** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **
Comments
-
more like "i'm voting to tank the economy!!" from said 10c membersMerkin Baller said:
“I’m voting for the economy” - ‘independent’ 10C membersTim Simmons said:Man. This may be a good economy
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.0 -
You're right, he DID incite an mob riot. Oh but that's been litigated, so I really shouldn't care about that anymore. It's just old news.tbergs said:
It's also common sense not to vote for a xenophobic, racist, misogynist, election denying, insurrection inciting felon, but you know, the economy and border or something, something bullshit.teskeinc said:
No. You use common sense. Screw the baby killers rights. He should be sentenced to death.curmudgeoness said:
No. What I’m saying is, when we start carving out exceptions, it weakens the protections for everyone else.cincybearcat said:
Are we seriously saying that a convicted murderer of a baby deserves to have transgender surgery? Seriously? This is the bullshit liberals lose the middle onmickeyrat said:teskeinc said:Kamala supports tax payer funded sex change operations for prisoners and illegal immigrants in detention, it’s on record.
I don’t care how many whether it’s 1 or 1 million, or how much it costs. Making tax payers pay for it is wrong. They can have all the surgeries they want on their own dime.When you strangle and kill a baby, you lose those rights! If you don’t agree, you are a sick person and lack any kind of morals. No if and or buts.People here want Trump in jail for 34 felonies. (For paying a porn star $134k) but sympathize with a baby killer transitioning? Sick world we live in.where in the constitution does it say that?why do you hate america and our founding document so much?What this person *deserves* is to sit in prison for another fifty years. But convicted felons in this country still have certain rights, and arguing that this monster doesn’t have access to those rights because we find their crime particularly repugnant will make other, less reprehensible people, less safe.If we argue that this person doesn’t have the right to gender affirming surgery (and I think it will be an easy argument to make that they have gender dysphoria, along with a steamer trunk full of other issues), then that opens the door to future arguments that other prisoners don’t merit treatment for cancer or diabetes, etc.
And once we’ve established the precedent that the rights provided by law don’t really apply to certain people, what’s to prevent unlawful imprisonment, absence of habeas corpus, etc.?
Years ago, the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL. It wasn’t because they thought Nazis had interesting ideas; it was because freedom of expression must be guaranteed to everyone, including people most decent folks would consider to be pieces of shit.
The laws need to apply equally to everyone. It’s in the greater interest of law-abiding, decent people to protect the rights of the worst among us, to prevent authorities from using the system to punish and control the rest of us.Kamala defends this and is fighting for these scumbags. She’s a disgusting human being.0 -
That might be the funniest gif ever. Sometimes my dog will fart, smell his butt and then get up an move. We know it's time to clear the fucking area when that happens.mickeyrat said:The Juggler said:How many chances are you guys willing to give someone to prove they're a serious person?
0 -
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".hippiemom = goodness0 -
But you know that's not a practical expectation. No one knows what any coalition will look like after these elections. Who controls the senate? Will it be subject to cloture, and therefore not filibuster? Will it be a D or R speaker so will a bill even hit the floor? These are not answerable questions and frankly I would not want the media to spend time in that red tape.cincybearcat said:
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".0 -
Her site was updated with much more detail than she presented yesterday.
More of this please.
0 -
yes, I meant more as a driving discussion point for choosing the next president.cincybearcat said:
Certainly much bigger fish to fry, but it seems silly to me to just say something only effects a small % of people so why not just have other people pay for it...you could just as easily turn that around. It benefits so few, don't worry about it and don't do anything.Tim Simmons said:I think this issue is insanely more complex and nuanced than most of the American public has the time and capacity to deal with.5,000ft level, sure bad people don’t deserve stuff. But there’s the responsibility of our prison system to manage the people in it (to say nothing of what that says about us as a society). Personally it’s the lowest level of responsibility (and I think it’s truly treated that way until it becomes an extreme case) and the fact that it’s an issue that dopes bring up shows how deeply unserious most of the political discourse is in our country is (how many inmates will this truly affect? And we are only addressing it only AFTER a lawsuit?!) Like I said earlier, it’s an outlier on a tail of a graph, yet it’s being applied as if it’s the median.
but yes, when you look at it simplistically, I can see how liberals lose people.
I mean if you are using this as your reason to not vote for kamala and instead vote for trump, well that's just stupid, but it doesn't mean the issue itself isn't worth discussing. Trump has screwed everything up, including people being able to talk ab out single issues without a whole lot of other issue that have no business being discussed along side the issue, being brought up.
I hate that it seems you have to be either all in for Kamala and all of her positions or else you are a trump troll around here.
its a worthy discussion but not one that should be disqualifying from leadership as is often presented in this thread.
I will push back on the "Benefits so few, so don't worry". I think you're more prone to taxpayer waste with larger expenditures where stuff can be hidden or over looked. If we want to have the discussion as to whether the little stuff is worthy, fine, but to go that nit picky off the bat seems like an energy waster when theres softballs. When I have to clear HD storage, I'm looking at the biggest files, like videos, first before digging into the 10/20MB things.0 -
I think in a more utopian society, we would have the media asking more of the "how" will things get done questions though.mrussel1 said:
But you know that's not a practical expectation. No one knows what any coalition will look like after these elections. Who controls the senate? Will it be subject to cloture, and therefore not filibuster? Will it be a D or R speaker so will a bill even hit the floor? These are not answerable questions and frankly I would not want the media to spend time in that red tape.cincybearcat said:
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".
But that would entail a dramatic change in how the media covers politics. Now it's all about the horse race and the specifics of polices and how they will be implemented is barely covered.
