Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions in real time. She hasn't done it since being the democrat nominee for president. President Donald Trump and his VP have done more than 40 press conferences and press interviews. They are accustomed to answering questions in real time. They've done it many times.
I think the lack of experience when it comes to answering questions from the press in real time will be a huge problem for harris.Wasn't she chosen for her attributes as a woman of color?
Did anybody consider she needed more than that?
"Oh Dear!" is all we can say as we wring our hands in absolute dread and embarrassment for the poor fake. I mean black woman.
Well, yes she is a woman. That fact we can tell, as she is not afraid to seem frivolous, funny, nonchalant and whimsical. She cannot help it. Its in her DNA. Debating serious issues and policies which she herself believes in?
Not so much.Trump will win if he:
1) Rests up... as in sleep... the day prior.
Trump has been doing so many appearances, for so many weeks now, I think he is practically semi-asleep at some of them, barely cognizant at times.
2) Shuts Up... short, simple, witty answers wherever you can get away with it and just let the moderators and Harris fill the silence.
Harris is a COMPLETE UNKNOWN and this may be the only chance Trump has to get her to expose herself to America... for mask to slip and the real truth be exposed.
Similar to the Biden Debate... Trump doesn't need to sell himself... he needs to expose Harris just like he exposed Biden.
As Incompetent and Incapable.We can hope... Will he play "rope a dope" and let her just rip, and run out of mesmerized blurbs as he did Biden?
Didn't happen.
This is now Harris' election to win in a landslide unless she does something to hand it back to Trump.
Or unless something happens to Trump, which could cause a populist/nationalist swing to Vance like nothing we have seen in politics in our lifetimes.
Having watched/listened to Vance since his selection, I have seen/heard enough to know he is more than capable of being the orator and leader capable of handling that moment and rallying the nation.
And I know who his backers are, he would have enough of the right support so that this could happen. (Some would say: be allowed)Harris roped the dope. And Vance? He may be more of a dope than Trump. The "we're not weird" campaign is failing miserably mostly due to Vance. I think he started the "they're eating the pets" lunacy. Are you suggesting that Trump will leave the race?
But Vance as a populist? He's an elitist underneath, he was most comfortable visiting wineries in his tech bro vest in San Francisco.Uh-huh.
"They are in the Park grabbing up ducks by their necks cutting their heads off and walking off with them and eating them"
https://x.com/CultureWar2020/status/1833167941409345808
Haitians eating domesticated cats in Springfield, Ohio
https://x.com/Arightside/status/1833307120986411188
Oh Ken,
No rope is a dope—that much is clear. I just watched the entire debate, and in every segment Harris spoke, she either lied or twisted the truth. And, surprise surprise, it probably flew right over the heads of countless viewers. She fed them exactly what they wanted to hear—red meat, served rare.
It was obvious she was recycling the same lines she’s been peddling on the campaign trail. Now, we wait a week or so to see how her mistruths get digested by the masses. I’ll admit, she has a solid shot at winning. After all, the debate and how easily people gloss over her lies shows the writing on the wall. Still, I hold out hope that some might snap out of their stupor and take a good look at the scorched earth this administration has left in its wake.
I completely agree with you. Having done some research on Vance, it's clear he possesses the qualities of a strong orator and leader. He has a unique ability to quickly articulate his thoughts with clarity and conviction, which is crucial when rallying the nation during pivotal moments. His blend of intellect and off-the-cuff charisma makes him more than equipped to lead and address the challenges we face. If there's anyone who can step up and inspire, it's him.
Was not she the eloquent 'prosecutor' they said, Trump, can't have a way in this 2024 September debate?
I am assuming you would like my view in regards to her performance.
I will take this as permission to let it rip. She was as mean as she could be. Obviously, she rehearsed this performance well. I suspect she and the moderators sat down together day after day for weeks to cook up the script.
Their motives were clear: Get Trump. Its the Reason for the Season: Get Trumpy!
Well, try as they might, they did not.
Back to harris. She was drab, she was snobby, she was haughty and dismissive as only an unattractive person can be. I'm sure Trump will refuse to shake hands with her in another debate.
Her obedience to her handlers was evident. She revealed nothing of her true character and brought no sincerity or true regard for facts to the table. What she did offer was luscious and tempting goals, which I imagine she came up with at the last minute.
In reality, as she offers tax cuts and free money for families, she guarantees high taxes. She will have to take from not only the rich, but the middle class, as well. In this way, she guarantees poverty. She guarantees slavery.
And why does she go along with it?
Because she is of the same ilk as Obama. Wined, dined, recruited and coached for their hatred of whatever it is they do not prefer about America.
Trump may have an advantage due to his thick skin, allowing him to both take and throw punches. She, on the other hand, will likely remain composed, but Trump will probably manage to say everything he intends about his opponent. He is strategic and enjoys verbal sparring.
I believe Harris will likely focus on issues like social justice, healthcare, and democratic principles, much like she has throughout her campaign. These are areas she's well-memorized. She will probably try to highlight the differences between her approach and Trump’s record in office, possibly going as far as labeling him a felon. However, beyond calling out some of his more exaggerated claims, she doesn't have much leverage against him. In my opinion, Trump has her cornered, with plenty of significant issues to critique her on, especially her lackluster job performance. I’m not sure why she agreed to debate at all; she should have stuck to her "Hidden Harris" strategy, which worked well for Joe.
Trump, on the other hand, would likely counter with criticisms of the current administration, and ask why she did not make good over the past 3.5 years. Most possibly using inflammatory remarks toward her lack of comment sense, and ability to do the job. The debate will likely be marked by sharp ideological clashes and differing styles, with Harris trying to remain composed, while Trump may prioritize showmanship and blunt cutting attacks.
He will most likely make attempts to poke holes in her promises and take jabs at the fact she has flip-flopped. He will most likely bring up her comment about being the last one in the room when Biden decided to pull out of Afghanistan. He will pound home the death of the 13 soldiers.
He would be remiss not to bring up her poor performance as Vice President and highlight her role in the administration's failures. He'll emphasize issues related to the border, blaming her for the ongoing crisis and citing recent migrant crimes against women. He'll also draw comparisons to the current economic struggles, attributing them to her and Biden's left-leaning policies. The critique could go on and on, and it will be harsh.
This is an example of Harris debating Biden. She made hyperbolic accusations, and Biden came back with facts. Made her look as if she did not understand how and why she was the little girl on the bus... He clearly won over her in both debates in 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUutymbDLI0
This link contains a Harris and Biden discussing Harris's plan for Medicare for All Plan -- Biden held up well offering facts and the many drawbacks of her plan.
