Kamala can’t win

[ozso]

...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.

Except maybe for those amendments they'd like to see repealed.

 

[Merrill]

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.

and that makes it OK?

It seems to me that support for Kamala is driven entirely on

1. Dislike of Trump
2. Feels and Vibes
3. Identity politics

so let me ask you this: do you think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and clear policy goals? Should that candidate also have a legislative record in Congress (or maybe as a governor)? (Harris has one bill to her name, and that is for funding a monument in San Francisco)?

I told my wife "I don't really care if a left-winger gets into the Whitehouse as long as that person is competent, experienced, and can work across-the-aisle. I can stomach a lefty who wants to stop the wars"

but instead, we are getting Harris, who hasn't demonstrated any competence at all, will not reach across-the-aisle, and panders to the military-industrial complex"

whenever I ask people why they like Kamala, the answer is "she isn't Trump" --and if that is the standard by which we are evaluating a future president, this county is in a lot of trouble

 

[BCP1928]

Except maybe for those amendments they'd like to see repealed.

Specifically?

 

[BCP1928]

and that makes it OK?

It seems to me that support for Kamala is driven entirely on

1. Dislike of Trump
2. Feels and Vibes
3. Identity politics

so let me ask you this: do you think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and clear policy goals? Should that candidate also have a legislative record in Congress (or maybe as a governor)? (Harris has one bill to her name, and that is for funding a monument in San Francisco)?

I told my wife "I don't really care if a left-winger gets into the Whitehouse as long as that person is competent, experienced, and can work across-the-aisle. I can stomach a lefty who wants to stop the wars"

but instead, we are getting Harris, who hasn't demonstrated any competence at all, will not reach across-the-aisle, and panders to the military-industrial complex"

whenever I ask people why they like Kamala, the answer is "she isn't Trump" --and if that is the standard by which we are evaluating a future president, this county is in a lot of trouble

You forget that the Republicans also have policies. It's not really the Democrat's fault that the Republicans have chosen a boastful buffoon to carry them out. They wouldn't want Trump to be President even if he was a life-long lefty. In the end, it will come down to policy.
But more directly to your point, a presidential candidate need not be the personal author of party policy, only committed to carrying it out. As to the Presidency, there is not any need for the President to be the personal author of national policy. Constitutionally, that responsibility rests with Congress.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We'll simply disagree.


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


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


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).

At this point, there is no point in continuing to respond to your unserious statements.

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.

I would keep this as a receipt, but something tells me you've already decided how that debate will turn out.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

Depends on how you define "facts" on a given day.

 

[DaisyDay]

I wasn't sure about Trump. But as his term progressed I was experiencing good results and the nation as a whole seemed to be fairing better. Therefore I became satisfied with him as president. Whereas with Biden it's been the complete opposite. And I expect it to get worse with Harris at the helm. It seems with most people who hate Trump it's all about his personality. Whereas for me it's about results.

His final year was a disaster - rioting in the streets, no toilet paper or groceries on the shelves, no free beds in the ICU, refrigerator trucks used for morgues. The deficit ballooned as he added trillions to the debt. All the job gains of the three previous years vanished.

On the bright side, traffic was pretty good.

 

[KCfromNC]

and that makes it OK?

What's wrong with a majority of voters voting?

It seems to me that support for Kamala is driven entirely on

1. Dislike of Trump
2. Feels and Vibes
3. Identity politics

Your feelings are noted. Thanks for sharing.

so let me ask you this: do you think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and clear policy goals? Should that candidate also have a legislative record in Congress (or maybe as a governor)?

Can you list candidate Trump's accomplishments in Congress or as a governor?

 

[KCfromNC]

Depends on how you define "facts" on a given day.

Do you mean actual facts, or the "alternative facts" used by right wing talking points?

 

[Merrill]

Do you mean actual facts, or the "alternative facts" used by right wing talking points?

So you don't think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and specific policy goals?

and you don't think they should have any legislative record either?

 

[KCfromNC]

So you don't think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and specific policy goals?

and you don't think they should have any legislative record either?

It is weird how responses to my posts are more questions asking if I wrote things I never wrote.

 

[Merrill]

It is weird how responses to my posts are more questions asking if I wrote things I never wrote.

is that English? Are you trying to make some sort of point or express an idea?

I was asking you questions based on your prior posts and trying to have a meaningful discussion, and you keep responding with this stuff

 

[Merrill]

His final year was a disaster - rioting in the streets, no toilet paper or groceries on the shelves, no free beds in the ICU, refrigerator trucks used for morgues. The deficit ballooned as he added trillions to the debt. All the job gains of the three previous years vanished.

On the bright side, traffic was pretty good.

Democratic governors:

1. Shut down their states, creating shortages, unemployment, and chaos
2. Had rioting in the streets because of civil unrest in their blue states (Floyd was killed in deep-blue Minnesota)
3. Botched the pandemic response by putting covid patients into nursing homes (as happened in deep blue New York)

but all of this is somehow Trump's fault?

No one, save for partisan Democrats buys any of that. It isn't a reason people won't vote for Trump

were there things he could have done differently during the pandemic? Sure --he should have followed the Swedish model and got rid of Fauci

Now the deficit and debt are a big problem, and I blame both parties for this. Trump ran up big deficits, but Biden exploded them even more. Spending is going to have to come down, and taxes are going to have to go up --on everyone. But no one is going to do that. Harris is talking about paid-family-leave (500 billion), excluding tips from taxes (250 billion), expanding Medicare, and forgiving more student loans. Basically trillions in new spending.

 

[NxNW]

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)


but she still might win, because billionaires, foreign interests, the MSM, and the deep state are behind her.

