What happens to Kamala’s momentum now the DNC is over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And women keep registering to vote.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/08/massive-175-increase-in-voter-registration-among-this-group-you-just-dont-see-this.html

Keep calling her an idiot….women have experienced this in work environment forever.

Belittled, man ‘splained, gaslighting, idea grabbing - women know this all well. We have learned that complaining doesn’t work - working harder and smarter works. Showing who you are and not being defined by colleagues - wins in the work place.

So keep call her names and whispering she’s not up for it. When she has an entire career of wining local, state, and national elections. What track record do you have on the GOP ticket?

Let’s take our future and our daughters’ future into our own hands (looking at you girl dads). And as Gov Whitmer says women get “stuff” done.

GOTV!
Let’s get this done!

Fair enough. Bit I still keep wondering why white women didn't go for Hilary in 2016. So why is Kamala going to do better with this all-important demographic?

In a word, Dobbs.

?? Neither Harris nor Trump is going to be able to change Dobbs. So that makes no sense

Wrong
If either get a controlling Congress, they can codify abortion rights, or lack thereof into law.

?? Do you understand how the Supreme Court works?

Yes I do. Do you? More importantly, do you know how Congress works.

Of course, any law passed by Congress can be ruled unconstitutional by The Supreme Court. Unless you're talking about Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, which is very difficult and unlikely. Your turn.

Previous decisions made by the court can be revisited and changed as every single American woman is well aware. Change the court and you get a different decision.

What's that got to do with Congress? I'm confused

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

Read carefully. No one said anything about his accomplishments as VP. Everything he brought to the ticket before taking office was based on his tenure as governor. Harris has no accomplishments to point to. Just feels.

Rad again. What Pence brought to the ticket was the evangelical vote. And you lie or are being very disingenuous when you say a Senator and former attorney general of the largest state in the union has no accomplishments. Shucks, Pence was a failing governor and was not going to get re-elected when Trump tapped him to legitimize Trump with the religious right. You know with all that grabbing them by the puzzy, adultery, idolatry and what not. Or maybe you’re just one of those people who think men can be just barely, but women have to be beyond super human. GTFOH with your misogyny.

Exactly.

Don’t hear the PP complaining about Vance’s experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

Read carefully. No one said anything about his accomplishments as VP. Everything he brought to the ticket before taking office was based on his tenure as governor. Harris has no accomplishments to point to. Just feels.

Rad again. What Pence brought to the ticket was the evangelical vote. And you lie or are being very disingenuous when you say a Senator and former attorney general of the largest state in the union has no accomplishments. Shucks, Pence was a failing governor and was not going to get re-elected when Trump tapped him to legitimize Trump with the religious right. You know with all that grabbing them by the puzzy, adultery, idolatry and what not. Or maybe you’re just one of those people who think men can be just barely, but women have to be beyond super human. GTFOH with your misogyny.

Okay so answer the question since she has so much to choose from.What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

I've already said Pence had none. He isn't the Republican nominee so that red herring won't fly. I'll ignore the rest of your word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And women keep registering to vote.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/08/massive-175-increase-in-voter-registration-among-this-group-you-just-dont-see-this.html

Keep calling her an idiot….women have experienced this in work environment forever.

Belittled, man ‘splained, gaslighting, idea grabbing - women know this all well. We have learned that complaining doesn’t work - working harder and smarter works. Showing who you are and not being defined by colleagues - wins in the work place.

So keep call her names and whispering she’s not up for it. When she has an entire career of wining local, state, and national elections. What track record do you have on the GOP ticket?

Let’s take our future and our daughters’ future into our own hands (looking at you girl dads). And as Gov Whitmer says women get “stuff” done.

GOTV!
Let’s get this done!

Fair enough. Bit I still keep wondering why white women didn't go for Hilary in 2016. So why is Kamala going to do better with this all-important demographic?

In a word, Dobbs.

?? Neither Harris nor Trump is going to be able to change Dobbs. So that makes no sense

Wrong
If either get a controlling Congress, they can codify abortion rights, or lack thereof into law.

?? Do you understand how the Supreme Court works?

Yes I do. Do you? More importantly, do you know how Congress works.

Of course, any law passed by Congress can be ruled unconstitutional by The Supreme Court. Unless you're talking about Congress passing a Constitutional amendment, which is very difficult and unlikely. Your turn.

Previous decisions made by the court can be revisited and changed as every single American woman is well aware. Change the court and you get a different decision.

What's that got to do with Congress? I'm confused

It is not a post about Congress. It a post about making sure a democratic president is in place to make nominations to SCOTUS when necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was CA AG and got the huge mortgage settlement. Other states were caving to big banks and going to accept a smaller settlement - she didn’t blink.

