• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Harris Really Worth Voting For?

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yep and it's been over 30 days and counting.



This will reflect her administration and party if elected. Just watch.
Not really an issue. She's had to work full time ramping up her campaign and get the message out at events. And she's been vp for four years, so not exactly an unknown personality.
Harris will be leading the most secretive and hidden administration in American history and will be notably antipress and anti-interview keeping the American people in the dark will be their mainstay throughout her term if elected.
She's been in office for fours years already, and a senator before that, she's not an unknown. But this kind of fear mongering is what republicans believe they need to do since they have a criminal candidate that is making a bigger mess of his campaign by giving bad interviews and terrible events tht he calls press conferences. The more he talks the more he looks like the incompetent idiot he is.

Far more sharper than Biden that's for damn sure.
If you call slurred speach, lies, corruption, and stupid ides as "sharp".
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Proposing price controls
To help prevent corporations from making excessive profits by taking advantage of natural inflation pressures. If you want to pay more to corporations then I'm sure they won't mind you sending them checks in protest to government actions that are similar to anti-trust measures.
& property
confiscation is extreme left.
I've yet to see any democrat or republican actively advocate for this. It's something law enforcement and the court are allowing. And I guess you missed how Harris fought mortgage companies in their foreclosure efforts against home owners. That would be banks confiscating homes, and Harris standing in their way. I guess you are on the side of banks and their big money lawyers and fine print contracts that exploit the average citizen.
Perhaps not in England, but it is here.

But note that Trump is even more
extreme, eg, attempted coup, raping
women, criminalizing criticizing judges.

The issue is which extremist is worse.
Harris is status quo at worst, and the status quo allows our government, and society, to function. Without the status quo that you loathe there would be anarchy, and massive crime. I've never seen any Libertarian offer solutions to the status quo design of tax-based governments. You ight be able to get away with anarchy in a small town with dirt roads and no sanitation, but a nation of 340,000,000 million?

No doubt the criminal candidate is for the status quo as well, except where it comes to the federal justice system that he will control. And he could actually order his DOJ to settle his $100 million lawsuit against it and he will pocket that money. He could tell any of his friends and fam,ily to sue the USA and he will order his DOJ to settle each case and the treasury will have to pay out all the money without any actual litigation. So if you have real problems with taxation and where money goes ponder that possibility. Would Trump actually drop his $100 million lawsuit against the USA if he wins? Why would he? It's free money, and all he has to do is appoint someone as acting head who will do what he orders.

So seriously, Harris' status quo law and order is problematic for you? Is anarchy a better option in your view?
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
IMOP this portrays the situation well.

MSN

Opinion: Kamala’s moment: The pantsuit is truly empty​

Opinion by Derek Hunter, Opinion Contributor

When Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate four years ago, he said he did so because she could assume the office “on day one.” More than 30 days after becoming the presumptive nominee, Harris still does not seem ready to be the Democratic Party’s nominee, let alone president. She is an empty pantsuit, basking in the glow of positive media coverage and unburdened by accountability.


Her acceptance speech confirmed that.

Harris has now officially accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination. Her nomination was “historic,” as liberals like to say, but not because of her ethnicity. Rather, she is the first nominee of either party who did not have to secure a single delegate or a single vote in the primaries. She is “historic” in that it is highly unlikely that she could have secured that nomination had there been any sort of competition for the job.

In keeping with how she got the nomination, her acceptance speech was all sizzle and no steak. It will be billed as containing her “vision” for America, but it contained no such thing. It wasn’t much different from the stump speech she’s been reading off the teleprompter since Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party power elite knifed Biden last month and tossed his body into the dumpster earlier this week.


Kamala came from humble beginnings; she repeated them, as if the circumstances of anyone’s birth could be an accomplishment. She was born in Oakland, Calif., which sounds pretty rough nowadays thanks to its misgovernment, but she was actually the child of two college professors, not manual laborers or blue-collar workers. Raised on the “mean streets” of Berkeley, and Montreal, Canada, she was not some underprivileged child or hard-luck story.

The biographical part of her speech was spent reshaping standard information into applause lines. Her introductory video talked about her time on various Senate Committees, questioning witnesses about issues near and dear to the left. What it didn’t contain was any accomplishments.