Can you imagine anyone in Trump's base giving a shit about how the no tax on tips thing or the cutting their insurance thing would have any shot of actually happening? These are the same people who thought Mexico was going to pay for a border wall simply because Trump told them so.
www.myspace.com0 -
I’d argue it would require a dramatic shift in how most ‘Muricans consume information and what they want to hear and see. Policy discussions of the details put most people to sleep and they only have attention spans capable of 140 characters or less. The media gives us what we want and what most seem to want is Faux rage and sound bites. The majority of voters aren’t interested nor capable of understanding the wonk and what it takes to make it happen.The Juggler said:
I think in a more utopian society, we would have the media asking more of the "how" will things get done questions though.mrussel1 said:
But you know that's not a practical expectation. No one knows what any coalition will look like after these elections. Who controls the senate? Will it be subject to cloture, and therefore not filibuster? Will it be a D or R speaker so will a bill even hit the floor? These are not answerable questions and frankly I would not want the media to spend time in that red tape.cincybearcat said:
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".
But that would entail a dramatic change in how the media covers politics. Now it's all about the horse race and the specifics of polices and how they will be implemented is barely covered.
Can you imagine anyone in Trump's base giving a shit about how the no tax on tips thing or the cutting their insurance thing would have any shot of actually happening? These are the same people who thought Mexico was going to pay for a border wall simply because Trump told them so.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Yeah, agreed. So essentially this will never happen.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’d argue it would require a dramatic shift in how most ‘Muricans consume information and what they want to hear and see. Policy discussions of the details put most people to sleep and they only have attention spans capable of 140 characters or less. The media gives us what we want and what most seem to want is Faux rage and sound bites. The majority of voters aren’t interested nor capable of understanding the wonk and what it takes to make it happen.The Juggler said:
I think in a more utopian society, we would have the media asking more of the "how" will things get done questions though.mrussel1 said:
But you know that's not a practical expectation. No one knows what any coalition will look like after these elections. Who controls the senate? Will it be subject to cloture, and therefore not filibuster? Will it be a D or R speaker so will a bill even hit the floor? These are not answerable questions and frankly I would not want the media to spend time in that red tape.cincybearcat said:
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".
But that would entail a dramatic change in how the media covers politics. Now it's all about the horse race and the specifics of polices and how they will be implemented is barely covered.
Can you imagine anyone in Trump's base giving a shit about how the no tax on tips thing or the cutting their insurance thing would have any shot of actually happening? These are the same people who thought Mexico was going to pay for a border wall simply because Trump told them so.www.myspace.com0 -
Yeah I hear that. And in reality what it would take would be politicians tipping their hand on what they would be willing to give up…taking the negotiations public. So yeah, maybe not really practical.mrussel1 said:
But you know that's not a practical expectation. No one knows what any coalition will look like after these elections. Who controls the senate? Will it be subject to cloture, and therefore not filibuster? Will it be a D or R speaker so will a bill even hit the floor? These are not answerable questions and frankly I would not want the media to spend time in that red tape.cincybearcat said:
They are 100% correct, but also 100% Hypocrites for sure.mrussel1 said:
It's funny, I was driving home from DC last night and flipped to CNN on XM because I had already ingested 3 hours of Grateful Dead shows, so I need some reality. Anyways, the right wing person said something to the effect of, "You know there are details there, but not enough. She isn't telling us how she is going to build a coalition to pass these proposals, so it's just empty rhetoric".Tim Simmons said:Anyway. Solid economic policy speech yesterday. The tax credits will go a long way for families to say nothing of it being the only reasonable (and non weird) way to help promote the American birth rate.
What a bunch of crap and goal post movement. As if Donald Trump has explained the coalition to make tips non-taxable or "be the protector of women" or whatever BS comes to him in the middle of a speech. She has plenty of specific for a candidate, as much or more as anyone has. It's not like candidates routinely tick off the crossover votes they will get and how to overcome a filibuster.
The media should be pushing these candidates far more on the "How".hippiemom = goodness0 -
Imagine if Kamala just started selling junk like this out of nowhere 40 days before a presidential election
www.myspace.com0 -
Those are real diamonds, right? I mean people who can afford real diamond watches would definitely buy a Trump one.The Juggler said:Imagine if Kamala just started selling junk like this out of nowhere 40 days before a presidential election
0 -
I will say this, he is an exceptional grifter.0
-
not difficult with his target audience.Tim Simmons said:I will say this, he is an exceptional grifter.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
At what point will his followers get the message that he sees them as rubes who can be manipulated into buying any trash with his name on it and blindly believing every lie he utters? This guy is the ultimate con artist/grifter.The Juggler said:Imagine if Kamala just started selling junk like this out of nowhere 40 days before a presidential election0 -
Can't wait to see what their grandchildren's history books will say about him.JeBurkhardt said:
At what point will his followers get the message that he sees them as rubes who can be manipulated into buying any trash with his name on it and blindly believing every lie he utters? This guy is the ultimate con artist/grifter.The Juggler said:Imagine if Kamala just started selling junk like this out of nowhere 40 days before a presidential electionwww.myspace.com0 -
Let me know when he's got skate decks up.The Juggler said:Imagine if Kamala just started selling junk like this out of nowhere 40 days before a presidential election0 -
Limited edition of 147 Tourbillion watches at $100,000.00 each. Had 20 in my cart, but apparently over my CC limit.Tim Simmons said:I will say this, he is an exceptional grifter.This weekend we rock Portland0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help