• 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!

New York Times endorses Harris as ‘the only choice’ for president

F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
Nope but the Times will take a massive hit to their reputation for endorsing Harris as president who has to this day offered not a single thing at the table aside from meaningless word salads and repeated memorized lines over and over without adequately answering and explaining any questions in detail people have asked her.
Click to expand...
False. Harris is the only stable candidate, and the vast majority of voters know it. Even many Trump voters know this, but they are too deep in their emotional decision making.

Look who really suffered a negative reputation hit. Jeff Bezos for not endorsing anyone. He's afraid of Trump, and everyone knows it. The guy is either stupid or thinks the majority of citizens are stupid (not the Trump voters). Well, it's him that's stupid. He surely didn't consider the backlash against him and his paper. The only people being hurt by Trump are those who have a public trust, but are bowing in fear of Trump. Bezos is a coward.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
Nope but the Times will take a massive hit to their reputation for endorsing Harris as president who has to this day offered not a single thing at the table aside from meaningless word salads and repeated memorized lines over and over without adequately answering and explaining any questions in detail people have asked her.
Click to expand...
False. Harris is the only stable candidate, and the vast majority of voters know it. Even many Trump voters know this, but they are too deep in their emotional decision making.

Look who really suffered a negative reputation hit. Jeff Bezos for not endorsing anyone. He's afraid of Trump, and everyone knows it. The guy is either stupid or thinks the majority of citizens are stupid (not the Trump voters). Well, it's him that's stupid. He surely didn't consider the backlash against him and his paper. The only people being hurt by Trump are those who have a public trust, but are bowing in fear of Trump. Bezos is a coward.

When people are afraid they make bad choices. This is why Trump works hard to make his followers afraid of migrants, democrats, voting access, liberty, etc. And it works on the weak.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Twilight Hue said:
Nope but the Times will take a massive hit to their reputation for endorsing Harris as president who has to this day offered not a single thing at the table aside from meaningless word salads and repeated memorized lines over and over without adequately answering and explaining any questions in detail people have asked her.
Click to expand...
She offers something of great value,
ie, being not Trump.
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
danieldemol

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Regiomontanus said:
Do you really think Putin - who can barely hold onto the eastern 1/3 of Ukraine - is somehow going to march into the rest of Europe?
Click to expand...
Well he is barely able to hold that much because of the support Zelensky has from US and to a lesser extent the UK and EU.

So in my view it doesn't make sense to imagine a Ukraine with that support as a basis for what would happen if that support was not there.
 
anotherneil

anotherneil

Well-Known Member
LOL What kind of a dummy is waiting around for a POTUS endorsement from the likes of not only a large corporation, but also one that makes money from advertising for other large corporations, rather than thinking for themselves?
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
anotherneil said:
LOL What kind of a dummy is waiting around for a POTUS endorsement from the likes of not only a large corporation, but also one that makes money from advertising for other large corporations, rather than thinking for themselves?
Click to expand...
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with editorials. I suggest you pick up a newspaper sometime (or its online counterpart).
 
Shaul

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Watchmen said:
Show me where she advocated for abortions without restrictions.
Click to expand...
She wholeheartedly supports H.R. 3755 the "Women's Health Protection Act of 2021". This act would allow abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy and disallow any state laws restricting abortions. It's stated purpose is to disallow restrictions on abortions.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

(b) Purpose.—It is the purpose of this Act—

(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements that single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures,
Click to expand...
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Twilight Hue said:
In the meantime, the rest of the nation will just focus on the top priorities like the Economy and the Border. Good thing her priorities are not revelant enough to matter except of course to her.
Click to expand...

Why would the border be a top priority?
 
Watchmen

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
Not the way it works. I never claimed she has no restrictions. You claimed she had restrictions. What are they?
Click to expand...
It is the way it works. I was responding to post #6 (which made the claim that Harris advocates for abortions without any restrictions), and then you jumped in. In any event, Harris has said she would restore Roe v Wade which outlines restrictions State’s can implement.

Ok—your turn. Show me where she advocated for abortion without any restrictions whatsoever.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Clizby Wampuscat said:
Not the way it works. I never claimed she has no restrictions. You claimed she had restrictions. What are they?
Click to expand...
She wants to go back to the restrictions of Roe v Wade. In other words legal through the first 22 weeks and then up to the states after that with the clear exceptions of when the life of the mother or the fetus are threatened.
 
Clizby Wampuscat

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
Watchmen said:
It is the way it works. I was responding to post #6 (which made the claim that Harris advocates for abortions without any restrictions), and then you jumped in. In any event, Harris has said she would restore Roe v Wade which outlines restrictions State’s can implement.
Click to expand...
Shaul’s post debunks this. #34

Watchmen said:
Ok—your turn. Show me where she advocated for abortion without any restrictions whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I never made this claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top