She floundered and offered no plans of where the money would come from to bring Medicare for all. Her speech was pretty but held no common sense and no real rebuttal to Biden's clear rebuttal statements. She seemed to make promises that were just not doable. As she has been now in 2024 on the campaign trail -- it's the same old same old. Fluffy promises with no real realistic plan to bring any of her promises to fruition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9dW2v2bEz0
I think watching the 2020 debates can offer a good view into what we will see from Harris on Tues. Lots of words that have no substance in reality.
In my view --- it will be a sh t show. The media will take sides saying their candidate won hands down... And I guess that is that...I still do not see how he wins with this. About a third of Americans are going to support her even though she is an idiot just because she is not Trump, and him pointing it out is not going to change their minds.
Can't argue your thoughts. However, I will point out, consider the polls resemble what they did when he ran against Hillary. I can't believe I am saying this, my better judgment would have stopped me a few years ago --- not sure I believe the polls are on the up and up. I just compare them to what I hear on social media, and they just don't match. Not sure how she could win in Nov. Now the the debate -- that's a gimmie. Media are most likely working up their articles on her big win... LOL
I fully agree with your sentiment on Harris --- she is an idiot.The polls certainly do not take into account ballot box stuffing with fake mail in votes. After seeing how this was so obviously done in Chicago for so many years it just amazes me that people come onto the forums and argue that the elections are on the up and up.
Not really, when you consider the effort our government puts forth to convince people that the elections are legitimate, including the pressure and collaboration done with major media sources and via FBI agents whose job it is to peruse the internet and counter people who make such claims.
We see in France how Macron has overturned the election of the people to remove him, we see how Putin has masterminded his stay in office for most of the last 20+ years, kudos to him for even stepping away for a couple of years and allowing someone else to appear to be in charge.
It is clear that those in DC, especially the most corrupt that have been there for decades and consider Trump a threat to their continued ability to remain in power within the DC belt have no interest in what is right or fair... or so it appears.Ken,
You bring up excellent points about Macron and Putin. Haven't we seen something similar, though not exactly the same? A party, sensing they had a weak losing candidate, replaced him with someone they felt more favorable just three months before the election—without even reopening the primary to see if anyone else might want to run. It seems like they bypassed established norms. I’m also puzzled by their choice of Harris, given that she was part of an administration they seemed very eager to distance themselves from.
I mean did they not brutally run old Joe out?Oh I don't think so, they would have been fine with Biden if his dementia and incontinence hadn't gotten to the point where it couldn't be hid from the public anymore.
Pretty scarry stuff, that they would prop up someone so incapable as President to remain in power... and when I say "they" I mean politicians, the unelected that have been in DC most of their lives, and the major donors that support them and their efforts.
Remember what Trump really represents... Anti-Establishment (lifers that think they own DC and America... they serve themselves not the American people), Pro-American Citizen (a National Citizenry not a Global Citizenry) a controlled border (vs Open Border - Global Compact on Migration) and de-escalation of our DC/Biden created wars."I mean politicians, the unelected that have been in DC most of their lives, and the major donors that support them and their efforts."
Wasn't this the same group that essentially forced Joe out? They were cutting back donations just weeks before he dropped out. Could this have been the Democratic Party’s way of warning him to step down, or else? It seems like this was part of a plan that had been in place for a while. I don't think they ever wanted another primary—it could have led to someone who wasn’t as easily controlled.
Yes, Trump is seen as a threat because he aims to disrupt the status quo and address issues that have accumulated over decades. His focus is on prioritizing America and working to improve the country in all aspects. He is willing to say "We need fixing", and he is willing to try to tackle the huge glaring problems, from domestic to foreign, that we have watched accumulate over many years.
One can only hope he wins...I think there would have been a primary if anyone else expressed any interest in launching a campaign.
The opportunity was there for anyone to step up.
During the last election here some towns were recording 100% of the votes for the sociliast candidate that was supported by Moraes, the supreme court justice who has been in your news later since he outlawed X here in Brazil. If you go to those placas about a third of people interviewed will tell you that they voted for the other candidate.
Anyone who comes on here and claims that voting machines and Mail in ballots cannot be manipuláted is just regurgitating the party line.
That works both ways.
About a third of the country will support Trump no-matter-what, these are the Americans that see the transformation the country (the entire 'Western world') is undergoing, they are living with the inflation, the migrants taking over their cities, and the insanity of Transmen, Child-Mutilation, etc.
These people see through the media BS to how the DC elites are living it up, getting filthy rich selling out Americans and America, and have had enough of a government that serves international corporate interests and the wealthy elites at the expense of the citizens it is supposed to be serving.
I miss the good ole days, before social media!
With that being said...
I believe one debater is being aggressively coached and the other, was born ready.
I think harris has to be made to answer for her flip flops on major issues.
Ban fracking then NOT ban fracking
Against the border wall now FOR the border wall
For Medicare for all now NOT for Medicare for all
For defunding the police now NOT for defunding the police
FOR Electric vehicle mandates now AGAINST Electric vehicle mandates
For decriminalizing border crossers now AGAINST decriminalizing border crossers
The list goes on and on.
She needs to explain all of these changes in her policies.I am hopeful she will be questioned about everything you've shared. I also hope her Senate voting record will be highlighted, as her flip-flopping seems like an attempt to appear more moderate. Her positions during the 2020 campaign, along with her Senate voting history, clearly reflect far-left ideologies.
I think she is as I write cramming and mesmerizing. Not sure how this will work out if Trump tosses in diversions frequently, in the middle of a memorized blurb. I mean Trump will be Trump, maybe a calmer version, but you can bet, he will still be Trump.Why do her" flip flops" matter more than his? I see Harris as making more of a move to the center while his are a total 180. Did you hear his answer to the question about sanctions at the NYC economic club last week?
"President Donald Trump complained about anti-terrorism and other international sanctions, saying he’d use them as little as possible and singling out Russia and Iran."
Didn't he criticize Biden in terms of lifting sanctions on Iran? Lifting embargo / sanctions on Russia is predictable for Trump but supporting iran?
This is the third Presidential Election in a row that the Russians have been caught trying to help the Republicans.
Why do folks think that is?
In terms of the debate though, I hope she raises the idea of a President Vance .I found his comments on sanctions were largely focused on how he utilized them — emphasizing his role in both imposing and lifting sanctions. Reflecting on his time in office, I believe Trymp was quite effective in using sanctions, particularly with Russia and Iran. He frequently imposed them, and in my opinion, achieved significant success using sanctions. For example, he halted Russia's progress on its pipeline, which, while angering both the EU and Russia, was a notable achievement. However, Biden later lifted those pipeline sanctions, and I believe this, in part, emboldened Russia to wage war on Ukraine. Similarly, Biden's leniency on sanctions with Iran seems to have contributed to the current conflict in the Middle East. Just my view, but I feel Trump used sanctions liberally when it comes to Russia. I feel none of our foreign enemies would want Trump back in the office, they have had a tea party under Bide, My God we have two wars...and China is ready to start a third.