In her brief time in the Senate, Harris authored zero bills that became law. The crowd didn’t care. Its sustained standing ovation took the place of a resume. Existence as accomplishment is something speakers do only when they lack actual accomplishments. This was why Harris’s speech ran flat.


The night was more about vibes than anything else. The crowd cheered like it was their job, because it was their job. They’re partisans bent on selling her candidacy. That’s what they did.

As for what Harris would do as president, your guess remains as good as mine. She has given us no vision to talk about. There was nothing new in the speech, and nothing specific. It’s difficult to fight a cloud. You can see it coming, but there’s really nothing to it.

When it came to policy, the speech consisted of multiple word salads. She’s against this, in favor of that and will make everything better somehow, the “somehow” part being key. How she will pay for her laundry list of promises is unknown. For example, she just promised to make everything more affordable and to fight inflation through price controls that almost certainly cannot be executed and won’t work in any case. Say what you will about Trump’s wall or Obama’s health care plan, but they were both actual proposals. Neither of their promises were so inane or inconsequential.


For a big speech, this one was also devoid of urgency or earnestness. Her price controls discussion began and ended with her denunciation of “corporate greed.” She never even bothered to define what that means.

The only things for certain is she loves abortion and hates Donald Trump, whom she falsely claimed wants to jail political opponents and journalists.

She said she “grew up immersed in the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement.” She didn’t explain what this word salad meant, but the truth is that she was born in 1964. She almost certainly has no memories before 1970.

It was just one empty line in a very empty speech. “We are all in this together” is a great bumper sticker, but it’s meaningless when you view people as parts of separate groups based on their skin color, sexual orientation or whatever other ways you can divide and conquer voters based on irrelevant demographic characteristics.


After four days of speeches, I have no clearer an idea of what Harris would do as president than I did beforehand. I have no idea why, if she has all these wonderful ideas to “fix” the nation’s problems, she has sat by as vice president and let things get so bad during the last three years and seven months.

Kamala Harris’s resume is a mostly blank page. Her time in the Senate was mostly spent grandstanding for the cameras in committee hearings with meaningless lines of questioning from which nothing substantial resulted. Her tenure as vice president might as well not have happened, if you just listened to the speeches at the Democratic convention. In fact, her participation in Biden’s hugely unpopular administration was quite deliberately buried in the midnight time slot on Monday along with Biden. And she treated your desire to change the nation’s direction as if it were a character flaw on your part.


The many fawning speakers, the positively glowing press coverage and so many unquestioned assertions; At the end of it all, the only thing you can say for sure about what Harris believes is that she should be president, and she’ll say literally anything to get there. She will renounce all of her past positions if that’s what it will take.

What she’d do on that job is entirely a matter of speculation. Her unwillingness to tell people either means that she doesn’t know or she doesn’t want us to know. Neither option is good.

Derek Hunter is host of the Derek Hunter Podcast and a former staffer for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).
This is funny; if you replace "Harris" with "Trump" throughout you'll find the same. Trump's experience of government before 2017 was precisely zilch, which is less than Harris's. And his experience of government since hasn't been much better, because he flubbed so many things. Listen to his speeches that tell you all the stuff he can "fix, right away!" Where does he tell us how he'll do that? I'll tell you where: Utopia. (Look that up.)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Nah, by the 1830s, the New England area
was becoming the precision machining
center of the world. We'd overcome the
British embargo against importing their
machinists. Interesting history there.
Well....interesting to a very small abnormal
group of geezers.

Woohoo!
Have you read "The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World" by Simon Winchester? Really interesting.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
This is funny; if you replace "Harris" with "Trump" throughout you'll find the same. Trump's experience of government before 2017 was precisely zilch, which is less than Harris's. And his experience of government since hasn't been much better, because he flubbed so many things. Listen to his speeches that tell you all the stuff he can "fix, right away!" Where does he tell us how he'll do that? I'll tell you where: Utopia. (Look that up.)
I was going to respond to that opinion piece. It is an empty piece that only aims to help bolster the conservatives who already are against democrats and Harris. There's no real arguments. It criticizes Harris for being a cheer leader for the ideals of being an American, which is what a new candidate does to help whip up excitement. The writer demands substance while all any citizen needs to do is review her four years as vp and her time as senator. Republicans are looking for any excuse to cast doubt on Harris but it isn't working. The real test will be the debate, and with the criminal candidate showing more mental breakdowns it will be some fine entertainment.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To help prevent corporations from making excessive profits by taking advantage of natural inflation pressures. If you want to pay more to corporations...
I want to avoid shortages & lowered quality
that comes with such regulation, eg, Jimmy
Carter's creation of long lines at gas stations,
& running out of gasoline.
That didn't bother you?

