Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

[Subduction Zone]

In my view, even after 5th month is murder.
So sixth month is unthinkable.
I would have appreciated if she had pointed out the exact month.

Yes, and even when abortion is legal that long into a pregnancy they are still extremely rare. There are times when they are needed. I hope that you realize that. There are two clear instances when abortion is allowed that late:

When the life of the mother is threatened.

And when the fetus has such extreme deformities that if it survives birth it will live for just a few days in extreme pain.

In the US by the 5 month 98.7% of all abortions have already occurred. That tells us that we are getting into the stage where abortions are not on demand, but from medical necessity.

Raw data: Abortions by week of pregnancy

www.motherjones.com

I could probably did up the article but in Minnesota where they took all restrictions off of abortions they had only one very late term abortion a year for the last several years. Those were probably all due to medical necessity. Late term abortions are very expensive. If on demand they are not covered by insurance and almost no doctors will do them. The only thing that laws on very late term abortions seem to do is to raise the death rate for women that need those abortions. If it takes to long for them to say "Yes, we really need to do this abortion' it an be too late.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One question remained unanswered was:
will they allow abortion at the eighth month?

And the candidate pleaded the fifth.

Will you answer?

Harris answered very clearly: Re-instate Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade protections worked best.

 

[F1fan]

It’s not my math.

"Your math" as in you referred to it in your post.

And they very often have more because they earned more.

The rich gain much of their income from investments, which is just wealth making more wealthy. It's far from digging ditches or pouring concrete. And even those like CEOs who have multimillion salaries are not doing any more work than the average office worker. They are in a privileged position that is given as a sort of tradtion of payment. Even when we hear of CEOs getting fired it's often with a mutil-million dollar severance. Ouch, that must hurt their feelings (not their bank account).

They more than pay their fair share regardless of the rate.

I disagree. I think the more they make as a circumstance of their wealth and position the higher rate they should pay. The middle class and poor should barely pay any income tax given the compelixity of life today and the higher costs of living. Back in the 80s the cost of existing was cheap. Today it's about $300 a month just to be connected to the outside world, with phones and internet and even cable. No one can succeed these days without these basic costs. And few talk about this, but insurance rates are getting worse and worse. The basic person has to have insurance, and this monthly cost is squeeing the middle class, and exspecially the poor, very hard. It's not just eggs and gas. Meanwhile the rich have accumulated more wealth. And you seem sympathetic to their plight. At some point the federal government will have to pay down debt, and where do you think that will come from? You and me?

But let’s play this out. What percentage of the governments revenue should the top 10% be responsible for??? 80%? 90%? 100%?

I don't know. I think there should be a system where the rich should not accumulate wealth as the government has to borrow money, and the middle class and poor are hit with more fees and higher costs on basic essentials. Frankly I would not have a problem with increases on the upper income people and tax cuts, up to half, for the middle class. I think my rate was about 20% last time I recall, and I wouldn't mind that reduced to 10%. It would mean much more to me and to you than it will hurt some hedge fund guy with a higher rate on his winnings. It will alsi boost the economy. The rich have plenty already, they buy what they need and want as it is. The middle class and poor is what drives the economy.

 

[Copernicus]

Lol. I dont like the old geezer.
Never have pushed the old geezer.

So you say, but the pattern of your posts is unmistakable. You continually attack Harris and Democrats generally. You say you aren't pushing for the old geezer, but you have a lot of negative things to say about Harris and almost none to say about Trump. You may not like Trump, but we know who you like a lot less than Trump.

Its funny now that Biden is out, the left forgets how they claimed Biden wasn't too old and was mentally fit. Oh and how they pushed Biden lol.

So either youns actually believed that or were being dishonest.

The left is no more monolithic than the right. The two major parties are basically coalitions cobbled together by the two-party system that dominates our form of elections. Personally, I said that Biden was too old for the job in 2020, and I expected him to last no longer than one term. I was extremely unhappy that he elbowed younger candidates out of the way and kept the nomination for himself in 2024, but I always felt that he was mentally competent enough to run the administration. I still believe that he is, although he is obviously in much more rapid decline this year. After the debate with Trump, I favored replacing him with Harris and despaired of him being able to overcome his ego by ceding the nomination to her. I was relieved and glad when he did. Polls have consistently shown that neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted a Biden-Trump rematch this year. Democrats managed to replace their old geezer, but most Republicans are still pushing for theirs, steadfastly ignoring every whackadoodle sign of mental decline in his public performances.

 

[Quintessence]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "deserved", but remember. A greatly outnumbered group of police were faced with a mob that was brandishing improvised weapons while trying to get into the building, and smashing windows in the process. This woman decided to climb through a window and one of the cops shot her. Are you surprised?

No, and I'm not comfortable saying someone deserved to get shot and killed. I am comfortable calling it tragic and shameful - it never should have come to that. May it never come to that again. May we have a normal, sane, reasonable, and entirely boring transition of power and not be dealing with militant uprisings and insurrectionists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Your math" as in you referred to it in your post.