Russia's interference in U.S. elections, especially in favor of the Republican Party, has garnered attention for decades, particularly due to efforts linked to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. However, the broader context involves Russia's long-standing attempts to influence Western democracies. This practice, often referred to as "active measures," has been part of Soviet and later Russian intelligence strategies for so many decades.
It seems quite ludicrous to me that the DOJ is pushing this narrative. This has been going on for decades, and it doesn't seem like Russia's efforts have been successful because Biden won in 2020. In 2016, Hillary Clinton also won the popular vote. The whole situation feels absurd and foolish... Maybe the DOF and FIB should concentrate on solving a many-decade-long problem.
I think what I saw last week from the DOJ was for lack of better words outward political ploy, and to me they looked foolish. This White House has a true habit of weaponizing federal agencies.Trump...stating clearly, “I want to use sanctions as little as possible.”
The recent doj indictments are foolish?
Including the indictment of two Russian employees of the state-run news site RT for allegedly paying an American media company to spread English-language videos on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and X.? The indicted accused of illegally funneling $9.7 million into a Tennessee media company.
Should the American people
know when a foreign power engages in political activities or seeks to influence public discourse?
Should our government look the other way?
I don't believe that the doj is ' pushing a narrative," they've indicted people. I think all of us have seen the effects of Russian propaganda, it is posted here quite oftenAs I said, It's not a new thing that Russia has made attempts to interfere with our election for decades. So Did the Biden Campaign, If we are to beleive Mark Zuckerburg.
Politico --- "Mark Zuckerberg says he regrets that Meta bowed to Biden administration pressure to censor content, saying in a letter that the interference was “wrong” and he plans to push back if it happens again.
Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms. Zuckerberg detailed how senior administration officials leaned on the company to censor certain posts about COVID-19, including humor and satire, and “expressed a lot of frustration” when the social media platform resisted."
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction — and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
Zuckerberg also expressed regret for Meta’s downplaying of content related to coverage by the New York Post about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election that the FBI warned may have been rooted in a Russian disinformation operation. "It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he wrote."
Let's not forget the FBI indiscretion. That was political, in my view.
"July 20, 2023
Press Release
WASHINGTON, D.C. – On July 17, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government conducted a transcribed interview of Laura Dehmlow, the Section Chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF). During her transcribed interview, Dehmlow revealed that the same FBI personnel who were warning social media companies about a potential Russian “hack and leak” operation in the run-up to the 2020 election knew that the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was not Russian disinformation."
The Democrats have long been accused of using various tactics to influence elections. For example, many recall the controversies surrounding Russiagate, where Hillary Clinton and her team were said to have promoted claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election, and paid for the Steele dossier, which was proved to be full of mistruths
The Democrats are pretty slimy. I mean look what they have done to Biden, dumped him, and decided not to hold any form of primary. I realize no law was broken, but this was certainly, in my view, a slimy ploy.
Shar,
I just take this as a sign the democrats are starting to be afraid they could lose the election. If harris was up significantly in the polls, this story would never be seen. The other sign is Jack Smith trying to file another bogus lawsuit against President Donald Trump.
It's like the russia hoax, the fake allegations clinton's campaign paid for from a bogus British spy.
I expect we'll se some other things. The American public is starting to see harris and her many shortcomings being put on display. Many don't like what they see.
The debate should be interesting.
If harris does poorly, who knows, the democratic controlled DOJ and FBI may come up with another bogus reason to indict President Donald Trump. It's not something I would put past them.
democrats know they can't win in a fair election.Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment, it is not a new indictment. The superseding indictment was filed in reaction to the Supreme court's decision on immunity for Official Acts. My understanding is that it pulled these acts out.
"If harris was up significantly in the polls, this story would never be seen. "
Why bury this story?
Two RT Employees Indicted for Covertly Funding and Directing U.S. Company that Published Thousands of Videos in Furtherance of Russian Interests...
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-rt-e … -thousands"This is the third Presidential Election in a row that the Russians have been caught trying to help the Republicans."
I have found no official Statements from the DOJ or FBI that provide any clarity on who Russia was promoting. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of a deterrence for Russia, as they witness their decades of interference finally being addressed by our law enforcement agencies. I mean, that is what we pay them for.
I also must point out ---
U.S. intelligence officials say Iran was behind Trump presidential campaign hack
— Published on Aug 19, PBS
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence officials said Monday they were confident that Iran was responsible for the hack of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, casting the cyber intrusion as part of a brazen and broader effort by Tehran to interfere in American politics and undermine faith in democratic institutions.
Although the Trump campaign and private-sector cybersecurity investigators had previously said Iran was behind the hacking attempts, it was the first time the U.S. government had assigned blame for the attack."According to the court documents, RT, formerly known as Russia Today, is a state-controlled media outlet funded and directed by the Government of Russia. Over at least the past year, RT and its employees, including Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva, deployed nearly $10 million to covertly finance and direct a Tennessee-based online content creation company (U.S. Company-1). In turn, U.S. Company-1 published English-language videos on multiple social media channels, including TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube. Since publicly launching in or about November 2023, U.S. Company-1 has posted nearly 2,000 videos that have garnered more than 16 million views on YouTube alone. Many of the videos posted by U.S. Company-1 contain commentary on events and issues in the U.S., such as immigration, inflation, and other topics related to domestic and foreign policy. While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, most are directed to the publicly stated goals of the Government of Russia and RT — to amplify domestic divisions in the United States. "
The following document, in the section called "overview" has exhibits that outline everything. It would appear that these efforts were aimed toward Trump voters and swing States.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- … -influence
I've regularly seen this sort of info, from questionable sources posted right here on these forums."It would appear that these efforts were aimed toward Trump voters and swing States."
I will have to list this as unfounded speculation. Not really what this is about at all. I know this especially after reading the indictment.
Here is a copy of the indictment. Not the most exciting 32 page read...but it is legalize and not intended to be entertaining.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1366266/dl
If you read it you'll find RT was more interested in changing American opinions concerning russia's efforts in their war with Ukraine and trying to make Americans have a positive view of russia.
They were not interested in politics.I would ask you to take a look at the the exhibits. Particularly exhibit 8A. They named it the "good old USA project". "
Overview
"The affidavit describes the perpetrators’ own internal strategy meeting notes, project proposals, and other records obtained during the course of the investigation. Several notable propaganda project proposals directed against the United States included:
Good Old USA Project: Attachments 8A, 8B
The Guerilla Media Campaign: Attachments 9A, 9B
U.S. Social Media Influencers Network Project: Attachments 10A, 10B
The project was supposed to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in favor of Trump, specifically targeting certain minorities, swing-state residents, and online gamers, among others, in a scheme that included a full-time team dedicated to the cause."
