Post New

I dont watch this stuff day to day, but I watched the debate.

Barring some major unexpected political shock......

I think Harris has indeed been given the Presidency and tonight she did win the debate - so at least she did something.

But yeah, she won.

Funny part is that if the Senate goes GOP they'll save her from herself......at the same time the GOP will be infighting and, oh, they'll have a primary.

Point being it's possible she has 8 years.

I gotta focus less on my disdain for her, and more on the potential tax stuff that I think can be milked.

Otherwise, just enjoy life, and reflect on all the things to celebrate and feel lucky for.

The Presidency is now a nostalgic thing to me that I used to revere - regardless of occupant.

That ended tonight and will officially end in January - oh well.

Pretty much agree. She’s going to win and her policies are going to mean no retirement for me for some years.

But that’s the state of things, and it is what it is.

2027 will be the year. America will be at war in the Pacific and she’ll be the President. God save us all.

The giveaway that Trump had a bad night is the telling silence in the right wing blogosphere.

2027 will be the year. America will be at war in the Pacific and she’ll be the President. God save us all.
***

I had done groundwork long ago ion the TMF era.

But need to brush off the plans - ain't nobody here getting drafted to go fight Harris-Cheney profit wars that have nothing to do with America.

Never thought I'd say it but there's a medical condition or two that might make it easier - I'll start researching a bit just for shits and grins.

Sad part is such war isn't needed.

Between demography and fossil fuels and a superior economic system America should be able to bend the world over to our content---no war needed.

2027 will be the year. America will be at war in the Pacific and she’ll be the President. God save us all.

Nah, y'all are the war folk. No war in the Pacific. 2027? Not far off.

No war in the Pacific.

There might be. China shows no sign of backing down, and we are obligated by treaty to intervene on the Philippines' behalf. Plus it's just the right thing to do (i.e. China does NOT own the entirety of the South China Sea no matter how much they say they do).

If things don't improve, I expect shots to be fired by the end of next year. And I see no avenue in which Xi can back down and save "face" (very important to Chinese culture).

There might be. China shows no sign of backing down, and we are obligated by treaty to intervene on the Philippines' behalf. Plus it's just the right thing to do (i.e. China does NOT own the entirety of the South China Sea no matter how much they say they do).

There are multiple avenues for war in the Pacific, not just the Spratly Islands.
And at any rate, the US is not prepared to get involved at the level it might require. Read this:

https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/u-s-na....

The deterioration of the Navy is a direct threat to US national security, along with our inability to build ships in any kind of numbers. Any Pacific conflict is going to be about logistics, and we're rapidly losing our capability there.

Nah, y'all are the war folk.

"Y'all"? Err, okay.

No war in the Pacific. 2027? Not far off.

Current and future events suggest otherwise. Good luck!

Wars are usually about logistics. In fact, logistics is pretty much always a factor. Sometimes a huge factor.

IMHO, I think China has been preparing for this for a while now. They are launching some very capable designs, and in large numbers. Are they a match for us? Probably not yet. And when combined with our allies, definitely not. But we should not minimize the threat. The want the South China Sea in its entirety, and they want Taiwan. They've been building the navy they need to get them.

Obama was too cautious, the convict just didn't care, and Biden at least is getting us some bases in the Philippines again (which will help logistics).

Here is perhaps a better source of information, though it doesn't paint a rosy picture, either.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-chinas-nav...

Even if we build the ships, one needs to crew them. Last I knew, recruitment has been dropping for a decade or more. The military is not high on the list of career paths for younger generations. So that's another problem that would have to be addressed.

2027 will be the year. America will be at war in the Pacific and she’ll be the President. God save us all.

I'd rather have her as CiC in wartime than Trump.

Last night put on vivid display some of his worst traits as an executive. He's easily manipulated and has trouble controlling his emotional responses. He's so narcissistically self-confident (and averse to doing things he doesn't like doing) that he avoids preparation, even in circumstances where preparation is critical - so he ends up winging things on the fly, rather than doing the work to be ready for critical moments. And he latches onto conspiracies and false theories (Haitian immigrants are eating the cats, I really won in 2020) whenever it matches what he wants to be true.

