Bob Long Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 this is kind of interesting, Harris appears to be more popular outside of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/07/18/most-people-have-confidence-in-kamala-harris-across-18-surveyed-countries/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIAHN Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 ......so here it goes IN THE SINGLE BIGGEST, MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN US HISTORY, THE DEMOCCRATS DOUBLE DOWN ON WEAK CANDIDATES....... BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE NOT A WINNING CARD IMO, TO GET THE MIDDLE SWING VOTE, THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE (ITS TOO LATE), RAN A MICHELLE OBAMA AND JOE MANCHIN CARD THIS IS A FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY........IT IS A FIGHT FOR WRONG AND RIGHT IMO, THE DEMS ARE SHOOTING THEM SELVES AND AMERICA IN THE FOOT IMO, COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED......I AM NOT SURE IT WILL, AT THIS POINT .......yeah, I yelled! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 6 minutes ago, JIAHN said: ......so here it goes IN THE SINGLE BIGGEST, MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN US HISTORY, THE DEMOCCRATS DOUBLE DOWN ON WEAK CANDIDATES....... BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE NOT A WINNING CARD IMO, TO GET THE MIDDLE SWING VOTE, THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE (ITS TOO LATE), RAN A MICHELLE OBAMA AND JOE MANCHIN CARD THIS IS A FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY........IT IS A FIGHT FOR WRONG AND RIGHT IMO, THE DEMS ARE SHOOTING THEM SELVES AND AMERICA IN THE FOOT IMO, COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED......I AM NOT SURE IT WILL, AT THIS POINT .......yeah, I yelled! What experience does Michelle have that would make her qualified to run the country? Obviously I’m not saying that means any of the others do too, I’m just asking what has she done that makes you think she could run the USA? Does she have experience running a city, county, state, or even a large company? Her husband did….. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIAHN Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 13 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: What experience does Michelle have that would make her qualified to run the country? Obviously I’m not saying that means any of the others do too, I’m just asking what has she done that makes you think she could run the USA? Does she have experience running a city, county, state, or even a large company? Her husband did….. I think that is a fair question.... I think that Michelle has 8 years of mentorship with her husband. (No that it not a ringing endorsement, but she has dabbled as first lady, and should know her way around the political wing) I think what is more important is to galvanize the left (something I think she can do) (as well has having her husband to lean on). Again, she has given political speeches before. (And old carrot top, could not handle her) I also think she would have a pretty fair ability to surround herself with solid advisors. I also think, Manchin would help solidify the middle, and keep the ship on course. IMO....regardless, he Democrats need to have much stronger candidates, and they are in trouble, as we speak................it worries the fk out of me. PS..........not to mention, Michelle Obama is a extremely intelligent person. Edited March 18 by JIAHN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, JIAHN said: I think that is a fair question.... I think that Michelle has 8 years of mentorship with her husband. (No that it not a ringing endorsement, but she has dabbled as first lady, and should know her way around the political wing) I think what is more important is to galvanize the left (something I think she can do) (as well has having her husband to lean on). Again, she has given political speeches before. (And old carrot top, could not handle her) I also think she would have a pretty fair ability to surround herself with solid advisors. I also think, Manchin would help solidify the middle, and keep the ship on course. IMO....regardless, he Democrats need to have much stronger candidates, and they are in trouble, as we speak................it worries the fk out of me. I do agree they need better leadership. I just don’t know if it’s her. And at this point, it’s too late for a newcomer to come in and beat Trump. Trump Vs Biden 2 The final showdown This time, it’s personal. hahaha We are all so fucked regardless 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIAHN Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, D.B Cooper said: I do agree they need better leadership. I just don’t know if it’s her. And at this point, it’s too late for a newcomer to come in and beat Trump. Trump Vs Biden 2 The final showdown This time, it’s personal. hahaha We are all so fucked regardless LOL We are! The world is! IMO....Trump, is the anti-christ He is literally, the worst thing since Hilter And what he will do to US democracy, will spill over into Canada and abroad It scares the FK out of me! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 9 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: I do agree they need better leadership. I just don’t know if it’s her. And at this point, it’s too late for a newcomer to come in and beat Trump. Trump Vs Biden 2 The final showdown This time, it’s personal. hahaha We are all so fucked regardless My money is on the geriatric old geezer Sleepy Joe over obese Urine man born with a silver spoon up his ass. Edited March 18 by NewbieCanuckFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: you are claiming that the main reason people don't like Harris is that she's a woman, but she's highly unpopular among democratic voters that have supported women. This article suggests otherwise: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/14/kamala-harris-not-popular-beyond-democrats-poll/72944269007/ Quote The poll isn’t all doom and gloom for Harris, who is immensely popular among fellow Democrats. Overall, 76% of voters who identified as Democrats approve of Harris' job performance which slightly trails the 84% of Democratic voters who approve of Biden's performance in office. Also of note, I read through the article and I didn't see a single mention of her history as a former prosecutor given as the reason for people's disapproval. Most say she "isn't qualified". