Neither has Harris--yet.
It's a handy historical marker. People want to be participants in notable historical markers.
-
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?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
She wouldn't be the first black or biracial person. Obama already won that prize.
She would however be the first female and Asian American.
But Biden's mind isn't failing. He was weak and frail, and a bit sluggish on the day of the debate but had stellar performances a few months earlier during the State of the Union speech and recently at the Democratic National Convention. They say he was sick from a cold and sleep deprived for the debate. I don't know if either of those is true, but he had a bad night for some reason.
And unfortunately, something made Trump appear more coherent than normal that night. For the fifty campaign speeches and media appearances he made earlier and since, he rambled about sharks and cannibals and slurred words. On Trump's best night and Biden's worst, they performed at about the same level, which was counted as a loss for Biden.
The media had already been differentially reporting on Biden's cognitive decline, which was normal for age, and Trump's which is pathological (rapidly advancing dementia), which affects the thinking of even his supporters much less undecideds, independents, and non-MAGA conservatives.
So, it was recognized that a change was needed, and Biden agreed to it, which was a tremendous blow to the Republicans and Trump. They did this to themselves in 2008 as well, when Limbaugh and Hannity so thoroughly tarnished Hillary that she wasn't the candidate, and they had to deal with Obama, who they hadn't had time to trash yet (that came during his presidency), and Obama sailed past McCain, who like Trump, was saddled with a VP candidate that hurt him.
Incidentally, it isn't hard to figure out that it was Trump who was given performance enhancing drugs that night. Trump let it slip that he knew a little too much about taking these drugs. He specifically mentioned that Biden would be getting an injection before the debate ("shot" to him; he doesn't know words like injection). I thought that odd at the time. I imagined a pill of some sort, or a snorted powder, but Trump was thinking injection. I'm guessing that he had already received some kind of injection to enhance performance in the past. As you know, with Trump, everything that comes out of his mouth is projection or a confession.
If that's correct, then it's just another way that the Republicans shenanigans backfired on them.
Who's not agreeing to that? I added the media's role prior to as well as after the debate, but yet, that was the deciding moment.
How is he competent if he allowed himself to commit and be convicted of those offenses? They not only make him a rapist and felon, but they'll leave him broke. As for competence, how about the incompetent failed self-coup. That had no chance of succeeding. Or the fake electors fraud. That was pretty hare-brained. Or the incompetence he surrounded himself with (Eastman, Bannon, Giuliani, Powell)?
He didn't get his wall built much less funded by Mexico. He never came through on his promised infrastructure package, his so-called improved replacement for Obamacare. His handling of the pandemic and the economy were incompetent. His cruel antics at the border accomplished nothing. And now we're seeing how incompetently he's campaigning if you can call that campaigning. How incompetent was it choosing Vance to run beside him?
On the other hand, Joe's steady hand guided America through the pandemic. He fixed the economy. He has tamed inflation and given America the best economy on the planet. Unemployment is low and new jobs off the charts. The stock market is roaring. Crime rates have fallen. Harris' intervention has reduced border crossings. He got a historic infrastructure package through before America foolishly gave the House to the Republicans. He has restored America's allies' confidence in America until it elects another Republican. He successfully addressed burn pit veterans' needs and the need to return circuit board manufacturing to the States.
But you see Trump as the more competent one.
It's amazing how concerned MAGAs are about what the Democrats are doing to win this. Suddenly, they represent concern for democracy with the nomination of Harris by acclamation. Suddenly, they are concerned about Harris' mental competence based in a statement they couldn't understand. Suddenly, they are concerned with how she sells herself and how her party sells her.
MAGA has no say in any of that. They are the enemy. You don't take advice from enemies. They mean you harm.
The Democrats know how to appeal to potential voters for Harris. Her blackness is important to black people of either gender (and probably brown people as well). Her womanhood is important to women of any color. I imagine her Asian heritage is appealing to Asian-Americans, but I haven't heard much about that.
And they're doing something similar selling Walz, whose "they're weird" meme has gotten traction. He's coach Walz. Sure, he was also a teacher and a military vet as well as a governor and a former congressman, but coach is the epithet that they're going with.