That's why Harris was able to destroy him in the debate. His weaknesses are obvious and easily exploited. He's unwilling to put in the effort to defend against those exploits, and perhaps simply unable to do so. This was an obvious move by Harris - by all accounts, Trump's advisors all told him to expect that she would try to needle him and tried to give him the tools he would need to avoid getting caught up in it. Instead, he fell into every single trap she laid for him.

He's got one response to nearly everything - never admit that anything negative has happened, and counterattack as forcefully as possible. That's served him well in a lot of contexts. But in conflicts where he doesn't get to set the terms of the engagement, an opponent can easily arrange circumstances so that it's a crippling defect rather than a beneficial tactic.
.

I'd rather have her as CiC in wartime than Trump.

I don't think the country would ever get into a war with Trump as CiC. If it was someone threatening us, he'd cozy up to them and make concessions to avoid a war, a la Neville Chamberlain. If it was threatening an ally, he'd simply refuse to send in any military support in spite of any treaties we have.

Look at the one bit of evidence we do have. He inherited the war in Afghanistan. He got us out, not by negotiating a withdrawal with the government we were supporting, but by negotiating with the Taliban - basically giving them what they wanted in order to end US participation in the fighting.

I don't mind a CiC who really tries to avoid going to war. But I don't want a CiC who would avoid war by giving up and letting the adversary have what they want.

--Peter

That's why Harris was able to destroy him in the debate. His weaknesses are obvious and easily exploited.

Trump got the spanking he's always wanted, just not in the same manner that he was hoping Stormy would give him.

There might be (a war). China shows no sign of backing down, and we are obligated by treaty to intervene on the Philippines' behalf. Plus it's just the right thing to do (i.e. China does NOT own the entirety of the South China Sea no matter how much they say they do).

If things don't improve, I expect shots to be fired by the end of next year. And I see no avenue in which Xi can back down and save "face" (very important to Chinese culture).

I don't expect anything but scuffles. What might happen is China takes the small areas on the Chinese mainland that Taiwan claims now. War with the USA on the other side would not be a smart move. I think the strategy is continued scuffles and China will do small things, just enough to not cause a war.

I'd rather have her as CiC in wartime than Trump.

I wouldn’t. Harris is 1) inexperienced 2) incompetent and 3) incapable of thinking on her feet.

Trump’s personality traits work in an environment where he can be supported by people who play The Good Cop versus his Bad Cop, not unlike how Nixon and Henry Kissinger used to work together.

I'd rather have her as CiC in wartime than Trump.

Me too. I'm not sure Trump would think it worthwhile to stare down China with the Philippines. Trump hasn't shown signs of understanding the value of alliances.

I'd rather have her as CiC in wartime than Trump.

DOPE: I wouldn’t. Harris is 1) inexperienced 2) incompetent and 3) incapable of thinking on her feet.

1. Trump has no experience in war, so he needs good people and from what I've seen, good people don't want to work for him.

2. Incompetent? This appears to be based on nothing.

3. You just finished watching her think on her feet during the debate against the incompetent one, and he lost.

Dope1: I wouldn’t. Harris is 1) inexperienced 2) incompetent and 3) incapable of thinking on her feet.


You cultists baffle me. Inexperienced? She has been vice president for almost four years, was a senator and an AG for over a decade. Incompetent? In just a matter of weeks she gained the democratic nomination and has completely electrified the party, coalescing everyone from AOC to Liz Cheney to her side, raising record amounts of campaign donations. Incapable of thinking on her feet? She just proved that a lie with the best thinking-on-her-feet debate performance in decades.

Here's your guy thinking on his feet last night:

REPORTER: "What's your reaction to Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris?"

TRUMP: "I have no idea."

You support a guy who is an adjudicated rapist, a felon who wants to withdraw from NATO, give Ukraine to Russia, thinks 20% tariffs will pay off the national debt, called war heroes "suckers" and "losers," has man-crushes on tyrants, has stolen top secret military intelligence documents, conspired to install fake state electors, and assembled and sent a violent mob to invade the U.S. Capitol to illegally stay in power.

