Which Kamala are we voting for?

[A2SG]

Maybe a cheese sandwich would actually come up with a platform and face a sympathetic press which Kamala can’t seem to handle. Now she wants to change the rules she goaded Trump into agreeing to. Trump wanted to renegotiate since she is the new candidate she refused now she wants to renegotiate since she is the new candidate and she needs notes so she doesn’t fall completely flat in the debate. Tulsi Gabbard made Kamala look like that cheese sandwich and so will Trump if the debate even happens. IMO of course many of those who prefer a cheese sandwich have actually been gaslighted.

Again, there is no gaslighting here. Democrats know what they're getting with Harris, a candidate with a good chance to win against Trump. Bare minimum, that's enough.

I will agree, though, that she's been lighter on specific policies than I'd prefer, but so far, I like what I've heard. Certainly nothing egregious or objectionable. At the very least, I highly doubt she'll try to install fake electors if she loses, nor attempt to incite an insurrection. So, there's that.

But, I do find it highly amusing when Trump supporters decry Harris for a lack of specifics when they have even less than that coming from Trump. Just a bunch of boasts and empty promises coming from a known fraudster and convicted felon. Why they've gaslit themselves to believe Trump is anything more than that is beyond me.

-- A2SG, mysterious are the ways of Trump acolytes, I guess....

 

[Postvieww]

Again, there is no gaslighting here. Democrats know what they're getting with Harris, a candidate with a good chance to win against Trump. Bare minimum, that's enough.

I agree some Democrats know exactly what they are getting in Harris but it is the low information voters who are being hoodwinked and doing just exactly what liberals accuse MAGA supporters of doing. Falling for the hype of an empty suit. I don't care how you or anyone else tries to spin it there is no excuse for her avoiding the press and tough questions that should be asked of any candidate.She is gaslighting the American public at large and many of the faithful cheese sandwich voters. It is sad that so many buy the anyone but Trump narrative when those same people had far better lives under Trump.

I will agree, though, that she's been lighter on specific policies than I'd prefer, but so far, I like what I've heard. Certainly nothing egregious or objectionable.

You should dig into her record as a prosecutor it is not all roses and peaches. You may like what you have heard from her but I don't believe anything she says except that she hates Trump.

At the very least, I highly doubt she'll try to install fake electors if she loses,

You apparently have no idea what liberals will do to win.

nor attempt to incite an insurrection. So, there's that.

This is false and IMO falls under the liberal gaslighting category. I know it is the popular liberal talking point but Trump did not incite a riot.

But, I do find it highly amusing when Trump supporters decry Harris for a lack of specifics when they have even less than that coming from Trump.

That is just plain false!

Just a bunch of boasts and empty promises coming from a known fraudster and convicted felon.

False again! At least Trump has the guts to face the press for questions. Kamala is so weak she is hiding from the press and a real interview. But I do understand, why should she, the cheese sandwich voters don't care what she stands for.

You might want to hold back on that convicted felon stuff until jury verdict is accepted and sentence pronounced by the judge because legally Trump is not yet a convicted felon. Just more gaslighting by liberals.

Why they've gaslit themselves to believe Trump is anything more than that is beyond me.

Kamala has the patent on the term "gaslighting" maybe consider finding a new one.

-- A2SG, mysterious are the ways of Trump acolytes, I guess....

I know my life was much more prosperous under Trump and I would bet if most were honest about it theirs was to. If she is elected I hope every one really enjoys those cheese sandwiches because that will be what many can afford.

 

[Postvieww]

Kamala now agrees to a TAPED interview with her support pillow Walz. Why taped ? I think we know the answer. She is not capable of standing on her own for tough questions. If she flops the tape can be edited. This is just typical of her gaslighting campaign.

 

[Postvieww]

Harris campaign now says VP ‘does not support’ electric vehicle mandate in latest flip-flop This is the flip flopping Kamala many say they are voting for.

 

[expos4ever]

How does one arrive at such an erroneous conclusion? Is the gaslighting really that effective? Trump is no threat to Democracy, he is actually the opposite.

Please tell us how someone who has attempted to undermine a legitimate election not a threat to democracy? This would seem to be the very essence of what it means to be a threat to democracy.

I cannot imagine how you can answer this question, except by moving the goal posts, or engaging in some other distraction. But we will see.

 

[Postvieww]

Please tell us how someone who has attempted to undermine a legitimate election not a threat to democracy? This would seem to be the very essence of what it means to be a threat to democracy.

