They're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!

[Laurie!]

The whole idea is to make do

The whole idea is to protect domestic industries and make domestically produced alternatives more attractive. We're far too dependent on foreign goods.

If he knows he's going to "make do" with Obamacare, then why is he still insulting it and saying he'll get rid of it? Doing so and maintaining it the way it currently is, only highlights even further that he has nothing better to offer.

You're explaining the concept of tariffs in general, not the way Trump says he'll use them.

You can't bring down inflation and make things cost less, if you're denying companies the option of importing raw materials from a cheaper supplier (if the tariff offsets the cheaper price). BTW, Trump's tariff plan is socialism lol.

 

[Laurie!]

Harris already bowed to those "corrupt and rich entities." She wouldn't have been installed as the Dem Party's nominee for president if she hadn't. Her 2020 presidential campaign tanked after Tulsi Gabbard exposed Harris's corruption as prosecutor. Now she's touting the endorsement of war criminals like Dick Cheney. She also talks to people like they're toddlers, and she laughs nervously whenever she's caught flip flopping on a previous position or statement. Her entire persona is based around political expediency.


This is precisely why I believe that Democrats are the more insidious threat. Trump is openly hateful and unlikeable, while Dems seem sane and compassionate on the surface. When it comes to their actual policies, they serve the military industrial complex and wealthy elites just like Republicans do. The alliance between Dems and neocons says it all.

It's a misnomer to say Harris was "installed" as a nominee. I also believe the registered Democrats would have had the opportunity to start petitions denouncing the choice. Instead, the majority seemed thrilled with the selection of Harris.

I had to look at the video of Gabbard at the debate and I certainly didn't see Harris look frazzled or flip flopping. The one accusation of her hiding evidence to prevent a release, seems quite meritless. Given, a lawsuit would have ensued by the guy imprisoned and it would be public record, beyond merely accusations.

For flip flopping, Trump used to be a Democrat so I think he should sit out that line of attack.

I'd prefer someone who can act decent and seems sane, over someone who truly is a toddler with a criminal record and blatantly racist.

 

[KayLloyd]

It's a misnomer to say Harris was "installed" as a nominee. I also believe the registered Democrats would have had the opportunity to start petitions denouncing the choice. Instead, the majority seemed thrilled with the selection of Harris.

I had to look at the video of Gabbard at the debate and I certainly didn't see Harris look frazzled or flip flopping. The one accusation of her hiding evidence to prevent a release, seems quite meritless. Given, a lawsuit would have ensued by the guy imprisoned and it would be public record, beyond merely accusations.

For flip flopping, Trump used to be a Democrat so I think he should sit out that line of attack.

I'd prefer someone who can act decent and seems sane, over someone who truly is a toddler with a criminal record and blatantly racist.

And I'd prefer a President who doesn't help bail out criminals who burn down a city or support abortion past the point of viability. And a Vice President who doesn't ignore pleas to send in the National Guard for 3 days or allow states to take custody of minor children to have gender affirming treatment without parental consent.

 

[Angela Channing]

It's a misnomer to say Harris was "installed" as a nominee.

It's not a misnomer, it's a lie. Kamala was chosen by the party according to their selection process. It was open to other candidate to stand against her but the party instead chose to united behind her. Her nomination was ratified twice by the elected delegates, firstly in a virtual roll call and again at the Convention.

 

[Angela Channing]

And I'd prefer a President who doesn't help bail out criminals who burn down a city or support abortion past the point of viability. And a Vice President who doesn't ignore pleas to send in the National Guard for 3 days or allow states to take custody of minor children to have gender affirming treatment without parental consent.

I'd prefer a President who wasn't a criminal himself and a rapist.

And let's kill the late abortion past the point of viability misinformation. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen before 12 weeks. Later abortions are generally carried out when the foetus is not viable and/or threatens the life of the mother. Some Republicans would rather a women die giving birth to a dead baby than allow her to have the medical care that could save her life.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It's a misnomer to say Harris was "installed" as a nominee. I also believe the registered Democrats would have had the opportunity to start petitions denouncing the choice. Instead, the majority seemed thrilled with the selection of Harris.