I wouldn’t. Harris is 1) inexperienced 2) incompetent and 3) incapable of thinking on her feet.

1) She's been in the federal government for 8 years, four years of which as VP - more experience than most first-time Presidents.

2) She seems to have learned a great deal while serving as Veep - her recent performance in moving from running mate to managing the pressure-cooker of an unprecedented shift at the top of the ticket shows a very high level of competence.

3) I would have thought last night would have disabused you of that. The expectation that GOP-leaners had fostered was that Harris was incapable of handling unscripted events. Then she went out and wiped the floor with Trump, goading him into traps while adeptly managing both the questions lobbed at her and his attacks. She's clearly capable of thinking on her feet - as any person who has had a career as a prosecutor would have to. She's a good debater.

Trump’s personality traits work in an environment where he can be supported by people who play The Good Cop versus his Bad Cop, not unlike how Nixon and Henry Kissinger used to work together.

No, they don't. His personality traits make it easy to manipulate him to get the desired response. He doesn't like to inform himself of details, he always defaults to denying unpleasant truths and counterattacking against any slight, and he is supremely (perhaps narcissistically) confident in his own abilities above those of anyone around him. That makes him very predictable and easy to put in a box.

If someone always needs to be perceived as strong, and is unwilling to do anything that makes it seem like he's backing down or looking weak, then that's easy to exploit. That person will do anything - anything - to avoid being put in a position where he has to appear weak. So give him scenarios where the response you want is the one that makes him look strong, and the one you don't want makes him look weak, and boom - he does what you want. Harris exploited that mercilessly last night, and he just couldn't stop.

You cultists baffle me.

To a robot, real people I guess are confounding.

Inexperienced? She has been vice president for almost four years and failed at everything she was handed.

Hahahahaha@u.

The rest of your post is the typical attempt at dunking, but you aren't self-aware enough to realize that you're not even on a basketball court. Keep trying, though.

Oh. Just for you:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/some-undec...

As much as "people" like you want it to be about talking points, Substance. Still. Matters. And Harris delivered nothing last night.

Toodles, ChatNPC.

1) She's been in the federal government for 8 years, four years of which as VP - more experience than most first-time Presidents.

And that might be a selling point for you...if a former President wasn't running against her.
The facts of the matter is that Trump had a run of 4 relatively peaceful years where he crushed ISIS and there were no major conflicts around the world.

Can Harris say the same thing?

2) She seems to have learned a great deal while serving as Veep - her recent performance in moving from running mate to managing the pressure-cooker of an unprecedented shift at the top of the ticket shows a very high level of competence.

You keep hammering this point, but a) polling wise she's...exactly where Biden was before the debate and b) your gratitude should go to Dave Plouffe and the Obama team, who are now running her campaign.

3) I would have thought last night would have disabused you of that.

No it did not. She refused to answer any questions, took no positions, and just repeated talking points. What does "opportunity economy" mean? Where were details of her proposals?

She offered none and the moderators didn't push her.

She's a good debater.

She was never "fact checked" in real time, got no tough questions and refused to answer what she did get.

The facts of the matter is that Trump had a run of 4 relatively peaceful years where he crushed ISIS and there were no major conflicts around the world.

Can Harris say the same thing?

Nope. But Harris had a run with no new global epidemics, and Trump can't say the same thing either. You won't find that compelling, of course - but it's the same point. Most of what happens in the world is not affected by who the U.S. President is at the moment. Whether one has a run of relatively peaceful years is largely due to factors other than the actions of the President.

You keep hammering this point, but a) polling wise she's...exactly where Biden was before the debate and b) your gratitude should go to Dave Plouffe and the Obama team, who are now running her campaign.

You keep saying that, but Harris had to do a lot of work to keep the coalition together and manage the transition away from Biden's people into Chavez Rodriguez' team (no, David Plouffe is not running her campaign). And manage all of the many stakeholders - and manage ObamaWorld as well, to make sure they backed her and not any of the other alternatives.