As goes California so does the rest of the nation. Homeowners screwed by banks all over the nation benefited from AG Harris work.

And she was CA AG when Beau Biden was DE AG - where all those f:::ing banks are incorporated. You don’t think AG Biden didn’t tell VP Biden about AG Harris’ negotiating skills and will of steel. He sure the f did. That’s how she ended up as VP Harris.

Debate….bring it.

Really? The only President from California in recent memory was Ronald Reagan, and Kamala ain't no Reagan on any level

Thank God for that. Reagan was a disaster with his trickle down economics, drug trafficking and IRAN contra dealings. And don’t get me started on his just say no and amnesty for all immigration.

He was an incredibly popular two -term president who will go down as one of the truly greatest president of the 20th Century. And just to be fair, I also think Bill Clinton was a political giant too.

Not in my community. He was a drug trafficker. His administration flooded the Black communities with cocaine and heroine to fund his gun sales in Central America. Back then this country considered drug abuse a crime, now that Reagan opened the flood gates and nobody has been able to stop it, it’s become a mental health issue for white folks. Of course he was popular for white folks. He didn’t intentionally destroy your communities. Didn’t care until his policies began destroying white folks families and social networks.

He wasn’t popular with Ds in general. Environment. “Trickle down”. Iran Contra. S&L. Central America.

+1000000000000000000

Reagan did terrible things to this country and our democracy.

Reagan average approval rating = 53% Clinton average approval rating 55% Trump average approval rating 41% Biden average approval rating 42%.... Trump and Biden have been so fricking awful that many of you nut jobs have forgotten what a real POTUS was like. If you were around in the 80s and 90s and have an IQ above 80, you'd know that Reagan and Clinton were real presidents and Trump and Biden are fricking jokes. Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can someone explain to me how in a democracy the dems nominated a person without the actual people voting for her? It just seems odd from the party that screams democracy will be lost if trump wins but the basic idea of democracy is being altered.

Again….(again!) how the party nominates its candidate is not the same thing as whether or not a nation has free and fair elections in which voters can choose between candidates who have been put forward. We can vote for her! Or we can vote for the other guy! Or we can write in someone else entirely! Or we can not vote!

+1. How she got there on the ballot is irrelevant. She's on there now. So make your choice

It is 100% relevant. No one voted to get her on the ballot. You really think that’s OK?

Who cares? She's on the ballot. Deal with it

I cannot imagine the cacophony of millions of Dem heads exploding if the Republicans had pulled a move like this. But for you guys? Totes cool!

B.S. You must not recall the heads exploding over whether Obama was actually an American born citizen. I even think some lawsuits were filed.
For me it was irrelevant because he did get on the ballot, and when I went to vote, I had two choices -- just like we do now

Wasn’t he democratically elected to the ballot? Or did the Dems just say “here’s your candidate!”?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the nomination process.

Enlighten me please

The parties decide individually how they want to select their nominees.

Read up on U.S. history. Focus on presidential elections in the post WWII era.

The ignorance is disappointing.

So why do we even have a primary if the party is going to decide regardless of my vote?

The parties used to not have primaries at all, and the parties used to not have primaries of this sort. This isn't ancient history. Superdelegates are still a thing, although their power is diminished now. The primary process has been evolving. Regardless, this doesn't have to do with primaries. Both parties have a process in place for what happens if the candidate that was selected through the primary process drops out. They're not about to redo a whole entire primary when that happens.

Anyway, I sincerely doubt you're a Democrat who'd rather vote for Trump because you voted for Biden, and he's not on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala's economic plan is taking shape, starting with *5 trillion dollars* in new taxes.

These include a 39.6% top rate on small business, the highest-ever capital gains tax, and taking the corporate rate from one of the best in the world to one of the worst -- higher than China, Canada, and even Europe.

But the very dumbest is taxing "unrealized capital gains" -- money you didn't actually make.

You just pulled this number out of the crack of your butt. BS.

DP - The New York Times is reporting that number--$5 trillion over 10 years: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/us/politics/kamala-harris-tax-plan.html

Here's another source from The Brookings & Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduction/harris-backs-5-trillion-tax-increases-wealthy-corporations

Now tell us what the deficit will be if Trump is elected.

I didn't see that in the NYT but encourage you to share a reputable linked source if you have one. I'd sincerely be interested in the figure, as would others.