But also from DOJ..
“As alleged in our court filings, President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, including Sergei Kiriyenko, directed Russian public relations companies to promote disinformation and state-sponsored narratives as part of a campaign to influence the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. An internal planning document created by the Kremlin states that a goal of the campaign is to secure Russia’s preferred outcome in the election"Where are these alleged exhibits and I wonder why they weren't attached to the online indictment?
I believe nothing from the DOJ or FBI when it comes to campaigns.https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- … -influence
Scroll down to the section labeled "overview". The exhibits are linked.There is some things very wrong with this paperwork.
The exhibits are not described in the affidavit. When referencing political party A or candidate B there should be a key to identify who is being referred to in this situation. It makes no sense to black it out because a federal affidavit is a matter of public record.
Those are just a few things wrong with it. I could go on.
There is too much standard information missing.
It is, to say the least, suspicious.
Does anyone realize Jack Smith is not actually special counsel? He was never confirmed by Congress. He doesn't have standing to file these lawsuits.
It a stupid act that further undermines faith in the DOJ and the judicial system.
Mike -- You're absolutely right in pointing out the repeated efforts to undermine President Donald Trump through questionable legal actions, much like the Russia hoax, which turned out to be baseless and rooted in the Clinton campaign's false allegations. Jack Smith's latest attempts seem to follow this same pattern, raising concerns about the integrity of the process. On top of that, recent revelations about Mark Zuckerberg's Zuckerberg says the Biden administration pressured Meta to censor COVID-19 content " In the letter to the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Monday, Zuckerberg said his company was "pressured" into "censoring" content and that the company would push back if it faced such demands again." " "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret we were not more outspoken about it," he wrote. "I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today." Reuters
Hopefully, the American people are waking up to these cheap tactics, and as you mentioned, it does appear they're also beginning to see Kamala Harris' shortcomings more clearly. Many are indeed unhappy with what they see, and this is likely to have a significant impact moving forward. The polls today look to have become tighter. The debate will be very interesting, but I think we can safely predict that the left media will call Harris the winner... Leopards just don't change their spots.
I think we can see where this new Russia .02 is headed... If Trump wins, oh well you know... LOL They are covering all bases.
Well tonight's the night! We shall see who stumbles and falls short, and who gets the win and bragging rights.
Stay tuned!For the debate tonight, I think harris MUST win. She has to score a solid victory, if not, it's all over.
President Donald Trump just has to continue to stay focused on the issues and not get annoyed by her.
Should be interesting.He was good. He was being attacked and he defended well. He did very little attacking but, when he did, it was deserved and appropriate.
Fight Fight Fight.
Long Live DJT.He did not.
It was a bad showing. It will have a more negative effect as people dwell on it and review it in their minds or rewatch it, for Trump.
My thoughts on last night's debate.
If you were for harris before the debate, you are still for harris.
If you were for President Donald Trump, you are still for President Donald Trump.
That didn't change.
President Donald Trump showed his courage once again. He participated in a debate with ABC, who's president is a close personal friend of harris. The moderators were BLATENTLY bias. It was obvious to all who watched. The fact-checked President Donald Trump at least 5 times, they never once fact-checked harris. They provided commentary that was not necessary ("I didn't detect any sarcasm"). They were extremely unprofessional. President Donald Trump took on harris and the moderators. This is not how a debate should be conducted.
Should we expect anything different from the left? I say no.
Some of the non-truths Harris could (and should have been) fact-checked on:
1. Talking about Project 2025 as if it were Trump’s manifesto, and saying that he will pass a nationwide abortion ban
2. Dredging up Trump’s Charlottesville comment – that there were "very fine people on both sides" – which has been debunked
3. Saying Trump had overseen the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, which was caused by the pandemic
4. Saying Donald Trump has opposed IVF
5. Denying that Kamala Harris ever called for gun confiscation (there are videos of her doing just that)
6. Saying that Trump’s tax cuts only helped rich people
7. And my special bete noir – saying that she and Biden have "created" 800,000 manufacturing jobs, which is simply not true.Any particular reason why you call Donald Trump a president and write Harris without the capital H?
I support President Donald Trump and I have no respect for harris. None, zero, zip, zilch. It's the same reason I write democrat, russia, etc.
Ah oké. everybody has it's preferences.
Don't you find it difficult to hear that Donald Trump doesn't want to support Ukraine? To me it looks that he is clearly in support of putin.No. He was crystal clear on this, he wants this war ended yesterday. He will see to it, unlike the do-nothing Admin. of Biden-Harris.
Yes he wants the war to end, by giving Putin Ukraine.
That's the problem.What did you like about the plan he laid out to end of the war?
What has the Biden administration done to end the war? His term is sunsetting -- what has he done? Is this not a good question that is more important, before we vote on his VP? She's made no mention of how she would work to end either war. Only to support the wars... I want a peacemaker, not a person that offers to support wars. Her administration has failed to bring peace to the world, they have failed in that respect.
I appreciated that he stated he would personally engage with the leaders involved to address the issue. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would expect a president to openly reveal their intentions or the specific proposals they plan to present to foreign leaders. Such an approach or ploy could come across as disrespectful to the parties involved and undermine efforts to foster cooperation and find solutions. This kind of negotiation would be very delicate, and all parties would expect respect for the president or those involved.To reach out and talk to both leaders, getting a dialogue going, will be one heckuva start, in finishing it. I am not privy to what may be up his sleeve beyond that.
What do you like about Kamala's off in the distance plans, considering she has been in charge for nearly four years?
His goal is for Europe to bear more of the cost of supporting Ukraine.
If he can bring a worthwhile peace, it will be much welcomed on both sides.I agree with your perspective. In last night’s debate, Trump made it clear that his approach would be to negotiate an end to the war, though he didn't explicitly mention continuing support for Ukraine. Instead, he focused on pushing NATO to contribute more. In my opinion, he would never abandon Ukraine and would likely escalate the supply of weapons and aid. I’ve never heard him say he wouldn’t support Ukraine, only that he believes he can bring the war to an end. However, I was surprised when he mentioned that the number of casualties being sustained is increasing. I can see why he won't share his plan out of not wanting either side to feel disrespected. I would think closed-door negotiations give a better solution. I mean if the media became involved chances are the the deal would be blown.
All she had to do is not crumble and come across as someone people, especially women, could identify with.
She did that, the race is over, she will win the election if there are no major issues that impact what people think of her.
Keep in mind, most people don't know much about the details of what is going on, with much of anything when it comes to the economy or war or whatever... they rely on their media sources to tell them what the facts are, and most media sources are in the bag for Harris (the establishment shill).
I had predicted she would get more of the women's votes than Biden did, I believe everything I have seen up to this point makes for a great campaign that has targeted women and young voters (who are typically clueless to how the real world works) very well.