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, JIAHN said: ......so here it goes IN THE SINGLE BIGGEST, MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN US HISTORY, THE DEMOCCRATS DOUBLE DOWN ON WEAK CANDIDATES....... BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE NOT A WINNING CARD IMO, TO GET THE MIDDLE SWING VOTE, THE DEMS SHOULD HAVE (ITS TOO LATE), RAN A MICHELLE OBAMA AND JOE MANCHIN CARD THIS IS A FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY........IT IS A FIGHT FOR WRONG AND RIGHT IMO, THE DEMS ARE SHOOTING THEM SELVES AND AMERICA IN THE FOOT IMO, COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE PREVAILED......I AM NOT SURE IT WILL, AT THIS POINT .......yeah, I yelled! Everyone would have loved to see Michelle run (except Republicans) and I believe Biden would have stepped aside for her, but she has always maintained that she doesn't want the job. 57 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: What experience does Michelle have that would make her qualified to run the country? Obviously I’m not saying that means any of the others do too, I’m just asking what has she done that makes you think she could run the USA? Does she have experience running a city, county, state, or even a large company? Her husband did….. More than Bone Spurs did in 2016. And, some would argue, more today as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 42 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: I do agree they need better leadership. I just don’t know if it’s her. And at this point, it’s too late for a newcomer to come in and beat Trump. Trump Vs Biden 2 The final showdown This time, it’s personal. hahaha We are all so fucked regardless Just curious DB....why do you think we're "fucked" if Biden is re-elected? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 A SCOTUS justice arguing against the entire purpose of the first amendment. The biggest purpose of the bill of rights is to restrict government influence and power over US citizens. Fortunately the originalists on the court are smacking down her opinions with their questioning of the government. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gnarcore said: Nothing to do with Demented Don but there is actually a group of Native Americans trying to get the NFL team in DC to go back to the old logo as it was a specific chief and their issue wasn't the logo but the name of Redskins. Whereas the Indians logo...uhm ya.... Also the most storied thing about that franchise is the movie Major League... This guy says hi......... Edited March 18 by nuckin_futz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) Looks like the President of the US is in England right now on a surprise visit. The press has no idea why he is there... Edited March 18 by Elias Pettersson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 59 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: This article suggests otherwise: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/14/kamala-harris-not-popular-beyond-democrats-poll/72944269007/ Also of note, I read through the article and I didn't see a single mention of her history as a former prosecutor given as the reason for people's disapproval. Most say she "isn't qualified". 36% approval rating sounds good to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said: BREAKING: Trump Says Paying $465 Million Fraud Bond is a ‘Practical Impossibility’ in New Court Filing https://www.mediaite.com/trump/breaking-trump-says-paying-465-million-fraud-bond-is-a-practical-impossibility-in-new-court-filing/ Why doesn't he just mortgage a property if he's worth $10 Billion? It's interesting that not a single surety bond provider is willing to accept Trump's real estate as collateral. Clearly they will accept real estate as collateral for the right risk/return so this is a big signal that they view Trump's properties as either being worth less than he claims (I know big surprise) that they aren't enough collateral or they are so risky (too likely that they will drop in value) that companies like Chubb won't touch them. No one in the financial industry which is based on risk wants anything to do with this financial sinkhole. Edited March 18 by nuckin_futz 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said: A SCOTUS justice arguing against the entire purpose of the first amendment. The biggest purpose of the bill of rights is to restrict government influence and power over US citizens. Fortunately the originalists on the court are smacking down her opinions with their questioning of the government. Fascinating. She is literally trying to argue that the first amendment has in fact some potential issues with government control over harmful information based on internet platforms and people are suggesting that the "originalists" are correctly and rightfully smacking her down. Except, and here's the thing as she goes on to explain. As platforms are in fact proprietary and individuals are subject to specific terms and conditions it means that people can be held liable for their statements and actions or that the controlling/hosting entities can. She also goes on to state that the internet is not something that the founding fathers ever envisioned and the amount of misinformation and deep fake ai technology is not and should not be subject to first amendment laws. I am not american but she has to have a quality argument here. This is an individual pointing out the obvious while the "originalists" sit on their hands and allow state level government to ban books and criminalize saying words like gay in public. Kibnda gotta pick your battles better America because this one kind of holds no water if you're willing to ignore the other serious breaches of first amendment laws being displayed in your GOP run states Edited March 18 by Warhippy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bob Long said: 36% approval rating sounds good to you? In this day and age when politics are so divided that it's nearly impossible to get anywhere near 50%. 