Of course someone who attempts to undermine a legitimate election is a threat to democracy! It is your assumptions here that are flawed. 1. I do not believe 2020 was a “legitimate election “. 2. Trump did not attempt to undermine a “legitimate election”. 3. Trump did question the legitimacy of many aspects of said election which was his right to do. Do you really want a list of the flaws with the 2020 election? How can you be 100% confident it was a legitimate election with numerous unverified mail in ballots, election interference from the FBI, former government agency leaders and social media censorship?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course someone who attempts to undermine a legitimate election is a threat to democracy! It is your assumptions here that are flawed. 1. I do not believe 2020 was a “legitimate election “. 2. Trump did not attempt to undermine a “legitimate election”. 3. Trump did question the legitimacy of many aspects of said election which was his right to do. Do you really want a list of the flaws with the 2020 election? How can you be 100% confident it was a legitimate election with numerous unverified mail in ballots, election interference from the FBI, former government agency leaders and social media censorship?

The election happened as scheduled years in advance. It was supervised by the same local officials as usual. The various victorious candidates were sworn into office. Seems pretty legit to me. Did you go to a fake voting place or something?

 

[Aldebaran]

Kamala now agrees to a TAPED interview with her support pillow Walz. Why taped ? I think we know the answer. She is not capable of standing on her own for tough questions. If she flops the tape can be edited. This is just typical of her gaslighting campaign.

So much for the "strong black woman" image. She can't even do a live interview on her own, and yet she wants to run the country. She needs to do the interview with a liberal organization, has to be taped so it can be edited, and she still needs to have a white man next to her to make sure she doesn't screw it up so badly that even editing couldn't hide it.
Boy, I sure am looking forward to the debate with Trump! Supposedly, it won't be taped, and she won't have Walz talking into her ear to guide her, and she won't have the questions given to her in advance.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course someone who attempts to undermine a legitimate election is a threat to democracy!

Ok, we agree

It is your assumptions here that are flawed. 1. I do not believe 2020 was a “legitimate election “.

Let's be honest - there is no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest the election was not legitimate. To suggest otherwise is to manufacture your own reality

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. But to those of us who are committed to dealing with reality, this matter is closed - by any reasonable standard, the election was entirely legitimate.

2. Do you really want a list of the flaws with the 2020 election?

I am sure you're going to come up with a list. The problem is that no court, or other credible entity, will support the absurd notion that the election was not legitimate. In any election, especially one in a country as large as the United States, there are going to be a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand irregularities.

But all this means is the election was not perfect. However, as any legitimate source will declare, such irregularities are in the noise of what was otherwise a clearly legitimate election.

The rejection of objective truth in Trump World is a deeply concerning phenomenon. As objectionable a candidate as Mr Trump is, the real problem is his followers and their detachment from reality. Something extremely pernicious has happened to the Republican party. Back in the 70s and '80s there was nothing remotely close to this abject denial of reality that we see now.

 

[Postvieww]

The election happened as scheduled years in advance. It was supervised by the same local officials as usual. The various victorious candidates were sworn into office. Seems pretty legit to me. Did you go to a fake voting place or something?

That was a very oversimplified sanitized analysis.

 

[Postvieww]

Let's be honest - there is no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest the election was not legitimate. To suggest otherwise is to manufacture your own reality

Let’s be honest there is plenty of evidence just because you reject it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

 

[Desk trauma]

Let’s be honest there is plenty of evidence just because you reject it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Evidence that wasn’t presented in the multiple court cases because…?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That was a very oversimplified sanitized analysis.

The "fraudulent election" claim is a conspiracy theory worthy of the board of that name here on CF.

 

[Postvieww]

I highly doubt she'll try to install fake electors if she loses,

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup Like I said you obviously do not know what some democrats will do.

 

[A2SG]

I agree some Democrats know exactly what they are getting in Harris but it is the low information voters who are being hoodwinked and doing just exactly what liberals accuse MAGA supporters of doing. Falling for the hype of an empty suit.

How, exactly, are these "low information voters," as you call them, being hoodwinked? What do they believe about Harris that's factually incorrect? And, please, when you claim to know what they think, please cite your source for this knowledge.

I don't care how you or anyone else tries to spin it there is no excuse for her avoiding the press and tough questions that should be asked of any candidate.She is gaslighting the American public at large and many of the faithful cheese sandwich voters. It is sad that so many buy the anyone but Trump narrative when those same people had far better lives under Trump.

Sorry she isn't campaigning the way you want her to. You're perfectly free to not vote for her, if you don't like the way she's doing things.

But, let's not forget, "far better lives under Trump" included a protracted global pandemic he did little to prevent or curtail, and many attempts to subvert the election so he could remain in power. Granted, I can only speak for myself, but I don't exactly consider that kind of leader conducive to a "better life." Your mileage may vary, of course.

You should dig into her record as a prosecutor it is not all roses and peaches. You may like what you have heard from her but I don't believe anything she says except that she hates Trump.

If you want to present any information to back up your criticisms, feel free. I'll read it and see where it leads.

But, to be honest, so long as she continues to not be Trump, she'll get my vote come November.

You apparently have no idea what liberals will do to win.

I'm a lifelong liberal from Massachusetts. Feel free to try and educate me, if you want.

This is false and IMO falls under the liberal gaslighting category. I know it is the popular liberal talking point but Trump did not incite a riot.

