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

[Anonymous]

She is going to lose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is going to lose

No. She will win and it will be the best thing for this country.

[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.

And then she passed, and then had a career.

Trump failed at everything except inheriting $400M from his father and keeping some of the money he stole from business projects.

Good God. You cannot possibly make this statement in any seriousness if you know anything about his business.

Which business exactly. Trump university-fraud. Trump airlines - bust. Trump steaks- bust. Trump casino - bankrupt. Trump real estate -bankrupt seven times. Trump trading cards -grifter 101. Trump social media- stock down 70% and Trump currently being sued by the actual founders.

+1 if he'd put those hundreds of millions of dollars daddy gave him into a nice index fund he'd be MUCH better off today than he is. we'd all be much better off.

who in the he** bankrupts a casino?!

^ though as I write this, it occurs to me how ridiculously naive I must be. no one bankrupts a casino - unless they're doing it to hide money or conceal some other shady stuff.

Before politician Trump, it was often rumored in the NYC streets that he was laundering money for the Russian mob.

Yep and his buddy Guiliani took down the Italian mob to make room for the Russians.

[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:

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.

DP. Maybe this used to matter, but Trump has definitely shown us that Ivy League credentials don’t mean a whole lot for a presidential candidate or a presidency. He has them, Biden doesn’t, and Biden is a FAR better president.

Would it be great if Harris went to Harvard Law School? Sure, I guess. But I went to an Ivy/T14 law school (not Harvard) and I can tell you firsthand that plenty of dumb people make it into these schools and, conversely, plenty of smart people attend lower ranked law schools for any number of reasons. If you’re not doing biglaw or pursuing an elite legal career (the presidency is not one, but the SC definitely is), it doesn’t really matter. So her law school isn’t really relevant to me.

With respect to Amy Coney Barrett, I’d argue her credentials matter much more because her job is literally a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Even so, my problem is more with her jurisprudence and ideology than with her credentials. NDLS is a fine law school. So no, we are not hypocrites.

[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:

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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. ACB was not qualified not because she attended well respected Notre Dame. I didn’t like her because she only had 2.5 years as a judge; McConnell rushed her through during an election year in either a corrupt, hypocritical move; she was an Originalist in regards to the constitution; she worked on Gore v Bush and thus biased, and she portrayed the Handmaid’s Stepford Wife persona perfectly. I actually think we should have more judges who attend non-Ivy schools. Judges who attended UVA, UCLA, OSU, and UMD need to be reflected on our courts, including SCOTUS. Ivy doesn’t make you better. It simply reflects family money or connections.

[Anonymous]

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?

She has enormous support. Are you paying attention at all?

Hahaha. She has enormous support because she’s the only option against Trump. If people loved her that much why did she tank in the primaries?

Reagan ran a failed campaign in 1976. What's your point?

[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.

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.

Biden has it too and everyone on this board was arguing that it didn't matter when he was running.
Using the DEI hire insult really isn't where you want to go with this argument.

[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:

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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. ACB was not qualified not because she attended well respected Notre Dame. I didn’t like her because she only had 2.5 years as a judge; McConnell rushed her through during an election year in either a corrupt, hypocritical move; she was an Originalist in regards to the constitution; she worked on Gore v Bush and thus biased, and she portrayed the Handmaid’s Stepford Wife persona perfectly. I actually think we should have more judges who attend non-Ivy schools. Judges who attended UVA, UCLA, OSU, and UMD need to be reflected on our courts, including SCOTUS. Ivy doesn’t make you better. It simply reflects family money or connections.

Exactly. She is a partisan hack.

[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:

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.

DP. Maybe this used to matter, but Trump has definitely shown us that Ivy League credentials don’t mean a whole lot for a presidential candidate or a presidency. He has them, Biden doesn’t, and Biden is a FAR better president.

Would it be great if Harris went to Harvard Law School? Sure, I guess. But I went to an Ivy/T14 law school (not Harvard) and I can tell you firsthand that plenty of dumb people make it into these schools and, conversely, plenty of smart people attend lower ranked law schools for any number of reasons. If you’re not doing biglaw or pursuing an elite legal career (the presidency is not one, but the SC definitely is), it doesn’t really matter. So her law school isn’t really relevant to me.

