I think you have enough IQ to understand my frustration that right-wing nutters(like JD Vance, Trump, and apparently Black) want to talk about overturning elections and I'd prefer to focus on things more aligned with policy decisions. Or even vibes, or whatever. Can we discuss something besides overturning fucking elections? This is why Walz calls you guys weird.

Kamala has an interest in following her statements and governing as a center-left president. I guess it depends on what you believe... if you think deporting millions of illegal immigrants and imposing massive tariffs is the path forward for America... Trump is clearly preferable.

BTW, those things are horrible for the economy of America, much worse than raising the corporate tax a bit.

Sounds like a you problem



Kamala definitively staked positions in 2019-2020 that she's now explicitly refuting in 2024. She was given this presidential ticket with no scrutiny or vetting, one of the least popular contenders, peaking around 4% of the vote in 2020 and with abysmal approval ratings as VP that make Hillary Clinton look like a superstar.
I'm sure you read how I analyzed, compared and contrasted the three convention acceptance speeches by Obama in 2008, Trump in 2024 and Kamala in 2024. Two of them focused on detailed policy proposals and positive messaging. One of them went heavily negative and repeatedly and scathingly attacked their rival with very sparse mentions of policy. And Kamala's campaign since then has followed that pattern, avoiding taking positions, not explaining herself or her prior sincere convictions she's now reneged on. Tonight is probably the only night in the entire campaign anyone will have a chance to actually grill Kamala on what she believes, because lord knows CNN wasn't going to do it and she's already dodged a 2nd debate.

So how do we pin her down on those positions? She was VP when Joe Biden deported millions of illegal immigrants, shut down the border and imposed massive protectionist tariffs. She supported all of that. Even though she had previously denounced it all. And now she is such a flip flopper we have no idea if she presently supports or opposes the polices. Like I said in a previous thread, at least when Mitt Romney was flip flopping he was just switching sides a single time and being definitive in his new position. I knew what Mitt Romney said he stood for, at that moment. I seriously have no idea how Kamala stands on immigration or tariffs right now

Deport all illegals in both US&Canada. Make North America great again with real America. Not slaves

That's cute, but you're a propagandist for an American president who attempted a self-coup. That's what you are, objectively. And because you are that, you have to minimize those actions, past and present.

But politically, if you want some advice, voters would be more ready to elect guys like JD Vance if he didn't spend his time talking about single cat ladies and overturning elections, and maybe instead talked about supporting families and such.

This is why you guys are weird. You think of yourselves as populists but you only talk about how Trump was right to try to steal an election. Nothing about real policy.



We're not going back.

This post was edited by IceMage on Sep 10 2024 06:38pm

Thanks for the refresher on US Government, poindexter. The point is the message, not who it's coming from, not how laws or made or aren't made. The message is this: eat the rich. Tax the rich. Give us the wealth tax.

This post was edited by Thebarba on Sep 10 2024 06:46pm

You know, you're welcome to start "debating policy". Go on, be the towering intellect you dream yourself to be. Wow us.

Because all I've seen so far are old memes, Democrat Party dogma (the fuck is a "self coup" anyway? Just say coup, even though it wasn't even that) and the primary Kamala Harris platform - Joy.

A self-coup means someone in power legally who tries to hold onto power illegally. That's what Trump attempted.

Roger. So you're still going with a bunch of fed insiders and gullible folksy dopes taking a tour of the White House constitutes a legitimate attempt to hold onto / force the flow of power in government? What happened on that day was the equivalent of the Reichstag Fire, had the Reichstag Fire been a single cigarette butt that fizzled out harmlessly. But regardless, it's being used as a casus belli just the same, not by a mustachio'd mean man this time around.

^



What a brave and audacious policy platform.
Ballots get printed in a matter of days. Let me ask you right now directly: Where does Kamala Harris stand on illegal immigration and tariffs?
I think we've been heading this direction ever since Obama's ACA "dual track" where it was written in secret. Now the actual democratic nominee was created in secret, installed without an election, with policies we're not allowed to read until she gets elected