I saw what I saw, and you saw what you saw. Apparently, we came to different conclusions about it.

C'est la vie.

That is just plain false!

Really? I've read the RNC platform, it contains specific goals like sealing the border and stopping the immigrant invasion, end inflation and make America affordable again. Would you care to show me the specific methods Trump has said he'd use to institute these goals?

False again!

Nope. His fraud convictions and felonies are all public record. You really should do your research, my friend.

At least Trump has the guts to face the press for questions. Kamala is so weak she is hiding from the press and a real interview. But I do understand, why should she, the cheese sandwich voters don't care what she stands for.

Hey, believe whatever you like. Us cheese sandwich voters will vote however we like, just as you're free to do.

You might want to hold back on that convicted felon stuff until jury verdict is accepted and sentence pronounced by the judge because legally Trump is not yet a convicted felon. Just more gaslighting by liberals.

No, the guilty verdict is on record, all that's pending is the sentencing.

Kamala has the patent on the term "gaslighting" maybe consider finding a new one.

Nah, I'll use whatever term I like, if it's all the same to you.

I know my life was much more prosperous under Trump and I would bet if most were honest about it theirs was to. If she is elected I hope every one really enjoys those cheese sandwiches because that will be what many can afford.

I don't know your life, and to be honest, it's none of my business anyway. From my perspective, things didn't change all that radically from 2016 to today, with the exception of the pandemic in between. Which we survived, mostly intact.

You are, of course, free to vote however you like, and for whatever reasons you like...but for me, I don't vote based on how my personal situation will benefit from which person is in the oval office. I tend to think in broader terms, basically who will better lead the nation and guide it forward. To my way of thinking, that isn't Donald Trump. I'm convinced that Kamala Harris will be a better guide than Trump was, but I admit, that's pretty much a default position. The aforementioned cheese sandwich would be, too.

But, I will admit, everything I've heard about Kamala Harris has led me to be cautiously optimistic about her potential as president. I feel confident she'll be fine, and will lead the nation responsibly and honestly.

You're free to disagree, of course. We'll both see how it all turns out.

-- A2SG, history has its eye on us, all that....

 

[A2SG]

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup Like I said you obviously do not know what some democrats will do.

I dunno. I read that article, and the PR arm of the Heritage Foundation put forth a lot of speculation, with very little, if any, factual evidence of a supposed "coup," which didn't seem to materialize in any event. I'm not sure I see the point.

If all you wanted to do was say some Democrats disagreed with the election results, and with the electoral college system, fine. I feel the same way, myself. But it's neither here nor there, because things are what they are.

Unless they change...then they won't be.

-- A2SG, we can only hope....

 

[Bradskii]

I dunno. I read that article, and the PR arm of the Heritage Foundation put forth a lot of speculation, with very little, if any, factual evidence of a supposed "coup," which didn't seem to materialize in any event.

It certainly was some 'coup.' There were 4 faithless selectors from the Democrat side of the fence and they voted for someone other than Clinton.

 

[KCfromNC]

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup Like I said you obviously do not know what some democrats will do.

Given the weakness of the evidence presented in this article for an actual attempt to overthrow the government, one might reasonably conclude it is simply another attempt to normalize the use of the word coup, perhaps to make it seem less significant when evidence shows up of an actual coup attempt by the group this article is shilling for.

 

[expos4ever]

Let’s be honest there is plenty of evidence just because you reject it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Well, let's see this evidence.

 

[oikonomia]

Kamala Harris has faced criticism for some contradictions in her political career and policy positions. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Criminal Justice Reform: As a prosecutor and later as California’s Attorney General, Harris was known for her “tough on crime” stance, which included supporting the death penalty and opposing measures to reduce mass incarceration1. However, during her 2020 presidential campaign, she advocated for criminal justice reform and criticized the very policies she once enforced1.
2. Healthcare: Initially, Harris supported a single-payer healthcare system and co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill. However, during her presidential campaign, she shifted her stance, proposing a more moderate plan that maintained a role for private insurance2.
3. Fracking: Harris has also changed her position on fracking. While she initially supported a ban on fracking, she later moderated her stance, aligning more closely with the Biden administration’s position2.
4. Abortion: Harris has been a strong advocate for abortion rights, but her position has evolved over time. She initially supported the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions, but later opposed it during her presidential campaign2.

These shifts in positions have led to accusations of inconsistency and political opportunism.

She claims that from Day one she will tackle inflation - why has she not done that in the last 3 and a half years?

She claims she will control the border - why hasn't she controlled it in the last three and a half years?


She claims she will stop tips from being taxed - that is straight from Trump weeks ago.

This is why an indepth interview and more than one debate is needed -

So which Mr. Trump do you recommend - the one who calls those wounded or killed in combat defending the US suckers and loosers or the one bleeding himself from a shot and pumping his first yelling "Fight!" under an American flag?

I already heard about So's Law.