She's done a stellar job.

Oh, BTW, she's not running where Biden was. Before the debate, Biden was consistently trailing Trump; since the convention, Harris has been consistently leading him. In a deeply polarized country and running from the same Administration, that's a pretty impressive job as candidate to pull of starting from a dead standstill.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/g...

No it did not. She refused to answer any questions, took no positions, and just repeated talking points. What does "opportunity economy" mean? Where were details of her proposals?

They're right next to the details of Donald Trump's health care plan. :)

Seriously, that's part of being a good debater and thinking on your feet. The moderator asks you a question, or your opponent attacks you - what's the best response to give in that moment? Do you answer the question that was asked? If not, how do you pivot away to something you do want to talk about? What attacks by your opponent do you respond to in the moment, what attacks do you ignore? What statements of his do you attack, and what statements do you let slide?

Harris handled all of that masterfully. Trump was atrocious. He made almost all the wrong decisions - counterattacking Harris on points that he should have ignored, failing to respond to questions that he should have answer (he pivoted away from an immigration question for goodness' sakes!),

DOPE: I wouldn’t. Harris is 1) inexperienced 2) incompetent and 3) incapable of thinking on her feet.


Good God, man! Have you no idea of the irony? You have described Trump perfectly.

In his first term he showed himself to be a lazy incompetent only interested in grift.

His business experience shows him to be a fool who can bankrupt casinos and fail at almost everything but cheating.

And the debate showed who can think on their feet and it sure as hell wasn't Trump.

Are you saying things for comic effect?

But Harris had a run with no new global epidemics, and Trump can't say the same thing either.

And...? The Biden/Harris record for Covid isn't great either, with more deaths during their time than Trump's, despite having been handed several vaccines.

Whether one has a run of relatively peaceful years is largely due to factors other than the actions of the President.

Not necessarily.

You keep saying that, but Harris had to do a lot of work to keep the coalition together and manage the transition away from Biden's people into Chavez Rodriguez' team (no, David Plouffe is not running her campaign). And manage all of the many stakeholders - and manage ObamaWorld as well, to make sure they backed her and not any of the other alternatives.

Not really. As I've said to you again and again, the people who really run the democrat party would step in and...run the democrat party's campaign. They have, and are, now. That's the ObamaWorld. All Harris had to do was just say 'yes' and sign on some dotted lines, which she did. That's a very low bar.

She's done a stellar job Nah, not so much.

How many interviews has she given, again?

Oh, BTW, she's not running where Biden was. Before the debate, Biden was consistently trailing Trump; since the convention, Harris has been consistently leading him. In a deeply polarized country and running from the same Administration, that's a pretty impressive job as candidate to pull of starting from a dead standstill.

She didn't start from a standstill. She's the sitting Vice President, and as such was already on the ticket.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/preside...

Polling averages have been all over the place going all the way back to before the June 28th debate.


They're right next to the details of Donald Trump's health care plan. :)

He's already been President. I know what his plan is:
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-...

...for starters.

Harris handled all of that masterfully.

Harris stood there and reeled off talking points and needled Trump. Despite ChatNPC's insistence, she got a ton of help from the moderators who never "Fact checked" her in real time nor asked her any difficult questions.

She did well last night in that expectations for her were nearly zero, which tells you what the public thinks about her already. She did well to needle Trump, make him angry, and then stand there and let the moderators handle the rest.

But what new insights did anyone gain from what she wants to do as President? Why does she - the incumbent on the stage - try to pretend she's fresh and new when she's been the one co-running the country for the last 4 years?

She talked about connecting with people...but did everything possible to drive up inflation during her term.

Trump lost the debate last night, but Harris didn't win it. ABC did.

She did well last night in that expectations for her were nearly zero, which tells you what the public thinks about her already. She did well to needle Trump, make him angry, and then stand there and let the moderators handle the rest.