I had to look at the video of Gabbard at the debate and I certainly didn't see Harris look frazzled or flip flopping. The one accusation of her hiding evidence to prevent a release, seems quite meritless. Given, a lawsuit would have ensued by the guy imprisoned and it would be public record, beyond merely accusations.

They covered up Biden's dementia, bypassed the primary process, and then installed Harris as their nominee once Biden tanked during his debate with Trump.

DNC insiders and MSNBC pundits are certainly thrilled with her "selection," but the same party that clutches their pearls over democracy didn't allow the public to select her.

As for the debate, it wasn't a matter of Harris "looking frazzled." That moment tanked her momentum, and she had to drop out before a single primary had taken place.

Also, there was more to her corrupt tenure as prosecutor than just "one accusation:" Kamala Harris Is No Progressive Prosecutor - Truthdig

For flip flopping, Trump used to be a Democrat so I think he should sit out that line of attack.

The point is all politicians act out of political expediency, but both MAGA and "blue no matter who" Dems tolerate it from their side.

I'd prefer someone who can act decent and seems sane, over someone who truly is a toddler with a criminal record and blatantly racist.

Emphasis on seems sane. The cabal of oligarchs and war criminals want Harris to be president as well. Trump is chaos, while Harris is a "steady hand" who does what she's told.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It's not a misnomer, it's a lie. Kamala was chosen by the party according to their selection process. It was open to other candidate to stand against her but the party instead chose to united behind her. Her nomination was ratified twice by the elected delegates, firstly in a virtual roll call and again at the Convention.

It's not a lie because a "selection process" involving DNC insiders is not the same thing as a "primary process." The public didn't get to vote for Harris to be the nominee.

The DNC may have had the legal right to do that, but it's certainly not an example of a "free and fair election" or "the democratic process." According to MSNBC pundit Symone Sanders-Townsend, the DNC intentionally ran a non-competitive primary. The Dems and their media apparatus lied for years about Biden's dementia, and then immediately threw him under the bus after his poor debate performance. The previous two primary cycles were very messy, and subverting the will of voters made installing Harris a cinch.

I'd prefer a President who wasn't a criminal himself and a rapist.

So would Tara Reade, Ashley Biden, and all of the people slaughtered in Gaza. Unfortunately, corrupt criminals seem to be the only ones who want the job.

 

[Laurie!]

And I'd prefer a President who doesn't help bail out criminals who burn down a city or support abortion past the point of viability. And a Vice President who doesn't ignore pleas to send in the National Guard for 3 days or allow states to take custody of minor children to have gender affirming treatment without parental consent.

Can you provide me with a credible link that shows Kamala Harris has bailed out criminals who burned down a city? I can show you video evidence of Trump saying he'll pardon the J6 thugs who destroyed parts of the Capitol building, caused the deaths of police officers and were looking for Mike Pence to hang.

If you're carrying a baby you desperately want, past your definition of viability and a doctor tells you that baby has no chance of survival being carried full term and your life is at risk if you try to do so....do you want to be the one to make a gut wrenching decision about your own baby and body or do you want local judges forcing you to keep carrying the baby to the point you die? That's really the stakes we're talking about.
Women who knowingly carry babies into the 2nd trimester aren't monsters who just get bored of being pregnant so they terminate the fetus on a whim.
You're choosing a President who praised Tim Walz's handling of the Minneapolis protests.
Please, again...credible link that shows states are taking people's children to have gender affirming treatment without the parent's consent. I haven't seen any. Funny thing though...you're in favour of states forcing children to carry a rapists baby without the parents' consent. So why do you only care about parental rights when it suits your narrative?

 

[Laurie!]

@Frank Underwood , the only people seemingly upset with the Democrats choosing Kamala (and the electoral voters), seems to be Republicans. I haven't seen any major outcry from registered Dems who voted in the primary.

I hate wars and they should be avoided at all costs. They're inevitably just about cowardly leaders, forcing other people's children to fight their battles and thousands of innocent people die while the actual orchestraters of the crimes, stand back, living the high life.

Look most recently at the Hamas terrorist attacks and the IDF response. The Hamas leadership isn't and wasn't even in Gaza. They left their dirty minions to do the fighting. Netanyahu wouldn't be so keen on obliterating Gaza and the Palestinian people if he had to lead the IDF troops into battle. Putin wouldn't risk his life to seize Ukraine either.
I guess what I'm saying is...if you hate war...women generally have more compassion and empathy for other people's children than men do. It's built into our DNA so why not put women in charge of the nuclear codes?