Did you see the videos of Vance in a donut shop and Walz buying a box of runzas in Nebraska? Vance has zero charisma. One of the two employees didn't want to be seen in the video, and the other one acts as if Vance were a leper. Then we see Walz try his hand at it. It's all smiles and warmth. The contrast between Walz and Vance is as extreme as the contrast between Harris and Trump. In both cases, it's intelligence and charisma versus cringe.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Another great post. Thank you for articulating what I would write if I finished what I started, I'm just kinda burned out these days.
Your first para - exactly. President Biden's mind isn't failing. He's sharp mentally, but physically frail, and he had Covid. Bless him, I had Covid for the second time a few weeks ago and I was miserable for days and he's 81. Frankly, it's amazing what he accomplishes, day in and day out.
And yes, I would enthusiastically vote for him if he was still in the race. I don't think MAGA understands the concept of voting for the good of the country vs. voting for an autocratic cult figure.
YES, I saw both the Vance donut and Walz runza videos - no comparison. Walz is such a great choice, I couldn't be happier.
And all the rest of what you had to say - again - thank you.
We Never Know
No Slack
Ah I forgot. He had a cold lol
Make up your mind. Either he was sharp or he had declinded
Yeah he was forced out
Lol. Do you mean Biden wasn't given the drugs? His performance surely showed that.
Remember Trump wanted a drug test
Yeah blame the repubs lol
All you have to do is read the threads
So only incompetent people get in trouble?
Very smart people get in trouble by doing stupid things or making mistakes(not saying Trump is very smart but he is competent)
I agree Vance was a poor choice.
Compared to Biden, yes
Word salad is word salad. It doesn't mean she is incompetent. It could be just the stress of thinking in the spot light.
When you paraphrased her you at least you hit on points, a direction/goal and consequences.
She didn't.
Yeah that's what the right says about the left.
Yep. They are using race(black)to appeal to voters. Not saying its wrong but why not admit it?
Again she isn't the first black or biracial, Obama already won that prize.
She would be the first female and/or Asian American.
You are preaching to the wrong person.
All in all a good speech. Doesn't change what I have said but good speech. You might even have the talent to convince some one(that seems to be your goal).
I almost feel as If I am talking to someone who believes in god. They try hard to convince me I should see things there way but when I don't I'm told how I am a bad person and going to hell.
That's how hard you try to sell what you think and people that disagree with what you think are just plain wrong in your mind.
You go on about how the right attacks the left but yet several times in this post you attack the right. But I guess its different when you do it.
Maybe to you its a priveledge, or a right...
Trump thinks he is entitled to it lol.
Trump says he’s ‘entitled to personal attacks’ as he hammers Harris on inflation with grocery props
Former President Donald Trump said he thinks he’s “entitled to personal attacks” on his Democratic rival, saying he’s “very angry” at Vice President Kamala Harris.
Last edited:
Look'n & listen'n more than you know, Geeves!
I'm sure government here does fund research.
But the fans of price controls & confiscation of patents
haven't shown where prices were "gouged", & government
paid towards their development.
Ain't saying it hasn't happened.
But ya canna claim that it does without some evidence.
That's because you're both unfamiliar with how civil
forfeiture works here, & you're filled with cop love.
Some background info....
Opinion | It'll take more than a Supreme Court case to end police abuse of property rights
Arbitrary state actions are exactly what the courts should be checking, and the Timbs decision provides a way to challenge many such abuses.
www.nbcnews.com
One case, as requested....
Veteran’s Case To Hold Officers Responsible For Robbing His Savings Can Finally Move Forward
A Marine veteran had his life savings taken from him without being charged with any crimes. Thanks to a recent state supreme court decision, his effort to hold officers accountable can move forward again.
www.forbes.com
Last edited:
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Actually I have previously posted about all these companies and many others who are engaging in price gouging.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
Because she would be the first
As long as there is racial inequality here it will never be irrelevant.
It should be irrelevant but since Trump is campaigning on race based discrimination it just wont' be
Are you pretending these things have never been said?
Be cautious about making strident claims about
the law in a country you don't live in. Quoting
laws addresses the de juro, but not the de facto.
The reality of that legality is that cops can steal
your cash even if no crime is suspected. This is
particularly true at airports, where TSA alerts
cops to travelers who are ripe for picking.
There's no due process. You must sue to
recover it, & prove innocence of the money.
(Presumption of innocence applies only to
people....not to assets like money.)