No - your expectations were nearly zero. Most everyone else recognized that Harris had a pretty decent record in Presidential debates, generally regarded as having performed will in all her primary debates and was generally considered the winner of her debate with Pence (second to the fly, of course).

But what new insights did anyone gain from what she wants to do as President? Why does she - the incumbent on the stage - try to pretend she's fresh and new when she's been the one co-running the country for the last 4 years?

Exactly.

Harris won the debate because she did what she wanted to do. She wanted to position Trump as an incumbent with a record of his own, and run against that. She wanted to remind everyone that Trump is not fresh and new - so that compared to him, she appears fresh and new. She's never been President, and he has - so if you want a change from what's happened in the past, she's the candidate for that!

And look what happened? She 100% succeeded in her goal! Even with you! Oh, not that you agree with her. You almost certainly disagree with her framing, with her attempt to position herself that way. But that's the message that even you - someone who disdains Harris - took away from the debate. Her message was "I am the fresh and new candidate," and you received that message!

Again, you almost certainly think that message is false. It probably infuriates you. But the skill of Presidential debating involves not letting your opponent keep you from achieving the goals that you want to achieve in the debate. Keep on your toes, don't get distracted, don't make bad choices, seize opportunities when they present themselves and don't fall for your opponent's traps. Make the points you want to make.

Harris did that amazingly well, while Trump was abysmal. Harris communicated the points she wanted to make so well that even Dope1, someone that's so far out of her target audience as to be hatewatching every word she said, received exactly the message she wanted to send. Meanwhile Trump barely made any of his own points, didn't do a good job explaining them when he did, and spent much of the debate responding to Harris' provocations.

An outstanding performance by Harris.

Dope:And...? The Biden/Harris record for Covid isn't great either, with more deaths during their time than Trump's, despite having been handed several vaccines.

The second wave is always the worst - reference the Spanish Flu Chart:

https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/flu/pandemic-r...

And Trump's trivializing it worsened it.

Dope:
Not really. As I've said to you again and again, the people who really run the democrat party would step in and...run the democrat party's campaign. They have, and are, now. That's the ObamaWorld. All Harris had to do was just say 'yes' and sign on some dotted lines, which she did. That's a very low bar.

That's your imaginary way it works which includes David Ploufe. Would you mind charting out for us who you thought was running the party and what they did?

No - your expectations were nearly zero.

Literally...no one...who follows politics believes that Harris is good on-her-feet thinker. I'm sorry, but no one does.
We know that because we have lots of film on her rambling about yellow buses and Venn diagrams. To her credit, she managed not to look like a goof last night by avoiding rambling.

Most everyone else recognized that Harris had a pretty decent record in Presidential debates, generally regarded as having performed will in all her primary debates and was generally considered the winner of her debate with Pence (second to the fly, of course).

You're kidding with this, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE&ab_cha...

Boom. That's the sound of a candidacy being destroyed in about 48 seconds.

She wanted to position Trump as an incumbent with a record of his own, and run against that.

And yet, that's not what she did. She goaded him into talking about rallies and what not and got him to spend time whinging away at that instead of hammering home the points he wanted to make.

But what *didn't* she do? She didn't say anything concrete last night. Not a winning strategy when you're trying to present your self as a Fresh Faced Unknown Candidate.

Obama pulled that off; Harris won't be able to.

And yet, that's not what she did. She goaded him into talking about rallies and what not and got him to spend time whinging away at that instead of hammering home the points he wanted to make.

Which is why that's exactly what she did.

Again, her goal was to remind voters of the Trump days. That they've seen the Trump story before, that he's not new, and to get him to demonstrate live and on camera That Same Old Trump Trumpiness.

She was able to get him to do what she wanted, rather than what he should have done to help himself. Meanwhile, she managed to make the right choice almost every single time - what to ignore, what to counterattack, what to criticize, what to deflect from.

But what *didn't* she do? She didn't say anything concrete last night. Not a winning strategy when you're trying to present your self as a Fresh Faced Unknown Candidate.