36% is about average. Mitch McConnell 21.3% Chuck Schumer 32% Hakeem Jerrries 27.7% Mike Johnson 25% 36% looks pretty good compared to the rest of the clown car. Edited March 18 by nuckin_futz 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Bob Long said: 36% approval rating sounds good to you? We're talking about Democrat approval. Your words: but she's highly unpopular among democratic voters that have supported women. Edited March 18 by RupertKBD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 11 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Fascinating. She is literally trying to argue that the first amendment has in fact some potential issues with government control over harmful information based on internet platforms and people are suggesting that the "originalists" are correctly and rightfully smacking her down. Except, and here's the thing as she goes on to explain. As platforms are in fact proprietary and individuals are subject to specific terms and conditions it means that people can be held liable for their statements and actions or that the controlling/hosting entities can. She also goes on to state that the internet is not something that the founding fathers ever envisioned and the amount of misinformation and deep fake ai technology is not and should not be subject to first amendment laws. I am not american but she has to have a quality argument here. This is an individual pointing out the obvious while the "originalists" sit on their hands and allow state level government to ban books and criminalize saying words like gay in public. Kibnda gotta pick your battles better America because this one kind of holds no water if you're willing to ignore the other serious breaches of first amendment laws being displayed in your GOP run states The other issue is that the misinformation can be originated from outside the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Fascinating. She is literally trying to argue that the first amendment has in fact some potential issues with government control over harmful information based on internet platforms and people are suggesting that the "originalists" are correctly and rightfully smacking her down. Except, and here's the thing as she goes on to explain. As platforms are in fact proprietary and individuals are subject to specific terms and conditions it means that people can be held liable for their statements and actions or that the controlling/hosting entities can. She also goes on to state that the internet is not something that the founding fathers ever envisioned and the amount of misinformation and deep fake ai technology is not and should not be subject to first amendment laws. I am not american but she has to have a quality argument here. This is an individual pointing out the obvious while the "originalists" sit on their hands and allow state level government to ban books and criminalize saying words like gay in public. Kibnda gotta pick your battles better America because this one kind of holds no water if you're willing to ignore the other serious breaches of first amendment laws being displayed in your GOP run states I'll address the second thing you said first because it's the easiest. The GOP run states are among the majority of the poorest and least educated for a reason. We all know why that is. The federal government can't do much to change things inside these states unless they run afoul of federal laws. As for the original post. In my opinion, she does not have a quality argument. First amendment rights are fairly close to absolute, short of causing physical harm to others. Quote Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. She wants to give the federal government the right to control and/or influence citizen's speech. The federal government has no right to do so. Abridge - to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit;to abridge one's freedom. What she wants is a direct violation of the exact wording of the first amendment. Edited March 18 by Sabrefan1 made first sentence more clear. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrefan1 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 9 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: The other issue is that the misinformation can be originated from outside the US. The federal government can make laws curtailing foreign speech. The problem with doing so is that it will keep going until each country has their own sectioned off part of the internet just like China. But technically, foreign speech isn't protected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 30 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: We're talking about Democrat approval. Your words: but she's highly unpopular among democratic voters that have supported women. Ok, well I still don't see reason to be happy about her. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 37 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Ok, well I still don't see reason to be happy about her. "Happy?" I don't think I said anything about being "happy" that she's Biden's running mate.... I said I don't think her history as a prosecutor has much, if anything to do with her approval rating. I stand by that assertion. I also said that I don't believe replacing her would boost the Democrats' chances in the general election, unless you could somehow manage to find another black woman with a higher approval rating and political experience, who actually wants the job. Would I be "happy" if Michelle were on the ticket? You bet, but she's not interested in the job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sabrefan1 said: I'll address the second thing you said first because it's the easiest. The GOP run states are among the majority of the poorest and least educated for a reason. We all know why that is. The federal government can't do much to change things inside these states unless they run afoul of federal laws. As for the original post. In my opinion, she does not have a quality argument. First amendment rights are fairly close to absolute, short of causing physical harm to others. She wants to give the federal government the right to control and/or influence citizen's speech. The federal government has no right to do so. Abridge - to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit;to abridge one's freedom. Don't patronize me bud Patronize- treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority. Edited March 18 by Warhippy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Sabrefan1 said: The federal government can make laws curtailing foreign speech. The problem with doing so is that it will keep going until each country has their own sectioned off part of the internet just like China. But technically, foreign speech isn't protected. Picking and choosing in America I guess is ok, so long as it means "the interwebz are protected from oversight" Just don't say gay or read one of those bad books. Will be interesting to see what happens when those vile lefty sites break those first amendment laws by enforcing their terms and conditions The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the ... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.