With respect to Amy Coney Barrett, I’d argue her credentials matter much more because her job is literally a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Even so, my problem is more with her jurisprudence and ideology than with her credentials. NDLS is a fine law school. So no, we are not hypocrites.

ok, fair points. Respect
Still, sheain't bright and rather than be a lawyer, decided to go into politics which is a whole differnt skill set. It's been reported by her staff who worked for her that she doesn't delve too deeply into any of the issues and is quite lazy. That's what I've seen also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is going to lose

No she won’t. Trump picked a terrible running that is actually making him less appealing rather than better or at least neutral.

What does that prof with the long track record for picking the winner say? He has like 6-10 markers he evaluates.

I will not vote for Harris unless she takes a hard stance on immigration and asylum. I am not opposed to either but I am opposed to letting people in unchecked and basically paying people to come here (hello, NYC!) when we already have people with needs here. I know the situation is complicated.

I will not vote for Trump either. Harris does not need my vote. If she loses it will be due to unfettered immigration and ultra liberal asylum policies that make them a joke (eg, people not taking asylum in first country).

[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.

+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.

And then she passed, and then had a career.

Trump failed at everything except inheriting $400M from his father and keeping some of the money he stole from business projects.

Good God. You cannot possibly make this statement in any seriousness if you know anything about his business.

Which business exactly. Trump university-fraud. Trump airlines - bust. Trump steaks- bust. Trump casino - bankrupt. Trump real estate -bankrupt seven times. Trump trading cards -grifter 101. Trump social media- stock down 70% and Trump currently being sued by the actual founders.

And yet, he’s still worth upwards of 5+ billion. Total failure he is.

Someone who inherited more than $400 million in 1999 and is only worth (probably a lot less than) $5 billion now is absolutely a failure, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Harris was actually being smart and strategic she should be out there doing interviews and appearing on various podcasts like Trump has been doing. By doing so she would reach a wider range of audience especially the younger demographic. Trump recently did interviews with Dr. Phil, Theo
Von and Shawn Ryan. Instead the only interview she will be doing as of now is one pre taped edited interview with CNN. This makes her look weak and not confident in herself or whatever her proposed policies may be for the country.

Her handlers fear what she may say and do in a live, unscripted solo interview.
Not worth the risk. And, that in itself speaks volumes.

5 pages this morning with MAGA throwing out any 💩 trying to make it stick to Harris. And, that in itself speaks volumes.

DP - People can think it's a weak move and not be MAGA. This is Harris' time to instill us with confidence in her ability to lead.

She is. Just because you need more. There is plenty of confidence. Maybe you should volunteer for her campaign so that you speak with real American's who will tell you what they think. Like the Republican I spoke with yesterday who said, "She's strong. I know she will stubble at some point but she has been flawless so far."

I'm not sure what else you want, but I also think you are most likely troll.

[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.

And then she passed, and then had a career.

Trump failed at everything except inheriting $400M from his father and keeping some of the money he stole from business projects.

Good God. You cannot possibly make this statement in any seriousness if you know anything about his business.

Which business exactly. Trump university-fraud. Trump airlines - bust. Trump steaks- bust. Trump casino - bankrupt. Trump real estate -bankrupt seven times. Trump trading cards -grifter 101. Trump social media- stock down 70% and Trump currently being sued by the actual founders.

And yet, he’s still worth upwards of 5+ billion. Total failure he is.

Someone who inherited more than $400 million in 1999 and is only worth (probably a lot less than) $5 billion now is absolutely a failure, yes.

This actually made me laugh. What is your net worth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taxing unrealized gains and losses is simple. If you asset goes up in value, youre taxed. If it goes down in value you should get a refund.

NEW: CNBC host Joe Kernen rolls his eyes and laughs after Harris’ economic advisor Bharat Rama tries arguing in favor of Harris’ unrealized capital gains tax.

Rama sat in silence as the hosts poked fun after he tried saying that property tax was an unrealized gains tax.

“It’s probably unconstitutional… it's not income.”

“And it's never gonna happen.”

[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:

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

I am no delegate wizard but if you want to look at how to successfully turn around a challenging situation, watch the democrats. They have gone from flailing to domination in a very short time. It's exciting.

The polls don't actually point to domination. I do agree that they have done a great job of making you feel that way

I want to win because trump is a threat to my family. The Harris campaign seems to know how to do it.

If the GOP is struggling, do something. Not sure if you missed your chance to change up your candidate but if that is still an option, do it.

+1