Biden got 58% of women's votes in 2020... I believe Harris will get 63% of the vote (she is more likable than Biden or Hillary were and that goes a long way with women) and Abortion has become a major issue for young women (under 40) especially.
Women make up 52% or more of the voters.
There is your election.
The only thing that may impact this more than I can identify is the migrant distribution across America... that may influence more voters than I imagine, but then again, those migrants will be voting wherever and whenever and however they are allowed to... so that may be more of a plus for Harris than many imagine right now.
I watch things like this (below)... where Springfield, OH that has a population of roughly 60,000 people has taken in roughly 20,000 migrants over the last 4 years, and well, you can guess how elections are going to be determined now and in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyzrRLKKEhg
Our government does not care about the disgruntled Americans that are behind Trump, rather than address their concerns they will simply bring in voters who will be loyal to the Party, because their ability to get free government support and the ability to remain in America depends on it.
House Republicans bemoan Trump debate performance: ‘Not good’
House Republicans are bemoaning former President Trump’s performance in the first — and potentially only — debate against Vice President Harris, acknowledging that the Democratic nominee successfully got under her GOP opponent’s skin.
“I’m just sad,” one House Republican who is supportive of Trump told The Hill. “She knew exactly where to cut to get under his skin. Just overall disappointing that he isn’t being more composed like the first debate.”
“The road just got very narrow,” they added. “This is not good.”
A second House Republican, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic, said “many” in the GOP conference were “disappointed” that Trump could not stay on message throughout the debate.
“She talks to us like toddlers but is doing a good job provoking him. He [is] right on policy but can’t keep to a message,” the lawmaker said. “Many are disappointed he couldn’t stay focused or land a punch. Not sure much changes but it wasn’t a good performance.”
“Lots of missed opportunities so far,” a third House Republican told The Hill in a text message during the debate. “It’s not devastating – but it’s not good.”
In a sign of potential concern within the campaign, Trump appeared in the spin room after the debate to deliver the same positive message to reporters, an unconventional move for a major-party candidate. And he is now balking at the idea of a second debate.
The Harris campaign called for another presidential debate against Trump almost immediately after the first one concluded. Trump, however, said his team would take the prospect under consideration.
A fourth House Republican railed against ABC News and Harris for their performances Tuesday night... But the lawmaker also said Trump’s showing suffered “missed opportunities.”
“I think he is all over the map and has missed opportunities to hammer her record,” the House Republican said. “He’s made strong points on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy, but it’s been disjointed at times.”
“Rough start,” said a fifth House Republican. “Moderators could be better.”
A sixth House Republican told The Hill that they were unable to watch the debate because they had a fundraiser, but the commentary was not positive.
“I didn’t watch it but I’m not hearing anything good from it,” the GOP lawmaker said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4873 … publicans/My thoughts on last night's debate.
So, she won. Ok.
Good thing that she lacks a lot in debate skills. If not. Yikes.The circus has packed up, dropped the tent, and left town, leaving behind only traces of memories—the anticipation of what we hoped the circus would deliver. Now, all that lingers is the letdown, as we reflect on the many costs of the day.
I didn't see a clear winner. Objectively, it felt like both candidates shared lies, empty promises, and political rhetoric. How does one choose a winner with so many mistruths tossed about? How does one choose a winner of a debate that was overly full of mistruths?
Regarding lies and fact-checking, only Trump was fact-checked live and pressed on his mistruths. But I took the time and had a long look at those that did fact-check both candidates. In my view, the moderators seemed biased, as they didn’t challenge Harris on her false claims but took the time and effort to press Trump on his.
For example, Harris brought up Project 2025, while Trump, over the past several weeks, has consistently stated that he has no involvement with it.
January 6th Riot Fatalities: Harris claimed that some police officers died as a result of the January 6th Capitol riot. While it's true that over 140 officers were injured, no officers died that day directly due to the violence. Officer Brian Sicknick passed away the following day from natural causes, and several others died in the weeks following, including four by suicide
FactCheck.org
Defunding the Police: Harris was criticized for comments regarding police funding. In 2020, she voiced support for "reimagining" public safety and reallocating some police resources to community programs, but she did not explicitly call for defunding or dissolving police departments
PolitiFact
Trump's "Bloodbath" Comment: Harris accused Trump of threatening violence by saying there would be a "bloodbath" if he didn't win the election. However, this statement was taken out of context; Trump had referred to an "economic bloodbath" related to auto industry jobs during a rally(
FactCheck.org
Harris claimed Trump intends to enact what in effect is a “sales tax” which she said economists estimate would raise prices on typical American families by almost $4,000 a year. That’s a high-end estimate from a liberal think tank about Trump’s plan for “universal baseline tariffs” on imports.
Harris falsely claimed that “Trump left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.” When President Joe Biden and Harris took office in January 2021, the unemployment rate was 6.4% — lower than it was during several administrations since the 1930s. Factcheck.org
Harris repeated the assertion that Trump “will sign a national abortion ban” if reelected, but Trump said that he does not intend to sign such a ban. Harris also tried to tie Trump to Project 2025’s proposal for mandatory abortion reporting, but Trump has tried to distance himself from the document. Factcheck.org
Harris claimed that Trump’s tax proposal would “provide a tax cut for billionaires and big corporations, which will result in $5 trillion to America’s deficit.” That’s the estimated 10-year cost of extending all the tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax law, but those tax changes benefited people of all income groups. Factcheck.org
Fact-checking Trump,
Trump repeated the debunked claim that after the 2020 election, "no judge looked" at his legal challenges, dismissing them on a "technicality this is not true. Factcheck.org
Trump made several claims that were flagged as misleading or false. For instance, Trump claimed that he "saved" the Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite his administration's efforts to repeal it. In fact, his administration supported a lawsuit to overturn the ACA, and his claim to have saved it is contradictory to his attempts to dismantle the law - PolitiFact
Another false claim was that "crime in this country is through the roof." In reality, FBI data shows that violent crime has been decreasing since 2021. Contrary to Trump's claim, the FBI's 2023 data is based on broader participation from cities than during his presidency, and the numbers show a decline in both violent crimes and murders(Snopes)
FactCheck.org
Trump falsely claimed that Harris was sent “to negotiate peace” between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022. Days before Russia invaded Ukraine that month, Harris met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskky in Germany. She did not meet with Putin, as Trump said. Factcheck.org
Trump repeated his unsupported claim that “millions of people” are “pouring into our country from prisons, jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums.” And he said these migrants were “taking jobs” from “African Americans and Hispanics and also unions.” Employment and union membership data show no evidence of that, either. Factcheck.org
Trump falsely claimed that Harris “has a flat plan to confiscate everybody’s guns.” Harris has not called for taking away all guns, and her campaign said she no longer supports a mandatory buyback program for so-called “assault weapons.” Factcheck.org
Trump claimed that he had “no inflation” during his presidency, while inflation experienced under Biden has been “probably the worst in our nation’s history.” Inflation was low under Trump, but it wasn’t zero. And while Inflation has risen significantly under Biden, it is far below record levels. Factcheck.org
The debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on Late Night was a striking contrast of style and substance, highlighting key ideological differences. Harris showcased a nervous poise and attempted to maintain policy-oriented responses, often stressing the importance of diplomacy, social equity, and climate action. While much of what she shared was not factual.