I've yet to see any democrat or republican actively advocate for this.
Harris & Biden both proposed such measures.
You didn't see it in the news?
And I guess you missed how Harris fought mortgage companies in their foreclosure efforts against home owners. That would be banks confiscating homes, and Harris standing in their way.
It's not confiscation when buyers don't make
loan payments on real estate pledged as security.
If there were no enforcement mechanism, why
would anyone ever repay a loan, eh.
But I also notice that Harris took no action to
end civil forfeiture abuse. She's OK with government
taking money for bogus reasons, but not private
industry taking what's there's.
I guess you are on the side of banks and their big money lawyers and fine print contracts that exploit the average citizen.
I like being "exploited" by banks.
And I "exploit" them too.
They lend me money.
I pay them back, with interest.
And I'm pretty average....below average in some ways.
Harris is status quo at worst...
Status quo at best.
She & her ilk want more governmental
power to take, take, & take fromus.
...and the status quo allows our government, and society, to function. Without the status quo that you loathe there would be anarchy, and massive crime.
Duh.
I don't advocate anarchy.
I've never seen any Libertarian offer solutions to the status quo design of tax-based governments. You ight be able to get away with anarchy in a small town with dirt roads and no sanitation, but a nation of 340,000,000 million?

No doubt the criminal candidate is for the status quo as well, except where it comes to the federal justice system that he will control. And he could actually order his DOJ to settle his $100 million lawsuit against it and he will pocket that money. He could tell any of his friends and fam,ily to sue the USA and he will order his DOJ to settle each case and the treasury will have to pay out all the money without any actual litigation. So if you have real problems with taxation and where money goes ponder that possibility. Would Trump actually drop his $100 million lawsuit against the USA if he wins? Why would he? It's free money, and all he has to do is appoint someone as acting head who will do what he orders.
Donald Jessica Trump is a criminal.
We know that.
But this shouldn't mean blind
uncritical devotion to Harris.
So seriously, Harris' status quo law and order is problematic for you?
Yes. She has tacitly supported police
confiscating money without due process.
Is anarchy a better option in your view?
False dilemma.
Disliking Harris's policies isn't support for anarchy.
Duh.

You're making me over-use "Duh".
Stop that!
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Have you read "The Perfectionists: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World" by Simon Winchester? Really interesting.
I've not.
I'm waiting for the movie.

BTW, I'm familiar with how machining, metallurgy,
& metrology advancements enabled previously
impossible technologies, eg, high pressure steam
engines, Stirling cycle engines.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Just heard on NPR Harris saying that
being American is a "privilege".
Dang....I thought that my citizenship
was more than a privilege. It's my right.
That priveledge gives you rights, based on the accident of your birth in most cases, the rights granted by your citizenship are not otherwise automatic.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That priveledge gives you rights, based on the accident of your birth in most cases, the rights granted by your citizenship are not otherwise automatic.
Privileges are revokable.
Rights are not.
Generally speaking.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I'll wager they didn't even notice
the implication that bothered me.

But I chalk it up to sloppy speech,
rather than intent.
And here is where your libertarianism makes you a fool, you assume all of the advantages of society as a right when actually they are as a result of society itself.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Not really an issue. She's had to work full time ramping up her campaign and get the message out at events. And she's been vp for four years, so not exactly an unknown personality.

She's been in office for fours years already, and a senator before that, she's not an unknown. But this kind of fear mongering is what republicans believe they need to do since they have a criminal candidate that is making a bigger mess of his campaign by giving bad interviews and terrible events tht he calls press conferences. The more he talks the more he looks like the incompetent idiot he is.


If you call slurred speach, lies, corruption, and stupid ides as "sharp".
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When the law is against you, pound on the table.

or whatever whoever said.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
When the law is on your side, argue the law.
When the law is against you, pound on the table.

or whatever whoever said.
Reminds me of advice from a law prof I knew....
If you're innocent, get a bench trial.
If guilty, get a jury trial.
 
Top