 

[Frank Underwood]

@Frank Underwood , the only people seemingly upset with the Democrats choosing Kamala (and the electoral voters), seems to be Republicans. I haven't seen any major outcry from registered Dems who voted in the primary.

The majority of registered Democrats will obviously vote for Harris in the general election, regardless of how she became the party's nominee.

That said, how do we know they're not upset about being deprived the right to choose the nominee? They don't have a bully pulpit to express their feelings like Dem elites do.

I hate wars and they should be avoided at all costs. They're inevitably just about cowardly leaders, forcing other people's children to fight their battles and thousands of innocent people die while the actual orchestraters of the crimes, stand back, living the high life.

Look most recently at the Hamas terrorist attacks and the IDF response. The Hamas leadership isn't and wasn't even in Gaza. They left their dirty minions to do the fighting. Netanyahu wouldn't be so keen on obliterating Gaza and the Palestinian people if he had to lead the IDF troops into battle. Putin wouldn't risk his life to seize Ukraine either.
I guess what I'm saying is...if you hate war...women generally have more compassion and empathy for other people's children than men do. It's built into our DNA so why not put women in charge of the nuclear codes?

I completely agree with what you're saying about the horrors of war and the cowardice of "leaders" who send others to die for their own personal benefit.

However, I don't believe every woman is inherently compassionate and empathetic (Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq and Libya testify to that.) Harris has also vowed to continue funding the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, effectively allowing them to continue indefinitely. The word "ceasefire" is casually tossed around, but there doesn't appear to be a serious commitment to it. Trump isn't any better, as he also wants to continue funding Israel's genocide in Gaza. Vile Iraq War architect Dick Cheney endorsed Harris because he knows she's committed to continuing all of the US-backed wars, while Trump says he will cut off funding for the Ukraine war. Harris is also endorsed by 200 former aides to George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. This pack of neocons wouldn't support Harris if they didn't believe she was the more reliable pro-war candidate.

Of course, people can support whomever they want. If you find Harris optimistic and inspiring, so be it. I just can't see her as anything other than a tool of the establishment. Trump is a vile pig, and I can't bring myself to vote for him either, but the establishment's opposition to him is superficial. He'd occasionally go rogue, and they can't have that.

 

[Seaviewer]

The whole idea is to protect domestic industries and make domestically produced alternatives more attractive. We're far too dependent on foreign goods.

Where Trump is wrong is when he says that the tariff is paid by China, or whoever the exporting country is. The tariff is paid by the importer and ultimately passed on to the consumer. Local goods are made relatively cheaper, but only by raising the price of the imports.

 

[KayLloyd]

Can you provide me with a credible link that shows Kamala Harris has bailed out criminals who burned down a city? I can show you video evidence of Trump saying he'll pardon the J6 thugs who destroyed parts of the Capitol building, caused the deaths of police officers and were looking for Mike Pence to hang.

If you're carrying a baby you desperately want, past your definition of viability and a doctor tells you that baby has no chance of survival being carried full term and your life is at risk if you try to do so....do you want to be the one to make a gut wrenching decision about your own baby and body or do you want local judges forcing you to keep carrying the baby to the point you die? That's really the stakes we're talking about.
Women who knowingly carry babies into the 2nd trimester aren't monsters who just get bored of being pregnant so they terminate the fetus on a whim.
You're choosing a President who praised Tim Walz's handling of the Minneapolis protests.
Please, again...credible link that shows states are taking people's children to have gender affirming treatment without the parent's consent. I haven't seen any. Funny thing though...you're in favour of states forcing children to carry a rapists baby without the parents' consent. So why do you only care about parental rights when it suits your narrative?

If you're really that interested, do your own research, I'm not going to do it for you. And I've never said that I'm "in favor of states forcing children to carry a rapists baby", let alone any rape victim, so don't make that repulsive and outrageous accusation about me.

 

[Angela Channing]

If you're really that interested, do your own research, I'm not going to do it for you. And I've never said that I'm "in favor of states forcing children to carry a rapists baby", let alone any rape victim, so don't make that repulsive and outrageous accusation about me.