Trump, true to form, leaned into his populist rhetoric, emphasizing border security, economic nationalism, and his track record on deregulation. While Harris attempted to frame the debate around pressing global challenges like the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the threat of authoritarianism, Trump focused on domestic issues, often reducing complex international affairs to soundbites. Also shared mistruths.
The tension between the two was palpable, with Harris aiming to counter Trump’s bluster with factual rebuttals, but at times, she struggled to maintain control over the rapid-fire nature of Trump's statements. Ultimately, the debate underscored not just their policy differences, but also their diverging visions for America’s role on the world stage and the balance between populism and pragmatism in politics. Their visions were miles apart. Her leaning toward multiple new costly government giveaways, more government -His vision about in three words -- fixing America's problems
Factcheck .org offered a litany of mistruths from both candidates --- I have only touched on a few in my comment.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factc … mp-debate/Great paragraph.
Great post, yes, the establishment (media most certainly included) does everything to make Trump look bad and Harris look good.
Some people see this, some people just absorb the messaging (the subliminal impact over a decade has to be enormous on people who don't realize how biased and corrupt things are in America) and don't even understand why they hate Trump, but that hate has now been ingrained in their perceptions and thoughts.
One of the reasons why I didn't watch either debate live, I don't want that bias which you have so excellently pointed out impacting my perceptions.
I watch shortly after the fact, allowing me to pause, skip or replay moments. Allowing me to skip ads, commentary of talking heads, etc.
Gone are the days where the Media remain neutral... Fox is no better than CNN and ABC is owned by Disney and there is no company more 'woke' right now than Disney.It's irresponsible to the viewing audience of moderators choose to remain silent when a candidate is outrageously and blatantly lying. Doctors murdering newborns? Immigrants eating people's pets? You could see the panic on Trump's face when he was called out.
Why were they silent as Harris told one twist untruth after another?
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factc … mp-debate/Both of the lies listed by Willow could have led to violence against those communities. They didn't fact-check either candidate when they distorted their opponent or their positions - such as Harris tying Trump to Project 2025 or Trump stating that Harris is a Marxist.
I can only share a layman's view --- Fact-checking statements like "Harris tying Trump to Project 2025" or "Trump stating that Harris is a Marxist" may have been overlooked for many reasons. The complexity of political messaging often makes it difficult to parse out clear factual claims from the rhetoric or hyperbole stuff. Politicians in debates frequently use broad, sweeping language intended more to provoke emotional reactions. Such statements are challenging to fact-check quickly. Plus media outlets, are overwhelmed with info... As we know some info can be misleading, and contradicting reports make it hard to quickly fact-check.
"Some people see this, some people just absorb the messaging (the subliminal impact over a decade has to be enormous on people who don't realize how biased and corrupt things are in America) and don't even understand why they hate Trump, but that hate has now been ingrained in their perceptions and thoughts."
I think last night highlighted why some people strongly dislike Trump. Harris clearly exposed many long-standing lies over and over, yet the monitors didn’t correct her untruthful statements. This kind of unchecked narrative repetition has been ongoing for nearly eight years. To me, this repetition can act as a form of brainwashing. Additionally, do the enticing promises appeal to those with such a mindset? What I saw was a woman vacant of anything but undoable promises. "We will give you 40 acres, and a mule, all you need do is vote"...
"January 6th Riot Fatalities: Harris claimed that some police officers died as a result of the January 6th Capitol riot. While it's true that over 140 officers were injured, no officers died that day directly due to the violence."
Actually, she did not say that. She was very careful NOT to make that claim, merely saying that some cops died. She didn't even say when - it could have been weeks later.
So...is that a lie? She very clearly wanted people to believe they died as a result of the riot, but did not say so. IMO her attempt to get people to believe a falsehood makes her statement an outright lie, no better than her many others ( or those by Trump).She also said she made her feeling on fracking clear in 2020. In the 2020 VP debate she said "Joe Biden" wouldn't ban fracking. Until she was installed as a presidential candidate, she never directly said she wouldn't ban fracking.
Is that a lie? I think so.I believe this topic was on many people's minds. We've seen her ideologies shift significantly in the last weeks in compared to what she presented over the decades. The question should have been more focused: instead of asking if she changed values, it should have addressed why her previous ideologies have changed in the past weeks.
"For example, Harris brought up Project 2025, while Trump, over the past several weeks, has consistently stated that he has no involvement with it. "
"Trump also spoke highly about the group's plans at a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, saying: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”.
Let's not forget that many of Trump's "best people" formulated this plan
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna161338
"Harris repeated the assertion that Trump “will sign a national abortion ban” if reelected, but Trump said that he does not intend to sign such a ban".
Twice during the debate he refused to say if he would veto a national abortion ban if it got to his desk.
This was something Vance told NBC News last month he would do....
Trump's response?
“Well, I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness,” Trump said about the assertion. “And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna170536"Trump also spoke highly about the group's plans at a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022, saying:"
Let me clarify that the document was not completed or released in its final form in 2023. Therefore, it’s plausible that Trump might have received some information about the project. However, he has strongly distanced himself from it. One might argue that his values have shifted, similar to how Harris has altered her previously stated long list of ideologies and proposed ideas.
In my view, Trump stated that Vance does not speak for him. On the issue of signing an abortion ban, I commend him for not taking a firm stance either way. A president would need to consider many factors if such a bill reached his desk, including how states are managing the issue, whether states are respecting their citizens' voices, and what Congress presents as justification for the bill. Many people overlook that a president should reflect the will of the majority.In terms of project 2025 though, he doesn't say his views on it have shifted or that is values have changed. He claims he knows nothing about it which I find dishonest.
I also cannot commend Trump for waffling on the abortion issue. He's had every opinion under the sun. Pick one and go with it. The problem is that he was asked a question twice about signing a National abortion ban and refuse to answer is problematic for a lot of us out here. If he wants to reflect the will of the majority of people, he would have clearly said he would be opposed to signing a National abortion bill. If he actually believes the issue belongs with the states, then he should have clearly said he would not sign a national ban. What's the problem?The abortion issue is complex, particularly when it comes to the law. At this point, the president doesn’t have the authority to change the law directly. Congress could attempt to pass legislation regarding abortion, but that would almost certainly lead to multiple lawsuits from the states.