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20in%20fall,per%20month%20in%20added%20tax.
Trump’s first tariffs cost the US consumer 4.2 billion a month. His new proposed tax tariff would cost US households an additional $1,700 on top of what he did the last time. However, I’m sure you already know this and is just trolling at this point.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-tariffs-proposal-10-percent-1700-cost-per-us-household/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.

Really? I remember very well on here when Amy Coney Barrett was endlessly slammed for only going to Notre Dame Law School. And now with Kamala of course you're saying their law school doesn't matter. Such F**king hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

Read carefully. No one said anything about his accomplishments as VP. Everything he brought to the ticket before taking office was based on his tenure as governor. Harris has no accomplishments to point to. Just feels.

Rad again. What Pence brought to the ticket was the evangelical vote. And you lie or are being very disingenuous when you say a Senator and former attorney general of the largest state in the union has no accomplishments. Shucks, Pence was a failing governor and was not going to get re-elected when Trump tapped him to legitimize Trump with the religious right. You know with all that grabbing them by the puzzy, adultery, idolatry and what not. Or maybe you’re just one of those people who think men can be just barely, but women have to be beyond super human. GTFOH with your misogyny.

Exactly.

Don’t hear the PP complaining about Vance’s experience.

Vance was a senator like Harris was when she was the VP on the ticket. I think Vance is a shill and a fool. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have expectations of the nominee. The same expectations I had for Biden in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

The fact that she has given you nothing but feels and you're running with this whole narrative of "she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense" means you either are her campaign worker or as simple as you make Trump voters out to be. What specific initiative has she delivered on while VP that supports your claim of how she will govern and keep her promises?

What specific initiative did Pence deliver while VP?

VP roles are largely behind the scenes, and for the most part, just being prepared to step in if the president is incapacitated.

No one was running around touting him as someone who delivers based on being VP either. That is the point. You have absolutely nothing to base your statements about her leadership on other than feels.

Yes they were. When Pence was nominated as VP, this board and beyond were screaming that Pence would bring the evangelical base around for Trump, and he did.

Read carefully. No one said anything about his accomplishments as VP. Everything he brought to the ticket before taking office was based on his tenure as governor. Harris has no accomplishments to point to. Just feels.

Rad again. What Pence brought to the ticket was the evangelical vote. And you lie or are being very disingenuous when you say a Senator and former attorney general of the largest state in the union has no accomplishments. Shucks, Pence was a failing governor and was not going to get re-elected when Trump tapped him to legitimize Trump with the religious right. You know with all that grabbing them by the puzzy, adultery, idolatry and what not. Or maybe you’re just one of those people who think men can be just barely, but women have to be beyond super human. GTFOH with your misogyny.

Exactly.

Don’t hear the PP complaining about Vance’s experience.

Vance was a senator like Harris was when she was the VP on the ticket. I think Vance is a shill and a fool. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have expectations of the nominee. The same expectations I had for Biden in fact.

And Trump is 78 with visible dementia. Vance is likely to be President sometime in the next four years if Trump wins. The guy was a DEI hire for Yale and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.

Really? I remember very well on here when Amy Coney Barrett was endlessly slammed for only going to Notre Dame Law School. And now with Kamala of course you're saying their law school doesn't matter. Such F**king hypocrites.

Nope. One is the highest Court in the land. The other is the highest executive position in the country. Jurisprudence and competence as a legal scholar matters only in one of those arenas, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.

Really? I remember very well on here when Amy Coney Barrett was endlessly slammed for only going to Notre Dame Law School. And now with Kamala of course you're saying their law school doesn't matter. Such F**king hypocrites.

Dude, WTF are you talking about. Unless you cannot keep up, the subject was that she did not pass the bar exam. She did pass the bar exam. When showed that a lot of people didn’t pass in their first try and went in to be successful you moved the goalpost to, but, but, but the went to an Ivy school. The bottom line is she passed the bar exam, so stop lying about her not passing. It’s hard keeping up with you guys lies and obfuscation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was CA AG and got the huge mortgage settlement. Other states were caving to big banks and going to accept a smaller settlement - she didn’t blink.

As goes California so does the rest of the nation. Homeowners screwed by banks all over the nation benefited from AG Harris work.

And she was CA AG when Beau Biden was DE AG - where all those f:::ing banks are incorporated. You don’t think AG Biden didn’t tell VP Biden about AG Harris’ negotiating skills and will of steel. He sure the f did. That’s how she ended up as VP Harris.

Debate….bring it.

Really? The only President from California in recent memory was Ronald Reagan, and Kamala ain't no Reagan on any level

Thank God for that. Reagan was a disaster with his trickle down economics, drug trafficking and IRAN contra dealings. And don’t get me started on his just say no and amnesty for all immigration.

