** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **

gimmesometruth27

The Juggler said:

Tim Simmons said:

Personally, I think you’ll see a shift after the first debate, and then barring no October surprise, that’s where it’s gonna be until Election Day. 

Yeah it is the debate more so than the timing. It's the debate and the polling afterward that forced Joe's hand. Next week is fucking enormous. 

i just hope she pushes back against him. he is going to try to attack, attack, attack and steamroll her on the border etc. she doesn't have to stuff him in a locker, but i just want her to fight back and show strength and leadership. biden couldn't do it due to the volume of whopper lies told. hopefully harris can.

mickeyrat

gimmesometruth27 said:

The Juggler said:

Tim Simmons said:

Personally, I think you’ll see a shift after the first debate, and then barring no October surprise, that’s where it’s gonna be until Election Day. 

Yeah it is the debate more so than the timing. It's the debate and the polling afterward that forced Joe's hand. Next week is fucking enormous. 

i just hope she pushes back against him. he is going to try to attack, attack, attack and steamroll her on the border etc. she doesn't have to stuff him in a locker, but i just want her to fight back and show strength and leadership. biden couldn't do it due to the volume of whopper lies told. hopefully harris can.

trick will be to address just a handful of the lies and not get lost in trying rebut all of them while ALSO laying out her positions. ..

in a couple minutes.

The Juggler

I have confidence in her ability to do that Mick.....much more so than I had with Biden and Hillary. 

This will be Trump's toughest debater in his political career. 

gimmesometruth27

wonder if he is going to accuse her of supporting immediately after birth abortion, or whatever the fuck they are calling it.

mickeyrat

The Juggler said:

I have confidence in her ability to do that Mick.....much more so than I had with Biden and Hillary. 

This will be Trump's toughest debater in his political career. 

my concern is she is 4 yrs removed from that prosecutor style she deftly used as senator and before as litigator. am sure is just refreshing that muscle memory. I'll be listening in as I drive for work.

mickeyrat

seems valuable

https://www.threads.net/@axios/post/C_eDnoOJuWr/?xmt=AQGzvzorb-Z3gfKN_LOYK1A37UmZY2Jo6DICXWIXUx4uIw

curmudgeoness

Tim Simmons said:

Ah, now I see why this thread was quiet all weekend. 

Huh.

@brianlux it's safe to come back! 

 

Tim Simmons

She just needs to call the lies, lies and then provoke him by saying he’s weird for making stuff like that up. No need to rebut. All she needs to say it’s the medias responsibility to point out untruthfulness and publish the facts. 

brianlux

curmudgeoness said:

Tim Simmons said:

Ah, now I see why this thread was quiet all weekend. 

Huh.

@brianlux it's safe to come back! 

 

Sweet! Thanks for the heads up! 

brianlux

What do you all think will happen next Tuesday?   Will the debate even happen?  I can't wait.  I think it's going to be KH for the KO!

Tim Simmons

It will happen. 

Kamala will not argue her PoV well enough for some people, but generally be solid.
Trump will ramble and get flustered. Tell lies that the mods won’t push back on. 
she will be seen as the winner but not enough to really change much. 

Tim Simmons

What do I want to happen? For her to curb stomp him (metaphorically) ending all these mealy minded “independent “ dweebs dancing around “well he makes good points” with Trump, realizing he’s flaccid as a candidate and essentially ending this campaign a month and half early so we can get on with our lives earlier. 

pjl44

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

gimmesometruth27

Tim Simmons said:

It will happen. 

Kamala will not argue her PoV well enough for some people, but generally be solid.
Trump will ramble and get flustered. Tell lies that the mods won’t push back on. 
she will be seen as the winner but not enough to really change much. 

the bar for trump is basically laying on the ground, so if he does anything of note, like answering a single question, it could be considered a win for him. i know the media is looking for ways to not necessarily boost him, but looking for ways to hurt her. they need a horserace.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

And at the very beginning she's referring to Trump's account.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice.  I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so.  Until then, I'm not too concerned.  But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.  

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

pjl44

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice.  I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so.  Until then, I'm not too concerned.  But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.  

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.

mrussel1

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

This point of view is bad, bad, bad and you can see it on Tapper's face

https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703

I don't understand.  Who is she talking about, exactly?

Twitter/X

So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice.  I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so.  Until then, I'm not too concerned.  But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.  

HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.

TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --

HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.

In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.

It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.

So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account?  It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal.  Keep dying on that hill.  You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.  

You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?  

pjl44

"Can you believe the President engaged in witness tampering and obstruction of justice on social media?"

Wow no. But it sounds like you have all the evidence there in a public post?

"Regulate Twitter!"

What?