Why is that not a winning strategy in a debate? There's a reason why candidates campaign in poetry and govern in prose. You have to try to give voters enough detail so that they know who you are, but not so much that you end up appealing only to a very narrow slice of the electorate.

It's the reason why Trump dodged on his health care plan. The "concepts of a plan." Because while it's the case that a large proportion of his base dislikes Obamacare (whether the details or in spirit), the constituency for any single specific alternative to Obamacare is much smaller.

The same is true on abortion for Trump, and why he tries so hard to dodge on that as well. Nearly everyone in the GOP disagrees with the Democrats' position on abortion - so being against the Democrats is a very safe place to be. But any specific alternative to the Democrats (complete ban? six weeks? fifteen weeks? exceptions for rape and incest? how to define health of mother? what to do with currently-healthy ectopic pregnancy?) will only appeal to a part of the coalition.

It's not a winning strategy if your opponent can use it to attack you. Had Trump used the debate to try to pin her down on details, or to effectively attack her for not having specific proposals, or even just to call attention to the fact that she was doing it, then it could have been a problem for her. But instead, she was able to derail him into an Airing of Grievances.

Which is why that's exactly what she did.

Sure. And it was a great strategy for winning a debate, which she did. But she's not out to win debates, she's out to win the Presidency. The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks. Voters believe she's hiding something - namely, a set of really radical views (which she is, no matter how hard she tries to pass herself off as a moderate).

But she's not out to win debates, she's out to win the Presidency. The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks. Voters believe she's hiding something - namely, a set of really radical views (which she is, no matter how hard she tries to pass herself off as a moderate).

That's your biggest gripe about Harris. Or perhaps not your biggest, but it's certainly something you really dislike about her.

But that's the needle that every Presidential candidate has to thread - the dilemma between really nailing down the specifics on an issue vs. just giving people a general sense of where you are.

Consider Trump on abortion to see the dilemma independent of Harris. Perhaps independent voters believe that he's hiding something on abortion - namely, a set of really radical views on federal abortion policy. Even if that's true, Trump is not going to advance his chances of winning the Presidency by resolving that concern. Because there's no concrete answer that he can give that's better than equivocating. If he says he wouldn't veto a federal abortion limitation at six (or even fifteen) weeks, he'll alienate almost everybody (that's an unpopular position generally, and it will also be unpopular among the hard core GOP pro-life base). But if he comes out and says that he would veto such a bill, then his base will go crazy on him. His best strategy is to vaguely signal that he's more supportive of the Generic Republican Position on Abortion, rather than get in the weeds.

The same is almost certainly true of Harris. On some things, she was very concrete. Take fracking. She said she won't ban fracking - unequivocably. She emphasized that the Administration hasn't banned fracking, and indeed the IRA had provisions for more fracking. That's something that will annoy part of her base (I can picture Sunrise cringing at that), but is generally a popular position.

Now - you're never going to believe her. You're going to be certain that deep down inside, she's actually just hiding radical views on fracking. But for viewers like you, there's nothing she can do - nothing she says in the campaign will convince some people. Her goal is to reach the viewers who are open to learning more about her views - and to express those views at the level of generalities, rather than concrete proposals.

Dope1: The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks.

She addressed that claim very effectively.

LINSEY DAVIS: Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: So my values have not changed. And I'm going to discuss every one -- at least every point that you've made. But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States. And, in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking. My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We have had the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil. As it relates to my values, let me tell you, I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager. The values I bring to the importance of home ownership knowing not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times, is a value that I bring to my work to say we are going to work with the private sector and home builders to increase 3 million homes, increase by 3 million homes by the end of my first term. My work that is related to having a friend when I was in high school who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather. And my focus then, on protecting women and children from violent crime, is based on a value that is deeply grounded in the importance of standing up for those who are most vulnerable. My work that is about protecting social security and Medicare is based on long-standing work that I have done protecting seniors from scams. My values have not changed. And what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down and name-calling. The true measure of the leader is the leader who actually understands that strength is not in beating people down, it's in lifting people up. I intend to be that president.