In my opinion, any promise from a candidate to sign an abortion-related bill is more of a political tactic than a realistic plan. It assumes that a majority would want the president to sign a sweeping abortion bill, which is speculative. Wouldn't we first need to see the specifics of a federal abortion law before predicting whether a majority would agree with it?
It seems like you're overlooking the broader context here. I noticed that Trump avoided directly answering the question, which I can understand. I would hope any president wouldn’t make a hasty commitment to sign such a bill without knowing the details. So, I don’t have an issue with him stepping back from the question, given the uncertainty about what could land on his desk.
We have millions of citizens that oppose abortion. In my view, a good president must consider all citizens, not just the ones who yell the loudest. In my view, abortion is an issue like no other, it ultimately involves killing a human organism/embryo/fetus. That's just science...
Do I personally appreciate Harris' approach of saying, 'put it on my desk and I'll sign it'? No. I would prefer a president who takes the time to think deeply, considers all perspectives, and weighs the thoughts of all Americans before making such decisions.But he has already said he believes it belongs with the states. He has taken a firm position. If he firmly believes that and we have all heard him brag about overturning Roe and sending it back to the States, then why on Earth would you ever sign a national ban? I thought he believes it belongs with the states? What does he needs to decide? Whether he wants to waffle or flip flop on his State's rights position? I'm really baffled by this one. What does he need to think deeply about? You clearly don't need a national ban if you believe in states rights... Why not say so?
This was what my comment referred to --- Why at the debate Trump did not commit to signing an abortion bill if he were to be faced with the task.
Again --- On the issue of signing an abortion ban, I commend him for not taking a firm stance either way. A president would need to consider many factors if such a bill reached his desk, including how states are managing the issue, whether states are respecting their citizens' voices, and what Congress presents as justification for the bill. Many people overlook that a president should reflect the will of the majority.
How else would a President come to a decision that affects
all Americans? Is it prudent for a leader not to consider all Americans when making a decision, and not just make a decision on their ideologies? Harris is out and out doing this on the abortion issue. What about other's feelings, views, and ideologies?
Willow, it's hard to ignore how someone makes decisions. Harris's decision-making seems to lack the consideration I think would be prudent for all Americans. Her ideologies lean left, leaving little room for differing perspectives like mine.He was asked a direct question, would he sign a National abortion ban. He refused to answer, twice.
He has already stated that he believes the issue belongs with the states. If that is his belief, he could have clearly said no, that he would not sign a National abortion ban because those decisions belong with the states and the federal government has no role. Very simple.
Harris even stated, on the stage, that Trump would sign a national abortion ban and he let it go unopposed. He found it necessary to answer back about his crowd sizes but let that go?President Donald Trump told the truth.
The federal government no longer has a role in abortion as it is now the purview of the states to decide. With Roe v. Wade being overturned the federal government can no longer make abortion law.
Should a national abortion ban be passed into law, the Supreme Court could easily rule it unconstitutional.
It is now a states issue and that is the law.
Why is this so difficult to understand?"The federal government no longer has a role in abortion as it is now the purview of the states to decide. With Roe v. Wade being overturned the federal government can no longer make abortion law.
When he was asked twice during the debate if he would sign a National abortion ban if such a bill came to his desk, he refused to answer. If he is all about States rights, then he would have had no problem saying that of such a bill came to him he would not sign it because he believes in states rights.He said, it doesn't matter it can't happen.
That is the truth.And that is not a reason for avoiding answering a very simple question. His answer should have been yes, that he would have veto a bill banning abortion.
I have given you the factual statement where Trump stated 'I would not sign a ban" My source full video of the debate. " I am not signing a Ban" he also explained why he would never need to sign a ban. Did you find that source unreliable? What do the words "I would not sign a ban" mean to you? Does this context indicate yes or no?
Again my source enter at 18:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhc_nE-qQJkThe question was not to sign a ban, the question was to veto a ban. If you are firmly in support of having this issue determined by the states, you would certainly veto a bill that is a federal ban. He should have simply answered yes but he is remaining on the fence in order to pander to the evangelicals. To give them some hope.
Similar and opposite words
From Oxford Languages for Ban
prohibit
forbid
veto
proscribe
disallow
outlaw
make illegal
embargo
place an embargo on
bar
debar
block
stop
"It’s interesting that Trump is expected to use specific language to satisfy critics—quite odd, honestly.
I just watched Harris’s rally, and she blatantly claimed that Trump would eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Trump has never said such a thing. The lies she told today were so outrageous that it made me feel disgusted. It’s become clear to me that propaganda is being openly spread not only by the media but also from our political podiums.
I have to say, I have no respect for anyone who supports a candidate who engages in this kind of deceitful propaganda.Well the language is quite interesting especially when we look at our country's process of how a bill becomes law.
So the bill is sent to the president for final review.
The bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.
"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
So actually, if a National abortion ban came to his desk, he wouldn't need to veto it. He could sit on it for 10 days and it would become law. Is this why he didn't commit to saying yes he would veto? When asked if he would veto such a band, he says "I wouldn't have to". He's right.
https://constitution.congress.gov/brows … 20a%20Law.FIRST it has to pass the Congress and the Senate.
That would be a real stretch. I seriously doubt such a thing even could happen. I believe such a bill would be killed by committee. I doubt the speaker would even bring it up for a vote.
This fear of a national abortion bad is a huge nothing burger.Although I am pro-choice to a point( I believe in very early term abortion up to 2 weeks w/exceptions), the Democrats are making the topic of abortion the be & end all. There are FAR MORE IMPORTANT issues than abortion-the influx of illegals resulting in massive crime waves, not to mention exhaustion of our socioeconomic infrastructures; the astronomical inflation, & other pressing issues.
I am sorry to assert that abortion isn't a pressing issue at this juncture. The Democrats are concentrating on superfluous issues instead of pressing ones. As a Democrat, I will be proudly voting for Trump this November.gm, I don't care what are you're other reasons other than the pressing issues. Critically, a Rep likewise will also be voting for Kamala. As an outsider, I think the November election, will be challenging. But the electoral college is the final whistle.
"This fear of a national abortion bad is a huge nothing burger".
Well, all the more reason for Trump to clearly state that he would veto a national ban. There was no reason for him to dodge that question twice.Come on --- he did in most definite terms twice in the debate claim " I would not sign a ban" What more do you need? It would almost seem you would rather have a zombie like yes or no... WHY? Did you not have a look at the debate kink I have now posted three times with Trump stating twice "I would not sign a ban"? Why are you beating a dead horse? Harris lied just about every time her mic was on, this does not seem to bother you. Yesterday at her rally she stated in very clear context --"He will take away your Social Security, and Medicare... At this point, her words have become pure propaganda. Harris is a liar, period, she shares blatant lies.