Hahaha. You were the one who said Kamala "help[ed] bail out criminals who burn down a city" and when challenged you can't substantiate your lie.

So you support a woman's right to choose not to carry a rapist's baby but you support a rapist becoming the President who supports states who want to take that right from women. Do you know how ridiculous your position on these issues sounds?

 

[KayLloyd]

Hahaha. You were the one who said Kamala "help[ed] bail out criminals who burn down a city" and when challenged you can't substantiate your lie.

So you support a woman's right to choose not to carry a rapist's baby but you support a rapist becoming the President who supports states who want to take that right from women. Do you know how ridiculous your position on these issues sounds?

Newsflash:

1. Voters can believe in abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, and not believe in taxpayer paid for abortions as a form of birth control, at the same time. The majority of Americans support those abortion exceptions, including Trump, and the voters in all 50 states will continue to uphold them. I challenge your lie.

2. False sexual assault accusations are made all the time for a variety of reasons and the lives, reputations, and careers of the accused are forever ruined. Ask Kevin Spacey. Just because an attorney is able to successfully convince a jury that a rape took place, it doesn't mean that it did, it just means that he or she is a good attorney. And those "victims" do a great disservice to real rape victims. Rose McGowan wasn't a victim, she prostituted herself to further her career by getting in a hot tub with a sleezy married man.


.

 

[Laurie!]

If you're really that interested, do your own research, I'm not going to do it for you. And I've never said that I'm "in favor of states forcing children to carry a rapists baby", let alone any rape victim, so don't make that repulsive and outrageous accusation about me.

I have done the research to support my opinion. It makes your statement a lie. I was merely giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

You're anti abortion and you were upset at Harris for not giving an answer to the fetus viability question. I simply pointed out, you can't key hole an exact timeframe because there are always exceptions.

You now say you're in favour of exceptions but the viability question is only for one reason....to prevent exceptions beyond the so-called viability week chosen. Otherwise, you just allow abortions to be acceptable without limits. Like I said, women aren't carrying a baby to the point they feel movement, etc and deciding to terminate for no reason. Yes, like everything there a minority but an anti abortion law won't and never has prevented those women from terminating a pregnancy. It only prevents women who were raped or have health issues from seeking professional care that would make it one less stress on them and save their lives.

 

[Laurie!]

The majority of registered Democrats will obviously vote for Harris in the general election, regardless of how she became the party's nominee.

That said, how do we know they're not upset about being deprived the right to choose the nominee? They don't have a bully pulpit to express their feelings like Dem elites do.


I completely agree with what you're saying about the horrors of war and the cowardice of "leaders" who send others to die for their own personal benefit.

However, I don't believe every woman is inherently compassionate and empathetic (Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq and Libya testify to that.) Harris has also vowed to continue funding the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, effectively allowing them to continue indefinitely. The word "ceasefire" is casually tossed around, but there doesn't appear to be a serious commitment to it. Trump isn't any better, as he also wants to continue funding Israel's genocide in Gaza. Vile Iraq War architect Dick Cheney endorsed Harris because he knows she's committed to continuing all of the US-backed wars, while Trump says he will cut off funding for the Ukraine war. Harris is also endorsed by 200 former aides to George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. This pack of neocons wouldn't support Harris if they didn't believe she was the more reliable pro-war candidate.

Of course, people can support whomever they want. If you find Harris optimistic and inspiring, so be it. I just can't see her as anything other than a tool of the establishment. Trump is a vile pig, and I can't bring myself to vote for him either, but the establishment's opposition to him is superficial. He'd occasionally go rogue, and they can't have that.

What Democrat in the past few years has been pro war more than Republicans? They generally inherit a war already in process and have to navigate the popularity of opposing/ending it.

I don't think Harris likes Cheney or the others' viewpoints but there's nothing wrong with pointing out that even those people can't stomach Trump. There is a reason for that and it's not superficial or because he'll go rogue. It's because he genuinely doesn't give a damn about the Republican party or the American people. He's self-absorbed, racist, power hungry, misogynistic and likes complete control.

Why does Trump's Republican party suddenly hate women? They even now publicly say that a woman's only value is having babies.