The rich gain much of their income from investments, which is just wealth making more wealthy. It's far from digging ditches or pouring concrete. And even those like CEOs who have multimillion salaries are not doing any more work than the average office worker. They are in a privileged position that is given as a sort of tradtion of payment. Even when we hear of CEOs getting fired it's often with a mutil-million dollar severance. Ouch, that must hurt their feelings (not their bank account).

I disagree. I think the more they make as a circumstance of their wealth and position the higher rate they should pay. The middle class and poor should barely pay any income tax given the compelixity of life today and the higher costs of living. Back in the 80s the cost of existing was cheap. Today it's about $300 a month just to be connected to the outside world, with phones and internet and even cable. No one can succeed these days without these basic costs. And few talk about this, but insurance rates are getting worse and worse. The basic person has to have insurance, and this monthly cost is squeeing the middle class, and exspecially the poor, very hard. It's not just eggs and gas. Meanwhile the rich have accumulated more wealth. And you seem sympathetic to their plight. At some point the federal government will have to pay down debt, and where do you think that will come from? You and me?

I don't know. I think there should be a system where the rich should not accumulate wealth as the government has to borrow money, and the middle class and poor are hit with more fees and higher costs on basic essentials. Frankly I would not have a problem with increases on the upper income people and tax cuts, up to half, for the middle class. I think my rate was about 20% last time I recall, and I wouldn't mind that reduced to 10%. It would mean much more to me and to you than it will hurt some hedge fund guy with a higher rate on his winnings. It will alsi boost the economy. The rich have plenty already, they buy what they need and want as it is. The middle class and poor is what drives the economy.

I am beginning to agree with the conservatives. We need to go back to the good old days of the 1950's when we had a reasonable tax rate on the rich under Eisenhower:

Eisenhower proved higher tax rates could work

Shakespeare said, there is "many a slip twixt cup and lip" in "Hamlet." It implies that even when the outcome of an event seems certain, things can still go wrong.

apnews.com

 

[We Never Know]

So you say, but the pattern of your posts is unmistakable. You continually attack Harris and Democrats generally. You say you aren't pushing for the old geezer, but you have a lot of negative things to say about Harris and almost none to say about Trump. You may not like Trump, but we know who you like a lot less than Trump.

You need to read more. I say negative things about Trump often.
For Harris, so far just how she has dodged the media, has flip flopped on several issues, avoid answering questions, etc. All that are true.

The left is no more monolithic than the right. The two major parties are basically coalitions cobbled together by the two-party system that dominates our form of elections. Personally, I said that Biden was too old for the job in 2016, and I expected him to last no longer than one term. I was extremely unhappy that he elbowed younger candidates out of the way and kept the nomination for himself in 2020, but I always felt that he was mentally competent enough to run the administration. I still believe that he is, although he is obviously in much more rapid decline this year. After the debate with Trump, I favored replacing him with Harris and despaired of him being able to overcome his ego by ceding the nomination to her. I was glad when he did. Polls have consistently shown that neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted a Biden-Trump rematch this year. Democrats managed to replace their old geezer, but Republicans are still pushing for theirs, stubbornly ignoring every whackadoodle sign of mental decline in his public performances.

The dems had no choice other than to replace Biden. He would still be there if not for the debate.

I never wanted a Trump Biden rematch. I have said over and over both are too old and shouldn't be in the race.

 

[Watchmen]

"Your math" as in you referred to it in your post.

The rich gain much of their income from investments, which is just wealth making more wealthy. It's far from digging ditches or pouring concrete. And even those like CEOs who have multimillion salaries are not doing any more work than the average office worker. They are in a privileged position that is given as a sort of tradtion of payment. Even when we hear of CEOs getting fired it's often with a mutil-million dollar severance. Ouch, that must hurt their feelings (not their bank account).

I disagree. I think the more they make as a circumstance of their wealth and position the higher rate they should pay. The middle class and poor should barely pay any income tax given the compelixity of life today and the higher costs of living. Back in the 80s the cost of existing was cheap. Today it's about $300 a month just to be connected to the outside world, with phones and internet and even cable. No one can succeed these days without these basic costs. And few talk about this, but insurance rates are getting worse and worse. The basic person has to have insurance, and this monthly cost is squeeing the middle class, and exspecially the poor, very hard. It's not just eggs and gas. Meanwhile the rich have accumulated more wealth. And you seem sympathetic to their plight. At some point the federal government will have to pay down debt, and where do you think that will come from? You and me?

I don't know. I think there should be a system where the rich should not accumulate wealth as the government has to borrow money, and the middle class and poor are hit with more fees and higher costs on basic essentials. Frankly I would not have a problem with increases on the upper income people and tax cuts, up to half, for the middle class. I think my rate was about 20% last time I recall, and I wouldn't mind that reduced to 10%. It would mean much more to me and to you than it will hurt some hedge fund guy with a higher rate on his winnings. It will alsi boost the economy. The rich have plenty already, they buy what they need and want as it is. The middle class and poor is what drives the economy.

So at the end of the day you’re a hard core socialist/communist and your best response to how much the top 10% should pay is, “ai don’t know.”