That was just a masterclass on addressing the question, providing insight into her upbringing and character, pointing out that Trump was handed more money than most Americans will earn in fifty life times and still went bankrupt, supporting rape victims, supporting the elderly, and being a president who aims to lift up all Americans.

I mean, seriously, two-minute debate answers don't get any better than that.

Now - you're never going to believe her. You're going to be certain that deep down inside, she's actually just hiding radical views on fracking. But for viewers like you, there's nothing she can do - nothing she says in the campaign will convince some people. Her goal is to reach the viewers who are open to learning more about her views - and to express those views at the level of generalities, rather than concrete proposals.

Again, she has a record. Biden/Harris attempted to pause approvals for liquid natural gas terminals but were stopped by a federal judge. They also attempted to issue a moratorium for new federal leases on oil and gas...and were also blocked by a judge.

There's what Harris says, and there's what they've actually done. As desperately as she and her campaign want to pretend that she had nothing to do with the last 4 years, her record is what it is.

She addressed that claim very effectively.

Lulzies. She literally used the premise of her question in the answer. What you mean to say is that obfuscating doesn't get any better than that.

I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager.

Her mom was a researcher at Berkeley, so she's not even telling the truth about her bio.

My position is that we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

And yet, her administration tried to shut down leasing for oil and gas and new LNG terminals. Her record is clear, no matter how much you folks want to hide it.

Again, she has a record. Biden/Harris attempted to pause approvals for liquid natural gas terminals but were stopped by a federal judge. They also attempted to issue a moratorium for new federal leases on oil and gas...and were also blocked by a judge.

But....


They also never tried to ban fracking. They didn't try to go into Pennsylvania and force them to shut them down. They included provisions favorable to fracking in the IRA. And Harris' emphasizing that part of the IRA in the debate, rather than the Green stuff, sends a powerful signal. And of course, oil and gas production in the U.S. is currently at an all-time high.

That's really the best possible pitch she can give on that issue. She's highlighting all of the things in her record that argue that she's not going to be radical on energy. She was well-prepared to make the strongest available argument on the issue.

Again, you're never going to believe that. But in terms of her capabilities as a debater, her ability to respond to the issue, her response was pretty close to the best she could have given. What's the skill you think she's lacking, rather than the policy beliefs you dislike? Is there a response to that issue that you think she missed because she wasn't thinking on her feet clearly enough...rather than you just think she's wrong on substance?

Dope1: The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks.


OTOH, Trump tries to take every side of every issue depending on who he is talking to. OK, a bit of an exaggeration. But talk about flip-flopping...

They also never tried to ban fracking. They didn't try to go into Pennsylvania and force them to shut them down. They included provisions favorable to fracking in the IRA. And Harris' emphasizing that part of the IRA in the debate, rather than the Green stuff, sends a powerful signal. And of course, oil and gas production in the U.S. is currently at an all-time high.

Obama tried to claim this also, but he had a problem: almost all of the energy production came from development on private lands.

Does anyone really believe that Biden/Harris sped up permits and leases? A simple investigation will reveal they didn't:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/15/drilling-...

The number of oil and gas permits approved by the Bureau of Land Management for drilling on public lands declined to its lowest number under the Biden administration in January.

Oooops. Again, that pesky anti-fossil fuels record of hers.

There's a reason why nobody believes her about fracking or any kind of fossil fuel energy cheerleading she might try.

Dope: The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks.

CO Quoting Kamala: But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking.

------------------------

Kamala herself on Fracking 33 sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DibvhzmbrTA

Kamala herself on Fracking 33 sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DibvhzmbrTA

Her administration has made it VERY CLEAR they don’t like fossil fuels.

Here’s just 2 words to finish off this farce that they’re somehow big fans of it:

Keystone Pipeline.

Dope1: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/15/drilling-...

The number of oil and gas permits approved by the Bureau of Land Management for drilling on public lands declined to its lowest number under the Biden administration in January.

Um, March 15, 2022? You're bringing us data from 2 1/2 years ago?

