simply because you don't like that your candidate was not the winner.

Okay.

 

[BCP1928]

Who said anything about overthrowing the Constitution?

You said you hoped there was a plan to install Trump as President even if he didn't win the election. There is no way to do that without doing violence to the Constitution.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Okay.

The only thing that came close to usurping the process was the insurrection, but I'm hopeful that won't happen again as that was the exception, not the standard. To say that anything other than free and fair elections occur in the US is a weird hot-take that disregards what fixed elections actually look like. And to say that you hope that the elections are discounted entirely if your candidate isn't the winner is a direct and open statement that you hope the foundation of our country is totally disregarded, democracy ended, and replaced with a monarchy or dictatorship.

 

[eleos1954]

Kamala Can't Win

Harris faces structural disadvantages that no amount of astroturfing and fraud can overcome.

open.substack.com

Opinion piece. I’m sure that all my liberal friends will agree.

People need to dismiss all the "hoorah" and "zingers" on both sides and look at actual defined policies and how they will be implemented ... I don't find anything for Harris/Walz in this regard ... perhaps that will be forthcoming ???

The bottom line is there are two candidates one may or may not like personal things about either one. Things are being said about both that may or may not be true.

 

[Pommer]

Could you be a little less vague? I've yet to see you actually point out how/why Trump's healthcare plan was a problem, and in what actual way he's to blame for Americans contracting a virus.

The fact that we never saw “Trump’s ‘healthcare plan’” might have had something to do with it.

 

[SimplyMe]

How does that change anything about her?


FACT CHECK: FALSE

2020 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry, I find your fact checking skills lacking. While I agree it was partially false, using your own link:

Kansas,[154] Nevada and South Carolina's state committees officially voted on September 7, 2019, to cancel their caucus and primary.[7] The Arizona Republican Party indicated two days later that it would not hold a primary.[155] These four were joined by the Alaska Republican Party on September 21, when its central committee announced they would not hold a presidential primary.[156]

Virginia Republicans decided to allocate delegates at the state convention.[157]

The Nevada Republican State committee chairman said the committee would meet on February 23, 2020, and bind their delegates to Trump.[158]

The Hawaii GOP voted to cancel its primary and bind its 19 delegates to Trump on December 11, 2019.[159]

The New York GOP on March 3, 2020, decided to cancel its primary after neither De La Fuente, Weld, nor Walsh submitted the required number of names of their delegates in order to qualify for their ballot.[160] The delegate candidates bound to the president were thus automatically elected.

Other states were instead encouraged to use winner-takes-all systems to award delegates instead of using proportional allocation "to avoid dissent" at the convention.[8]

Several states did cancel their primaries and they were all "encouraged" to change the rules so that only Trump would get delegates at the National Convention.

 

[Merrill]

Kamala *could win* because her base of support is

1. Low-information voters
2. Immigrants (see #1)
3. Young people who don't understand economics and foreign policy
4. White women who vote on emotion, and for one issue (birth control)

Kamala is the literal idiocracy candidate: no platform, no policy objectives on her website, won't give interviews, has been a total disaster as VP, her only accomplishment in the Senate was a bill for a memorial, and was completely destroyed on national television by Gabbard. An incompetent DEI hire

Harris is literally the biggest clown in American government, although Tim Walz might qualify: the guy who watched Minneapolis burn, passed a bill allowing for the castration of kids, ditched his unit before being deployed to Iraq, has all kinds of sketchy ties to the CCP, has never owned a stock or bond because he doesn't understand financial markets, and who gave driver's licenses and free healthcare to illegals

literally the worst imaginable Democratic ticket, and a total embarrassment

but she still might win, because billionaires, foreign interests, the MSM, and the deep state are behind her. Enough people hate Trump to make her a viable choice, even though she is worse than him by a mile

and if voters put Harris into office, you better prepare for Trudeau-style authoritarian leftism: people arrested for criticizing the government, censorship, crony-capitalism, pay-to-play, boots-on-the-ground overseas, and total chaos

 

[ozso]

The fact that we never saw “Trump’s ‘healthcare plan’” might have had something to do with it.

The accusation is Trump tried to put an end the the affordable healthcare act aka obamacare because he's evil and wanted millions of indigent sick people to die. When in reality the attempt was to introduce the American Health Care Act of 2017. Which would have repealed the individual mandate, gotten rid of the employer mandate, provided greater flexibility to the states through waivers etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

OK, I guess I forgot about that one. Not exactly memorable. I voted that year in the Democratic primary where there was a contest.

What does any of this have to do with anything though?

It has to do with the fact that the Republicans actually did have a primary that year.
But as I originally said, Trump didn't even have to attend the Republican debates to win the nomination, while at the same time Kamala ran in the primary and ended up quitting very early on because she couldn't get a single elector. Quite a contrast.
The only reason she is seeing so much support right now is because she is being propped up by the media who helped pressure Biden into dropping out. So far, she hasn't done anything to validate that support. Thankfully, the media that is propping her up at this point is getting impatient with her for ignoring them. Don't expect their support of her to last much longer, and certainly not all the way until the election. She will need to interview, and she will need to debate. Both have been her downfalls, and most likely will be again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It has to do with the fact that the Republicans actually did have a primary that year.