He was an incredibly popular two -term president who will go down as one of the truly greatest president of the 20th Century. And just to be fair, I also think Bill Clinton was a political giant too.

Not in my community. He was a drug trafficker. His administration flooded the Black communities with cocaine and heroine to fund his gun sales in Central America. Back then this country considered drug abuse a crime, now that Reagan opened the flood gates and nobody has been able to stop it, it’s become a mental health issue for white folks. Of course he was popular for white folks. He didn’t intentionally destroy your communities. Didn’t care until his policies began destroying white folks families and social networks.

He wasn’t popular with Ds in general. Environment. “Trickle down”. Iran Contra. S&L. Central America.

+1000000000000000000

Reagan did terrible things to this country and our democracy.

Reagan average approval rating = 53% Clinton average approval rating 55% Trump average approval rating 41% Biden average approval rating 42%.... Trump and Biden have been so fricking awful that many of you nut jobs have forgotten what a real POTUS was like. If you were around in the 80s and 90s and have an IQ above 80, you'd know that Reagan and Clinton were real presidents and Trump and Biden are fricking jokes. Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes.

This is the truth. And both from different parties, so I'm being neutral and giving credit for where credit is due

I'm trying to think who we even have on the political landscape today that are their equals? Sadly, I'm coming up empty-handed.

We have some state governors out there that are in their political prime and have resumes similar to Clinton and Reagan. They just need permission to run for POTUS from the RNC and DNC who also need to get the thumbs up from their mega donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.

Really? I remember very well on here when Amy Coney Barrett was endlessly slammed for only going to Notre Dame Law School. And now with Kamala of course you're saying their law school doesn't matter. Such F**king hypocrites.

Dude, WTF are you talking about. Unless you cannot keep up, the subject was that she did not pass the bar exam. She did pass the bar exam. When showed that a lot of people didn’t pass in their first try and went in to be successful you moved the goalpost to, but, but, but the went to an Ivy school. The bottom line is she passed the bar exam, so stop lying about her not passing. It’s hard keeping up with you guys lies and obfuscation.

And while we're at it. Why won't Trump release his college transcripts? Many, many people are questioning his competence, especially after one of his professors said, "Donald Trump was the dumbest g#d#mn student I ever had." https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/12/1705902/-Former-Wharton-Professor-Donald-Trump-Is-the-Dumbest-Goddam-Student-I-Ever-Had

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

+1. She’s obviously smarter, more articulate and more capable of governing than Trump has ever beebn, nor will ever be. Sounding confident is not the same as competence.
There are strategic reasons for including Walz in interviews that have nothing to do with lack of competence to govern with respect to Harris.

She failed the bar exam.

How ignorant are you PP. you cannot be an ADA, DA, or AG without passing the state bar exam. Jeeze. Go back to your Moscow basement.

I am not the pp, but she did flunk it the first time. To be fair though, California's is a tough bar exam. I think this only comes up when comparing her credentials to JD Vance who was on Yale's Law Review. I think she should be judged on her positions and comments made in public appearances (where she doesn't come off sounding real bright to be honest).

So she failed the first time. BFD. FDR, one of the top five US presidents, failed the NY bar first time out. Jerry Brown former California governor and Kathleen Sullivan, former Stanford Law school Dean failed the California bar the first time. And republican governor Pete Wilson failed that bar there or four times before passing. Hilary Clinton flunked the DC bar first time out.

Haha . Well that's all well and good, but those people all went to Yale and Berkeley. C'mon, UC Hastings isn't exactly Ivy league now is it?

You’re really clueless and just plain dumb ASF. The Bar Exam doesn’t care if you earned your law degree from Harvard or VCU. All the questions and answers are the same. The obsession on DCUM is frightening.

Really? I remember very well on here when Amy Coney Barrett was endlessly slammed for only going to Notre Dame Law School. And now with Kamala of course you're saying their law school doesn't matter. Such F**king hypocrites.

Dude, WTF are you talking about. Unless you cannot keep up, the subject was that she did not pass the bar exam. She did pass the bar exam. When showed that a lot of people didn’t pass in their first try and went in to be successful you moved the goalpost to, but, but, but the went to an Ivy school. The bottom line is she passed the bar exam, so stop lying about her not passing. It’s hard keeping up with you guys lies and obfuscation.

C'mon. If the Republican nominee chose to go to law school, and went to UC Hastings (ranked #82 by USNWR) - and then flunked the bar exam the first time, you'd be dumping all over them -- just like you did on this very forum with Amy Coney Barrett - a respected law professor at Notre Dame - because she didn't have Ivy League credentials. I remember those discussions well. Hypocrites.