Kamala Harris - Democratic candidate for POTUS - discussion thread

[N.al-tider]

Weird.

Weird? The fact that a grown man showered with his young daughter or that it was probably illegal?

 

[AWRTR]

I’ve never seen the age of 12 mentioned by any credible source. (Any source, actually)

I don’t see any age anywhere either. I will say having a nine year old daughter I have never showered with her in her life. I do not invade her space and privacy like that. When they are infants or early toddlers you have to help them, but I quickly passed that responsibility to her mother.

If she’s old enough to remember this she was too old for this nonsense. It’s the actual definition of weird. It makes any cat lady comments look as normal as getting the mail.

 

[Bazza]

Saw a bit of the rally and thought they did great.

LOT of excitement and they were saying all the right things!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Weird.

We left weird in the rear view mirror several posts back.

 

[92tide]

I think you missed the claimed age. No age was mentioned, but few would consider a “young child” (what? 2 years old? 4? No one knows) to be a teenager.

weird people would

 

[N.al-tider]

weird people would

The proper term for those individuals is now, "minor attracted persons."

🤮

 

[92tide]

just over two weeks in and this is what they are settling on for messaging. i think it might work

 

[Bazza]

Some dirt coming out now on Watz.......buckle up gents and ladies!

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The proper term for those individuals is now, "minor attracted persons."

🤮

I prefer other terms, but I’m reasonably sure all of them would win me a nice little vacation around here.

 

[NationalTitles18]

 

[NationalTitles18]

Some dirt coming out now on Watz.......buckle up gents and ladies!

Will the infrastructure bill, health care plan, and evidence for wmds be released at the same time in 2 weeks?

 

[HSV_1969]

At the very best you are guilty of over statement and over simplification without demonstrating any data to support your statements on the deficits, the economy indeed your entire list. This is offered by a long term Reagan Republican.

Well, to be frank, I was expressing my opinion, not writing a term paper.

If you ask many people the basic question, "Do you feel you were better off economically under a Trump presidency, or Biden presidency?" You would likely get a lot of party line answers, but I feel like it is a Trump presidency. One factor approaching is the expiration of the "Trump tax cuts" in 2026. Typical banter has many Democrats wanting to raise the rate on the top brackets significantly.

I was a little too young to vote for Reagan, but I consider him the best president of my lifetime. I do find it odd (maybe weird) that a Reagan Republican would be trying to seemingly argue that proof is needed that the future economic conditions under the current Republican ticket wouldn't be more positive than under the most left leaning Democratic presidential ticket ever.

The national debt and deficit spending is a big issue to me. Neither party has done well in this regard. This is where cooperation and compromise is key. Much of the time one party doesn't have full control of the congress and presidency, so spending bills have to compromise to pass, and in today's climate, that isn't happening much.

It has been pointed out before on this board that when Clinton was president the US had some budget surpluses. This was accomplished with a Republican congress. For the good of the country, I hope we can get back to a spirit of Washington working for the American people and not being so partisan.

I feel like the federal government reach is way too big as it is now, and needs to be cut back to stay within the available funding. Many politicians in both parties want the government control to increase (which will almost certainly increase necessary federal budget with that additional reach and further drive up the national debt.)

I agree with the line of thinking that if you set people up to succeed, and provide a framework where hard work and innovation are profitable, growth will happen. If we continue to move in the direction of incentivizing laziness and punitively taking from those who are trying to innovate, declining overall economic conditions will result.

 

[AWRTR]

just over two weeks in and this is what they are settling on for messaging. i think it might work

I think it’s going to work as well. I expect her to win. I don’t expect it to go well. The policies she has supported in the Senate and what she espoused in her 2020 campaign is what she really believes. She’s shifting for the election and I expect she will shift leftward when elected. That sucks because when a president doesn’t do well the country doesn’t do well. We are talking about someone that was a cosponsor of the green new deal. Only a handful of people in Congress were willing to put their name on that insanity and she was one of them. This isn’t a moderate and I doubt she governs as one. Hope I’m wrong.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Joe isn't the only Dem. There are some smart politicians in the democratic party. Considering what all underhanded tricks the Dems have done to keep Trump from even be able to run again, I do not doubt the election interference claims of Trump. You guys got away with it, hopefully not again.

Like his buddy, Bibi, Trump is running to stay out of prison. If he doesn't win, look for the uprising and document cases to proceed...

 

[92tide]

I think it’s going to work as well. I expect her to win. I don’t expect it to go well. The policies she has supported in the Senate and what she espoused in her 2020 campaign is what she really believes. She’s shifting for the election and I expect she will shift leftward when elected. That sucks because when a president doesn’t do well the country doesn’t do well. We are talking about someone that was a cosponsor of the green new deal. Only a handful of people in Congress were willing to put their name on that insanity and she was one of them. This isn’t a moderate and I doubt she governs as one. Hope I’m wrong.

i'm pretty sure you are

 

[jthomas666]

Well, to be frank, I was expressing my opinion, not writing a term paper.

If you ask many people the basic question, "Do you feel you were better off economically under a Trump presidency, or Biden presidency?" You would likely get a lot of party line answers, but I feel like it is a Trump presidency. One factor approaching is the expiration of the "Trump tax cuts" in 2026. Typical banter has many Democrats wanting to raise the rate on the top brackets significantly.

The Trump tax cuts were a failure. They put a lot more money in the pockets of the rich, but they never translated into growth--because trickle down didn't work in the 80s and it still doesn't work. Ballooned the deficit nicely, though.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Does it really matter if she was 12 or any age if her dad was showering with her? Either way, it is disgusting. If she was underage, then it should be illegal, and probably was.

Tell that to any single father...

 

[Jon]

just Wow

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/07/tim-walz-vp-pick-investment-portfolio

 

[Bazza]

Pretty good segment from last night........I love this kind of analytics discussion!

===============
Jim Kessler, former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer, tells NewsNation's "Dan Abrams Live" that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was chosen as a vice presidential pick for presidential candidate Kamala Harris to solve problems in the ticket.

 

[HSV_1969]

The Trump tax cuts were a failure. They put a lot more money in the pockets of the rich, but they never translated into growth--because trickle down didn't work in the 80s and it still doesn't work. Ballooned the deficit nicely, though.

Any tax cuts seem to me to be a win for any person that pays taxes, by allowing the taxpayer to avoid the government confiscating a higher percentage of their money.

More available money for consumers does have an impact on the economy by allowing those people to spend money that fuels the economy.

The purpose of the government shouldn't be to punish "the rich" through taxation. How is the government taking 37% (currently set to return to 39.6% in 2026) of a person's income in the top tax bracket equate to that person "not paying their fair share" as the Dems love to say?

I know that the historical US tax rates on the top income earners has sometimes been insanely high (at times >90%). That is really unfair taxation to an immoral level.

I've heard politicians and pundits debate tax revenue discussions acting like there is no correlation between the tax rates and a tax payer's reported income. As in: "If the top tax rate was increased by XX%, the net increase in tax revenue would be $YY Billion."

In fact, revenue increases to the federal treasury can go up with lower tax rates. One simple example: If the capital gains rate is, say 25%, many tax payers may sell an asset to realize gains and then pay the tax to the government. If the capital gains rate was significantly higher, many of those same tax payers would just hold the investment, never realize the gain, and pay no net tax.

One thing Democrats do seem to be great at doing is trying to fuel envy. Phrases like "put a lot more money in the pockets of the rich" are just one example of that type fuel.