We established that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

But as I originally said, Trump didn't even have to attend the Republican debates to win the nomination, while at the same time Kamala ran in the primary and ended up quitting very early on because she couldn't get a single elector. Quite a contrast.

Gee, the leader of a party running against some minor candidates did better than a relatively unknown first term Senator running agasint the ex-VP, and two popular Senators with their own fan bases. Shocking. (Well, not that shocking.)

But, since you want to be pedantic, here is a couple of corrections:

1. Candidates in the Democratic presidential primary are looking to win delegates not "electors".
2. Harris dropped out before any primaries had actually occurred, so no one had any delegates when she withdrew.

The only reason she is seeing so much support right now is because she is being propped up by the media who helped pressure Biden into dropping out.

I'm sure they'd like you to believe they run the world, but I've already commented on the self-aggrandization of the media/pundit class.

So far, she hasn't done anything to validate that support. Thankfully, the media that is propping her up at this point is getting impatient with her for ignoring them. Don't expect their support of her to last much longer, and certainly not all the way until the election.

The press's support? Who cares. The voters? Don't expect either Trump or Harris to fall below 40% in national polls. Are you trying to convince me you don't know much about politics, or what?

She will need to interview, and she will need to debate. Both have been her downfalls, and most likely will be again.

I'm sure she'll do both. Not sure where you get the idea that she can't debate.

 

[Aldebaran]

We established that, but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

We'll simply disagree.

Gee, the leader of a party running against some minor candidates did better than a relatively unknown first term Senator running agasint the ex-VP, and two popular Senators with their own fan bases. Shocking. (Well, not that shocking.)

The only thing making them "minor" is that they couldn't get enough support to beat Trump.

I'm sure they'd like you to believe they run the world, but I've already commented on the self-aggrandization of the media/pundit class.

They certainly have a lot of influence. They are the filter that the news passes through between Washington DC and the general public.

The press's support? Who cares. The voters? Don't expect either Trump or Harris to fall below 40% in national polls. Are you trying to convince me you don't know much about politics, or what?

The MSM was propping up Biden all the way up until the debate when Biden finally faced the public on live TV. That's when the MSM realized there was no longer any hiding of Biden's deficiencies. And once KH starts debating, their only way to protect her is to not ask hard questions (unless provided to her ahead of the debate so she can practice her answers).

I'm sure she'll do both. Not sure where you get the idea that she can't debate.

From watching her trying to do it before, and the fact that she's been avoiding doing it again as long as possible. I look forward to Sept. 10th where she will undoubtedly fail.

 

[A2SG]

No, she was not vetted through the normal process. She was pushed through.

So? The delegates that were pledged to Biden chose to follow Biden's endorsement and vote for Kamala Harris, who was his running mate during the primaries and was on the ballot along with him. Thus, she's the nominee. Democratic party administrative stuff, nothing anyone else needs to worry about. If you're a democrat and you don't like the party's nominee, you're perfectly free to vote for someone from another party, or write in your own candidate if you're so inclined. But, if you're a republican, well, you probably won't be voting for the democrat anyway, so....

We are forced fed all the candidates anyway, even when they are vetted through the system normally. As if Hilary and Trump in 2016 were the best options.

So why not work to dissolve all political parties, and find some other way to elect a President? I'm sure you can come up with an idea if you work at it...and if enough people support your idea, who knows?

-- A2SG, stranger things have happened.....

 

[Hammster]

You said you hoped there was a plan to install Trump as President even if he didn't win the election. There is no way to do that without doing violence to the Constitution.

If you say so.

 

[KCfromNC]

I trust you understand what the "Forums" part of Christian Forums means--especially in the political section.

I remember reading something about it being a place for discussion of ideas backed by facts and reasonable arguments rather than posts with empty assertions about what other people should think and feel.

 

[KCfromNC]

Kamala *could win* because her base of support is

1. Low-information voters
2. Immigrants (see #1)
3. Young people who don't understand economics and foreign policy
4. White women who vote on emotion, and for one issue (birth control)

Or, more realistically, it could be that her base will be similar to the one last time that limited Trump to a one term president.

 

[wing2000]

Tropical Wilds said:
And the narrative to have a backup plan to install Trump regardless of the result of the election begins.

I hope so.

Your position is clear.
Trump must be in power regardless of what the people decide.

 

[ozso]

Tropical Wilds said:
And the narrative to have a backup plan to install Trump regardless of the result of the election begins.




Your position is clear.
Trump must be in power regardless of what the people decide.

It doesn't sound too dissimilar from "Trump must not become president" statements I've read.

 

[wing2000]

It doesn't sound too dissimilar from "Trump must not become president" statements I've read.

...the premise, being, he must be defeated at the ballot box. Or at least that's the premise of those who are loyal to the U.S. Consitution.

 

[durangodawood]

...the premise, being, he must be defeated at the ballot box. Or at least that's the premise of those who are loyal to the U.S. Consitution.

To people who have already tried or cheered extra-constitutional avenues to power, it might seem normal that those are now just part of a campaigns toolbox.

To the rest of us the idea is still appalling.

 

[Hammster]

Tropical Wilds said:
And the narrative to have a backup plan to install Trump regardless of the result of the election begins.




Your position is clear.
Trump must be in power regardless of what the people decide.

I’m saying that it would be best.