 

[Frank Underwood]

What Democrat in the past few years has been pro war more than Republicans? They generally inherit a war already in process and have to navigate the popularity of opposing/ending it.

I used to believe that until I did some research. Bill Clinton ushered in the "new Democrats" in the 1990s. Since then, the party's been moving increasingly towards the right.

Eighty-one Democrats voted for the Iraq War, Obama took us from two wars to seven, and the Dems sent billions to fund the proxy war in Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza.

I don't think Harris likes Cheney or the others' viewpoints but there's nothing wrong with pointing out that even those people can't stomach Trump. There is a reason for that and it's not superficial or because he'll go rogue. It's because he genuinely doesn't give a damn about the Republican party or the American people. He's self-absorbed, racist, power hungry, misogynistic and likes complete control.

None of them give a damn about the American people. If they did, they'd give us single payer healthcare, a living wage, a secured border, and an end to funding wars.

The establishment opposes Trump because he's a rogue. One minute he's saying we should steal the oil from countries like Iraq, and the next he says we should stop funding the war in Ukraine. Not only does he say the quiet part out loud, but he also opposes some of their military excursions. This is what Democrats and neocon Republicans oppose him for, along with his boorish personality. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are corrupt war criminals. They care more about superficial "civility politics" than humane policies.

Why does Trump's Republican party suddenly hate women? They even now publicly say that a woman's only value is having babies.

Suddenly? Hasn't that been their position all along?

 

[Frank Underwood]

As for the claim that Harris "helped bail out criminals who burned down a city," I couldn't find any evidence to suggest she did this directly. However, she did encourage people to donate to the non-profit Minnesota Freedom Fund, “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota” after the death of George Floyd. So there's that.

It seems she was as involved in protestors being bailed out as Trump was in Jan. 6th.

 

[KayLloyd]

I have done the research to support my opinion. It makes your statement a lie. I was merely giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

You're anti abortion and you were upset at Harris for not giving an answer to the fetus viability question. I simply pointed out, you can't key hole an exact timeframe because there are always exceptions.

You now say you're in favour of exceptions but the viability question is only for one reason....to prevent exceptions beyond the so-called viability week chosen. Otherwise, you just allow abortions to be acceptable without limits. Like I said, women aren't carrying a baby to the point they feel movement, etc and deciding to terminate for no reason. Yes, like everything there a minority but an anti abortion law won't and never has prevented those women from terminating a pregnancy. It only prevents women who were raped or have health issues from seeking professional care that would make it one less stress on them and save their lives.

I'll speak for myself instead of you speaking for me, thank you. My belief has always been that abortions should be rare, only done in cases of rape, incest, and risks to the mother's health. I do believe in a woman's choice for her own body,, but that choice needs to be made before the point of viability outside of the mother's body, which ranges from the earliest and lowest chance at 22 weeks to a much higher chance at 28 weeks. I also believe that the less involvement that the federal government has in our lives, the better off we are.

 

[Angela Channing]

Newsflash:

1. Voters can believe in abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, and not believe in taxpayer paid for abortions as a form of birth control, at the same time. The majority of Americans support those abortion exceptions, including Trump, and the voters in all 50 states will continue to uphold them. I challenge your lie.

2. False sexual assault accusations are made all the time for a variety of reasons and the lives, reputations, and careers of the accused are forever ruined. Ask Kevin Spacey. Just because an attorney is able to successfully convince a jury that a rape took place, it doesn't mean that it did, it just means that he or she is a good attorney. And those "victims" do a great disservice to real rape victims. Rose McGowan wasn't a victim, she prostituted herself to further her career by getting in a hot tub with a sleezy married man.

1. JD Vance doesn't appear to support any exceptions to a total abortion ban. Trump wants states to have the right to force rape and incest victims to continue with their pregnancies. They claim to support individual freedoms but apparently that's not the case when it comes to women and their bodies.

2. The allegations against Kevin Spacey were tested in court in both the USA and in the UK and in both cases he was exhonorated. By contrast, the allegations against Trump were upheld in court and the Judge said E Jean Carroll's claim that Trump raped her is "substantially true". Trump also admitted to being a sexual predator on the Access Hollywood recording. Trump is a proven rapist and as such should be nowhere near The White House and to hear Republicans defend his depravity while claiming they believe in law and order is nauseating.