The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
Another nonsensical post. She has a terrifyingly decent chance of being the next President, so we should all be interested in what her positions are. Hope she figures it out soon and lets us know.
Okay, that’s fair. The link I shared offers some explanation why it has taken this long for specific policies. And she has said there’ll be more details this week.
I know I won’t be voting for her, just like you won’t be voting for Trump. I was just asking what her policies are. Trump will speak to anyone. Your leaders hide from the public I’m a policy person, not a party person. I used to vote across lines, until the Dems went full woke. Kamala should know what her policies are, did she not run in the primary in 2019? That’s right, she is waiting on her handlers to tell her what to do.
Ridiculous. Claiming to be be such a policy person then dismissing an entire party as "full woke" is contradictory. As long as candidates are beholden to party platforms, almost everyone is voting for party. Two great examples would be (1) Trump voters distancing themselves from him as a person, but voting for him because of who he'll put on SCOTUS, and (2) Biden voters cringing at his mental decline but voting for him because at least he wasn't Trump.
If Harris prioritized speed and just rolled out her 2019 platform, you'd criticize her for not having done any work between then and now. As for handlers, why are they "handlers" when it's the other candidate, but "advisors" when it's our own? They all have teams of people around them. You're dumber than you claim she is if you think the delay is that her entire team just forgot to think about policies.
Her entire team wants her to do exactly as they tell her. Anyone with common sense knows she is puppet just like Biden. Yeah I switched over to the Republican Party when the freaks took over the Democratic Party.
The libs here might laugh at it, but this is true: they are so scared of Trump. They thought he would have us in wars. He helped get peace during his term. The problem is the Military Industry Complex doesn't want that at all. Trump was a fantastic leader, in spite of his flaws in front of the mic. I'll take that man 8 days a week. I can overlook his sometimes childish behavior, when the results truly are benefitting the citizens.
The main driver of this division as we all know is the media. They are destroying our country. Actually it's the donors behind the scenes. Until people are willing to admit they've been lied to for decades by "their" side, and the media, nothing will change. We will only get worse.
The main driver of this division as we all know is the media. They are destroying our country. Actually it's the donors behind the scenes. Until people are willing to admit they've been lied to for decades by "their" side, and the media, nothing will change. We will only get worse.
Her job as an appointee is to do as is expected of her for the ones who appointed her for the position. Normally, the nominee would campaign on working for the people who elected them. But since the DNC decided to skip that process, she doesn't represent the people.
Every advisor ever in the history of advice has wanted the person they advised to take their advice. And every decent leader listens to advisors, then makes their decision. I repeat: They ALLLLLL have teams of people around them -- Biden, Harris, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, all your faves, all your least faves, all the way back to Washington.
When did you switch parties?
You’re missing the point @Dattier. I’m not sure how much of the decision making any of the Presidents before Trump had. I’d venture so far as to say Trump got persuaded the least of any though.
Now Ol Joe, and possibly Harris? They make no major decisions, probably any at all if we’re totally honest. You’re totally delusional if you think otherwise.
Now Ol Joe, and possibly Harris? They make no major decisions, probably any at all if we’re totally honest. You’re totally delusional if you think otherwise.
Presidents have always had advisers. This is breaking news. But those are advisers that the president surrounds himself/one day, herself with. As a leader, you make the final decision. As a leader, you look to your advisers to assist you, not control you. We are looking for a clear and decisive leader. Someone who we have no doubt is making the calls. That is (some people's favorite word when convenient) democracy. For the last 3 1/2 years, we've been led by people behind the curtains. And we have someone who, very sadly, has a real chance of being the next president who will owe so many favors to those same people. Bought and paid for.
I know every leader has advisors Sherlock.
A true leader listens and then makes a decision. Harris just doesn’t seem to be making a decision. If so, she’s pretty damn slow. I decided I was done with Democrats when I saw how nasty and vicious they were with Kavanaugh. All the bs about him raping a woman and running a train on her which supposedly took place while he was in high school. I just kept thinking about the crap his young daughter was probably hearing from her peers. Truly disgusting. Lots of other stuff has occurred in the last 12 plus years, don’t have the time or care to discuss.
Now that we don't need the potato, conspiracies become reality.
See the difference?
Considering what a no-brainer statement it was for me to point out that Presidents have advisors, it sure didn't take much for you to start walking your bc bluster back. Why don't you start from the second place from now on?
You related to Judge Kavanaugh then? That was 6 years ago, well within the 12+ you cite later. Let me offer you some PR advice: focus on something from 12 years ago. That way, when you start getting indignant about/like Kavanaugh, people will understand you were already gone. Citing Kavanaugh as the starting point makes you look like an apologist for alleged sexual abuse.
So you voted Obama in '08 but somewhere during his first term you turned?
But you're not looking for a clear and decisive leader in Harris and you never were. You're looking for exactly the opposite in Harris, and surprise, surprise, there are plenty of people willing to feed that narrative for you and support your confirmation bias.
The Citizens United SCOTUS decision pretty much guarantees that every national candidate will be bought and paid for from now until it is overturned. President Trump included. I'm not going to waste my time listing examples for people who will defend him like he is Christ returned.