That old poor excuse to justify
lack of support for a claim, eh.
You'll go far on RF with that
attitude.
Whenever.
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
they why doesn't he take one?
Argentbear
Well-Known Member
No it's a observation of your responses here. the only thing you do more consistently here is toss out insults
I agree.
Don't feel sorry for me.
Things are going well.
But government typically has adverse effects
on groups, especially small ones, eg, women
in need of health care, gays who want to marry,
draft age heterosexual non-trans men.
At the very least, the EC should be eliminated,
& replaced with the popular vote. The EC is
too highly vulnerable to corruption.
Don't worry.
We'll survive this swing of the pendulum.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
She is the only SANE choice.
Is that in doubt?
OK....
Opinion | Trump Calls Harris a ‘Communist.’ That Shows How Worried He Is.
MAGA desperately turns to old-fashioned red-baiting.
'Dumb' and a 'DEI' candidate: Trump and allies attack Kamala Harris based on race, gender
In 2016, Trump accused Hillary Clinton of playing "the woman card." Now, he has accused Harris of playing "the race card."
www.nbcnews.com
It's clear that whatever it was you were claiming
(I've forgotten what it is), you can't support it.
So your posts are now just hostile excuses.
It's a bad idea to believe that one has a
single choice, & must not question it.
Chase Oliver is a sane choice.
Perhaps not the best, because there's a
good argument to vote for which ever
Democrat can defeat Trump.
Perhaps you didn't understand my words. Biden is sharp for his age, but had a bad debate. That day, he was atypical. So was Trump. Biden has sounded sharp all year but that day, and Trump has appeared confused all year but not that day.
What hurt Biden is that Trump exceeded expectations while Biden disappointed. Nevertheless, on Biden's worse day and Trump's best, they were evenly matched.
No, he wasn't. He was convinced to drop out. There is no mechanism for forcing Biden out just as there is no mechanism to force Trump out. If both men wanted to continue running, they would be their party's nominees.
Not to my knowledge.
I wrote, "If that's correct, then it's just another way that the Republicans shenanigans backfired on them" referring to possibly juicing Trump. It's a simple fact that if Trump was given performance enhancing drugs and that was a factor in the outcome of the debate, then the plan backfired, as it led to replacing Biden with Harris.
I already rebutted that. You didn't make a case before or now, just a claim.
I rebutted that as well. And once again, you've offered nothing but a claim before and repeated it without argument or counterargument after.
Yes, the right has been depicting the left as the enemy since Limbaugh's ascension. The left is now doing the same. The difference is that the left has never been an enemy of America or its Constitution. When one tries to overthrow an election or turn the government into a theocracy, he is anti-American. The MAGA right also flout egalitarianism and the rule of law, also bedrock American ideals.
I don't have any problem agreeing with that.
You are conversing with somebody who is informed and can articulate an argument. All I have in common with a theist is my passion for what I believe.
I don't expect to convince you of anything. I would like you to support your claims, however, or attempt to rebut my rebuttals of them, but you don't seem interested, so, I'll settle for just rebutting them and moving on.
I write for the benefit of those who can benefit from such words - people willing and able to read an argument that might contain some new information in it for them or who might benefit from looking at something they already believe in another way, that is, people who can evaluate an argument for soundness are willing and able to modify their belief set in the presence of a compelling argument.
To do that with you would require that you be willing to change your mind. You would need to make arguments rather than unsupported claims, and you would need to address my counterargument and specify the comments with which you disagree and explain your reason for considering them wrong.
That's dialectic, which is how critical thinkers resolve differences of opinion. The process ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument, which in these two cases are my words contradicting your claim that Trump is competent, and your claim that Harris' comment was "word salad."
To understand what dialectic is and why debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted argument, consider a courtroom trial. A couple of attorneys attempt to falsify one another's argument with counterarguments. In a court of law, that begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime.
If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime around the time it was committed, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters. And if an attorney doesn't even try to rebut his counterpart, his client loses the case.
Presently, you're playing the role of the defense attorney who never tries to show why the prosecutor is wrong, but instead, just repeats that his client isn't guilty. Guess how that turns out. It's the same for you here. You forfeit the argument in the eyes of those who respect this process.
I didn't tell you anything like that.
Yes, it is. I'm using facts. The right just lies.