Well, if she's organized enough to have the support of the four groups listed above, plus billionaires, plus foreign interests, plus the MSM, plus the deep state, she sounds like somebody who can get things done. That's a lot of support!

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

Not to mention cats and dogs living together.

 

[NxNW]

So you don't think it is important for a presidential candidate to have a platform and specific policy goals?

Like this?

Democratic Platform.

 

[Merrill]

Well, if she's organized enough to have the support of the four groups listed above, plus billionaires, plus foreign interests, plus the MSM, plus the deep state, she sounds like somebody who can get things done. That's a lot of support!

Not to mention cats and dogs living together.

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why she has all this support, and what the motivations are of the people who support her?

so foreign billionaires and the deep state are a good thing now?

reminds me of when Democrats complain about the money and influence of the Koch Brothers, but turn a blind eye to the money and influence of George Soros. Or when Kamala Harris was giving speeches about mass-incarceration and "disparate impact" of the legal system on blacks, while throwing people into prison for minor drug and weapons violations in CA, utilizing the "three-strike rule", and arresting mothers of truant children

hypocrisy like this goes unnoticed among low-information voters

and notice how since Harris was given the nomination, the MSM has stopped reporting on Israel. Remember when people were protesting in the streets? The daily news would describe attacks on Gaza, the West Bank, etc. Now that Kamala is the nominee, all that stuff might make her look bad, so the stories don't appear anymore

but if you go on aljazeera or European news sites, you will see that Biden just sent piles of shells and money to Israel, along with F-15 Eagle fighters, APCs, etc. and approved a new incursion into Gaza. Israel has demanded the Palestinians evacuate from south Gaza, and the death toll is now 40,000

crickets from the MSM here in the US, and no one is seeking comment from Biden. It's like the Palestinians have vanished altogether.

and don't go digging up some story from page 5 of the WSJ to "prove to me" that the MSM is still reporting on this stuff. I look at Apple News every morning, which aggregates all the headlines and major stories from around the globe, and there hasn't been a single story on what is going on in Israel in weeks--basically since Biden stepped down

you are supporting a politician who has not released any kind of platform or list of policy goals, and who is running interference for Biden

 

[Merrill]

Like this?

Democratic Platform.

that is the party platform, not Kamala's platform or policy goals

her's could be very different, but no one knows

 

[BCP1928]

that is the party platform, not Kamala's platform or policy goals

her's could be very different, but no one knows

There could be, but nobody really cares as long as she supports the party platform.

 

[NxNW]

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why she has all this support, and what the motivations are of the people who support her?

I didn't say I agreed with your assessment, merely sarcastically pointed out that if true, it's a lot of support.

so foreign billionaires and the deep state are a good thing now?

I've seen no evidence that the first is true, and the second doesn't exist.

reminds me of when Democrats complain about the money and influence of the Koch Brothers, but turn a blind eye to the money and influence of George Soros.

How much influence does Soros have, exactly?

Or when Kamala Harris was giving speeches about mass-incarceration and "disparate impact" of the legal system on blacks, while throwing people into prison for minor drug and weapons violations in CA, utilizing the "three-strike rule",

She reduced the incarceration rate.

and arresting mothers of truant children

Never happened.

hypocrisy like this goes unnoticed among low-information voters

It's hard to notice things that don't exist.

and notice how since Harris was given the nomination, the MSM has stopped reporting on Israel.

Another false claim.

Remember when people were protesting in the streets?

Like on January 6? Yes.

The daily news would describe attacks on Gaza, the West Bank, etc. Now that Kamala is the nominee, all that stuff might make her look bad, so the stories don't appear anymore

I guess you're not reading the news these days. Who's low information again?

but if you go on aljazeera or European news sites, you will see that Biden just sent piles of shells and money to Israel, along with F-15 Eagle fighters, APCs, etc. and approved a new incursion into Gaza. Israel has demanded the Palestinians evacuate from south Gaza, and the death toll is now 40,000

I thought it was good to support Israel. Has that changed?

and don't go digging up some story from page 5 of the WSJ to "prove to me" that the MSM is still reporting on this stuff. I look at Apple News every morning, which aggregates all the headlines and major stories from around the globe, and there hasn't been a single story on what is going on in Israel in weeks--basically since Biden stepped down

That's funny; it's all over WaPo today. But the big news is that inflation is lower than 3% now, which eliminates another right-wing talking point.

 

[Merrill]

I didn't say I agreed with your assessment, merely sarcastically pointed out that if true, it's a lot of support.

I've seen no evidence that the first is true, and the second doesn't exist.

How much influence does Soros have, exactly?

She reduced the incarceration rate.

Never happened.

It's hard to notice things that don't exist.

Another false claim.

Like on January 6? Yes.

I guess you're not reading the news these days. Who's low information again?

I thought it was good to support Israel. Has that changed?

That's funny; it's all over WaPo today. But the big news is that inflation is lower than 3% now, which eliminates another right-wing talking point.

well, you are totally wrong on Harris' record in CA. I suggest you listen to this, which goes into full detail on what she did there

'The Best of Reason': Kamala Harris is a cop who wants to be president

Kamala Harris' career was built by using government force to inflict punishment. And now she wants to be president.

reason.com

"How much influence does Soros have, exactly?"

as the #1 donor to the Democratic Party over the last 20 years or so, at the state, local, and federal level, I imagine he has quite a bit

"That's funny; it's all over WaPo today."

No it isn't --I am looking at the headlines right now on the site and in Apple News.

and there is nothing about it on CNN

https://www.cnn.com/