No wonder they put off policy discussion as long as possible. Yikes She knows as much about how an economy works as the janitor at the White House. Maybe less depending on what shift it is
They know she’s not the Orange Evil One. That’s all they care about
This is from before he announced for President, so 2015 at the most recent. No one knew him as a candidate yet. Barbara Walters was still alive, as well.
As far as him changing, within a year, that opening question about his marriages and divorces would have resulted in personal attacks about "nasty women." Here, he deflects mildly.
The grocery industry operates on a sub 3% profit, currently. The government pays over $150 billion a year in subsidies for groceries. It's just a bullshit narrative that her and the potato have been promoting in an effort to deflect blame for high prices. And their low IQ voters eat it up.
That was before he announced he was running for president? Thanks for pointing that out. I had no clue.
One day you're crying about what she'll do about inflation, next you're rephrasing a "federal ban on corporate price-gouging" into "government price control."
Admittedly, it could go wrong. You're pretty much assuming not only that it will, but bad intent, as well.
So your answer to what changed in how they viewed him, is that he ran for president? Seems like they got their orders from somewhere, doesn't it?
I never cried about what she'll do about inflation. And what do you think a government ban on "price gouging" would look like? If the government defines what price gouging is, wouldn't they be controlling the costs? And yes, when the person who may be president knowingly places blame in the wrong place and threatens to punish them for not bending the knee to their demands, it is absolutely bad intent. They know this will not help every day Americans.One day you're crying about what she'll do about inflation, next you're rephrasing a "federal ban on corporate price-gouging" into "government price control."
Admittedly, it could go wrong. You're pretty much assuming not only that it will, but bad intent, as well.
So. Which do you think is more likely to happen, lower prices or less product?
Then why are you asking what changed?
A right-wing site of medium credibility conducts a poll through McLaughlin & Associates (link to their political clients... rather one note) in 2024 based on Harris' 2019 platform. Red flags abound.
And that's before even getting into the slanted language, like where she says of ICE, "I think there’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role and the way it is being administered and the work it is doing, and we need to probably think about starting from scratch, because there’s a lot that is wrong with the way that it’s conducting itself. And we need to deal with that....Their mission, I think, is very much in question and has to be reexamined." MRC turns that into a headline saying "Harris supported abolishing ICE,' and parses it like this: "[That] sounds very much like eliminating the agency and starting over, presumably with something a lot more lenient on those trying to evade U.S. immigration laws."
I bet I already know more about that article and its source than you do, if you've even read it. My guess is that you saw the headline on Twitter and shared it immediately, believing it 100%.
I made a reasonable guess. I'm not claiming it's the certain answer.
Also much, much, much more reasonable: People who didn't have a strong opinion of Trump one way or the other heard him speak as a candidate and made up their own minds one way or the other, rather than having been given orders from somewhere.
There are already state and local laws against price-gouging. You probably have benefited from them yourself following various hurricanes when you didn't have to pay $15 for a bag of ice. I hear there's still plenty of ice around, too.
Pretending you are using an innocent synonym for "ban on price-gouging" is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
I've acknowledged such a policy could go wrong. I would hope it results in lower prices w/o a product shortage. I think you would hope for the exact opposite just so a Dem gets blamed.
It being a right wing source with "medium" credibility is good enough for me. You think anything not right would produce anything critical of your voting partners? She compared ICE to the KKK. Twist her wishes all you want. The topics that they were polling are credible.
Just so I understand correctly... a source that is biased in the direction you like and which falls short of credible journalism is good enough for you?
The topics are legit. The polling is sus.
You are a dense fool. The price gouging laws are in place to not take advantage of people during a spike in demand and/or a lack of supply of crucial needs during a state of emergency. This is not the same as a government ban on what they define as price gouging. You guys use the same stupid tactic when talking about socialism by bringing up the obvious fact that we already have social programs like police and fire departments.
You acknowledged that it could go wrong. But you haven't attempted to answer my question.
I would not hope it goes wrong, I would hope it never happens because it has a 100% chance of going wrong if it were even possible to impose. I am not worried about it happening because it would never get voted through in Congress and an EO would get shut down by the SCOTUS.
We still have to define what socialism is at nearly every turn, so I'm afraid you're going to have to endure a lot of very basic examples of how it isn't all one thing or all another, for better and worse.
You are asking me which is more likely based on no information other than a tweet you shared. You've received all the answer you're going to get from me at this time.
I stand by my belief that you would prefer Americans suffer rather than a potential Harris Presidency have any success. I base it on your repeated statements that President Biden has not done a single thing right and your immature disrespect of people you disagree with.
You stepped in dog sh%* and then proceeded to smear it all over the carpet with this idiotic comment. The truth is you, @SDevada, and every other libtard walking among us, only care about having your party in control. Damn the consequences.
Facts.
It's funny that you're accusing me of wanting to see people suffer. You would just assume see the majority of Americans struggle financially, be forced to live in crime ridden communities and send their kids to over populated and under staffed public schools just so you can feel good about having a progressive president who shares your same looney stances on identity politics.
I prefer to have a president who puts Americans first. But to you, that makes me a "white nationalist".