Here, try this:

President Joe Biden has approved nearly 50 percent more oil and gas drilling permits for wells on federal land since taking office than former President Donald Trump did in his first three years, according to newly released data from the Interior Department.

But Biden has not trumpeted the permit data, and climate activists have criticized the administration for failing to halt new fossil fuel production on federal lands as Biden promised during the 2020 campaign. Those activists have pointed to approval of the Willow oil project in Alaska, as well as the expansion of natural gas exports — which the administration moved to pause last week.

Data from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management retrieved Monday showed it granted 3,377 permits to drill on public land in 2023. That’s well above the 2,507 permits that the Trump administration approved in its third year in office.


https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/...

…was able to bu our first home when i was a teenager
Her mom was a researcher at Berkeley, so she's not even telling the truth about her bio.

How much do you think a single black woman made in the 1970’s? The father was absent, the mother was raising two children and sending them both to college, plus pick up a mortgage. You figure that’s easy on a “researcher’s” salary?

Yeah? You know…when Harris was veep.

You are so, so bad at this.

How much do you think a single black woman made in the 1970’s?

I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the question she was asked nor is it relevant to her stance on fracking.

I grew up a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother who worked and saved and was able to buy our first home when I was a teenager.

Her mom was a researcher at Berkeley, so she's not even telling the truth about her bio.

Looks middle class to me.

Mike:Kamala herself on Fracking 33 sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DibvhzmbrTA

Since we already discussed that was her position and she changed it before she became VP, why are you bringing it up again?

Since we already discussed that was her position and she changed it before she became VP, why are you bringing it up again? - Lapsody

-------------------

Because last night she said she never held that position.

Since we already discussed that was her position and she changed it before she became VP, why are you bringing it up again? - Lapsody

--------------------

Here were her exact words said Tuesday night

"But in particular, let's talk about fracking because we're here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020. I will not ban fracking."

I stand corrected. I didn't pick up on her previous reversal when she was forced to re-invented herself for the VP campaign.

Because last night she said she never held that position.

Find that video then.

"The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper who won't disclose what she actually thinks." - Dope1

This is hilarious coming from a Trumper.

What is Trump's views on abortion? Even his own running mate doesn't know.

What are Trump's views on marijuana as a class 1 drug? Depends when you ask him.

What are his views on improving access to healthcare in this country. He has concepts of a plan.

What are his views of taxes on the lower and middle class. He says he wants to lower them, but all he has proposed is raising them with regressive tariffs on many of the things they buy.

Literally no one projects like a nutter.

<<Because last night she said she never held that position.>>

So you’re telling me that a candidate for office shaded her/his position on an issue over a period of years and from competing in a primary versus competing in a general election?? The horror! Especially when the alternative is such a thoughtful, competent, consistent, and honorable individual!

Dope1: The biggest gripe about Harris is that she's a flip flopper

Flip flopping? You wanna talk about flip flopping? LOL

Maybe you didn't hear about it, you've been away a long time. They didn't go up there and tell you...

Trump was actually a registered Democrat. He switched parties multiple times. Shows more about political convenience than principles.

Trump said: "It seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.*"
*This statement aligns with various analyses suggesting that economic metrics often show stronger performance under Democratic leadership compared to Republican leadership.

Regarding reproductive rights Trump has said, "I'm very pro-choice." Then he decided that he was the opposite of pro-choice.

Trump praised both Hillary and Bill Clinton, saying, "Bill Clinton was a great president and Hillary is a great senator and a great wife to a President."

Trump said this about Crypto, "I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air.
Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."
But now he is promoting his soon-to-launch, Trump Organization crypto platform.
Trump’s sons have spent weeks teasing the forthcoming platform, which Eric recently described as "digital real estate."

Lastly, remember when the Trumpers said that Kamala couldn't even handle an interview and then she went on stage and handed Trump his a$% on live TV?
Ahh good times!

Her administration has made it VERY CLEAR they don’t like fossil fuels.

Me neither. Now this old white dude will have to vote for Kamala.

You are so, so bad at this.

Bad at what?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.