 

[Copernicus]

You need to read more. I say negative things about Trump often.
For Harris, so far just how she has dodged the media, has flip flopped on several issues, avoid answering questions, etc. All that are true.

You need to read your own posts more. You make a vague handwaving reference to Trump and immediately launch into specific grievances against Harris. That is your normal habit, and it fools nobody.

The dems had no choice other than to replace Biden. He would still be there if not for the debate.

Dems had no choice but to keep Biden unless he agreed to voluntarily withdraw. Biden was shown evidence of a serious collapse of support for him after his disastrous debate performance, and that is what convinced him to withdraw. Ever since then, Republicans have been trying to spin his decision as something that was done without his consent. It could not have happened but for his consent, since he had more than enough convention delegates pledged to him.

I never wanted a Trump Biden rematch. I have said over and over both are too old and shouldn't be in the race.

Yet you act as if Democrats have been enthusiastic supporters of Biden. That is not what was being reported for months before the debate. There was very little enthusiasm for his candidacy, and his poll numbers showed that. When Harris became the nominee, there was an immediate outpouring of support and enthusiasm for her candidacy.

 

[Spice]

More TDS

Springfield, Ohio Resident Says Car Insurance Has Skyrocketed Because Haitian Migrants Cannot Drive

*** The Liberty Daily benefits when you shop using the following links and Code: TLD _ The Liberty Daily Recommends ONE Honest, America-First Precious Metals Company - Our Gold Guy! https://ourgoldguy

rumble.com

Another nonsense "news" source.

 

[We Never Know]

You need to read your own posts more. You make a vague handwaving reference to Trump and immediately launch into specific grievances against Harris. That is your normal habit, and it fools nobody.

Even from this thread.

And I noticed you didn't deny what I said about Harris.
Btw, how is stating what she does an attack?

Yes Trump gives a reply after each question. The problem is many of his replies have nothing to do with the question that was asked.

^^^^ must be an attack on Trump ^^^^

 

[Estro Felino]

This Italian compatriot comments the debate by saying that Kamala Harris has proved that WAR is a feminine noun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another nonsense "news" source.

But, but it came from an Ohio resident. I suppose it might be too difficult to look up actual car insurance costs

Yep skyrocketing. Wait, why did they drop in 2019 to 2020? I do not understand that. And then they rapidly went back to their old rates plus a bit for inflation for some odd reason. Does anyone remember what happened between 2019 and 2022?

 

[Spice]

It's worse than that. Haitians are into all sorts of voodoo ****.

View attachment 96997

The only immigrants you need to watch your pets for:

 

[anna.]

1. Moderators fact check Trump but not Harris

I've seen this across multiple right-wing sites today. Did it occur to any of them that maybe Harris didn't require fact-checking because she didn't spew egregious lies and conspiracy theories?

 

[We Never Know]

The only immigrants you need to watch your pets for:View attachment 97026

They are actually several places/cultures that eat cats.

 

[Spice]

Honestly I haven't read this whole thread, but I did read what was posted during the live debate and a couple of hours after.

One thing I found extremely important for any GOP watching, was when Harris specifically checked Trump on guns. She looked straight at him and stated she and Tim Walz are both gun owners and they were not taking anyone's guns away! And she told Trump to his face to stop lying! Then she turned back to the moderators and answered the question posed.

This alone "could" wake up a few Redwing viewers to the fear tactics used on the 2nd Amendment issue. NOW, to actually address the matters of gun ownership and handling. Semi-locally a 15 year old was shot down yesterday morning at his school bus stop.

 

[F1fan]

So at the end of the day you’re a hard core socialist/communist

What a shame you retreat to this laughable redoubt of right wing nonsense. All I’m suggesting is that the financial burden of financing the government be shifted more towards those who are better able to afford it. You offer no rebuttal as to why that’s a bad idea.

and your best response to how much the top 10% should pay is, “ai don’t know.”

I’m not arguing the actual numbers. But I have a problem with Mitt Romney paying 12% tax on his income while school teachers pay 20%. I’d rather see that reversed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen this across multiple right-wing sites today. Did it occur to any of them that maybe Harris didn't require fact-checking because she didn't spew egregious lies and conspiracy theories?

They both were inaccurate at times, but Trump was wildly inaccurate far more often:

Loading…

www.npr.org

 

[Copernicus]

Even from this thread.

And I noticed you didn't deny what I said about Harris.
Btw, how is stating what she does an attack?

All you said was "For Harris, so far just how she has dodged the media, has flip flopped on several issues, avoid answering questions, etc. All that are true."

She has not dodged the media in the way Trump has--by only taking interviews from softball interviewers. Harris had a real interview with questions that went over many Republican talking points. Trump seldom answers questions put to him, preferring instead to ramble on other topics and flip flopped on many issues, most egregiously on abortion. Nevertheless, you criticize Harris for those things and remain silent on Trump. Nobody is fooled, except maybe for you fooling yourself.

Yes Trump gives a reply after each question. The problem is many of his replies have nothing to do with the question that was asked.

^^^^ must be an attack on Trump ^^^^

Not really. You just made that specific attack on Harris without pointing out that Trump not only avoids questions, but can't stop talking about things that were never asked of him at all.