Trump did not dodge the question, in any respect.
The thread has garner some level of confussion. It clouds my mind as to what Trump intended. Is he in pain to speak out his mind? Thanks for the link, that declouds my mind. It's a study.
Neither do I. I never respected Biden nor Kamala. To me, they represent what is the worst in America. Biden isn't intellectually apt. Never was, never will be. Kamala coasted along. I will just leave it at that. Kamala will do anything to get what she wants & has done so extensively in the past. Kamala makes Eva Peron look like Mary Poppins if you get my drift.
LOL funny you mentioned Eva Peron. During the debate, I was texting & posting on social media. One of my post was that Kamala Harris seemed to be trying out for the role of Evita on Broadway, not campaigning to be President of the United States.
Great minds and all that jazz.
Thought the same --- it is a true fad with Dems to swing their hands and arms around. Guess they feel this makes what their saying true. However, I much more enjoyed Harris's other drawl. That lazy drawl really worked for me ... LOL
LOL Shar, I absolutely don't want her as my President, but I am all for giving her an Academy Award!!
I very much agree. I feel it useless to even post my thoughts on Harris. She has a pass with some, and why waste energy? I find her an empty shell, and once again another puppet. A younger one in a pantsuit.
We’ve talked about Trump’s stance on abortion, particularly his views since he began his 2024 campaign. He has expressed a personal perspective as well as a broader view intended to resonate with the American public. During a town hall, he stated he opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at risk. He mentioned that as president, he would consider the concerns of all Americans and suggested that a 12-week limit, similar to what some states have implemented, might be appropriate. A pro-life advocate who was asked about this seemed to accept his position. He is clearly satisfied with abortion going to the states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDRSJJE6PFc
Trump has consistently emphasized his desire to leave abortion decisions to the states. I am comfortable with abortion policy being determined at the state level. Liberal states have enacted more progressive laws, while many red states have stricter regulations. Women in red states who are dissatisfied with their local laws will need to work through the voting process to advocate for change.
I prefer as I said not to have a president that makes decisions due to their ideologies. We are a nation of different ideologies, hers is very much the opposite of my own. So, it's hard to see why anyone would not consider this when choosing a president."Trump has consistently emphasized his desire to leave abortion decisions to the states."
Then why wouldn't he commit to saying that he would not sign a federal abortion ban if it came to his desk?
Can anyone make sense of thisTo be blunt, which president would openly declare that they’ll sign a bill without even reading it if it reaches their desk? I find that statement irresponsible. But hey, that’s just my take on her bold assertion.
He is not the president, but he certainly has at least one time at a town hall shared his personal views and they ultimately would not come into play when he is making decisions for all the American people... He strongly has claimed he feels it is best left to the states. Your guess is as good as mine regarding what Trump would do if this scenario ever came about. I noted when he was president he was fair-minded, and again my view, supported all Americans. I would guess he would sign a bill that has reasonable variables that somewhat respect the science of gestation, and for incest, rape, and mother's life. I feel he is very common sense, and would do his best to attempt to come the closest he could to please all.
We know straight up that Harris would sign that bill --- I support the states making laws. Guess, my view would be lost due to a far-liberal president.
I don't think this will ever become an issue. The Supreme Court sent it to the states. If by some rare chance, it did ever make it to a president's desk -- I hope that the president will respect all sides, not just the ainti - life group.
IF there are people on the left who feel that harris won the debate, remember she won a rigged debate.
She won a debate where the moderators let her say lie after lie after lie and fact-checked her opponent at least 5 times.
How would the debate have been if it had not been rigged? How would it have been if both harris and President Donald Trump had been treated equally?
It would have been different if ABC moderators had been unbiased. I believe the news today would be much different.
So, celebrate your rigged debate victory, if you see it that way.
You've really not won anything.
You've lost because your candidate can't take questions without a script. She can't answer questions unless she has her emotional support VP with her or the media is manipulating things in her favor.
democrats can win in a fair fight and the problem is they can't grasp the concept of fair.I like how you completely glossed over the "rigged" portion of what I wrote.
I suppose that must have no significance to you.
If you think she won a rigged debate, she has won nothing.
Checked the polls today and they are virtually unchanged from before the debate.
harris won nothing.
Not even close, Harris won this debate. Trump was on the defensive nearly the entire time and was evasive the rest. Twice he refused to say if he would veto a national abortion ban, like Vance said he would. He actually went out of his way to say that Vance doesn’t speak for him. He dug himself deeper in the hole on the abortion issue.
He also put himself far outside the mainstream of public opinion in talking about the ACA. He called it “lousy” and “not very good today” when actually record numbers of people have a favorable opinion of it.
Kudos to the moderators for fact checking, would have liked more. I am satisfied that Trump's bizarre blatant lies on crime statistics, pets being eaten my immigrants, the 2020 election and the "abortion" of newborns were called out.
The spotlight, deservedly, will now be on Trump's lack of coherence and any serious grasp on policy.
I like Sharlee's circus analogy... Yep it's a a tightrope but one sides hate and the other hope."Not even close, Harris won this debate. Trump was on the defensive nearly the entire time and was evasive the rest. " --- It would seem he should have been --- She was offering many mistruths. I would think it would be odd for any human being not to defend one's self.
I have never heard Trump coffee a statement that he intends to ban abortion... Please offer a source with a quote. Vance clearly has no right to speak for Trump.
"Kudos to the moderators for fact checking, would have liked more."
What I saw was only one candidate fact-checked with good speed, actually too quick, as if they had done it before the debate. I have offered the many lies both candidates offered, actually, I was pleased to see that the fact-checkers were very fair and did call Harris out for her blatant lies. They were very much even on that score. Can you defend her lies? I have no problem admitting to Trump's lies... How about you?
Yes, it's clear many feel she won -- Me, I looked deeper, that's what I do. Because as a rule when one digs deeper, it reveals mud. As the fack-checks have done -- and she is knee deep. Sad how some have the mindset to accept the surface --- maybe that is why the Nation is in such a mess. Does her dishonesty, regarding the debate, bother you in the least or do you feel we need not discuss them?
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factc … mp-debate/For me, the lies that were immediately fact checked were the ones that were just so egregious, so bizarre that they required such a response. If Harris had claimed that migrants were eating people's pets or that doctors were murdering children I'm quite certain she would have been called out also.
Some of the issues that have been pointed out in posts here calling some of Harris's statements "lies " are more issues of context for me. The issues are more nuanced .
For example, you previously posted :
"Harris claimed Trump intends to enact what in effect is a “sales tax” which she said economists estimate would raise prices on typical American families by almost $4,000 a year. That’s a high-end estimate from a liberal think tank about Trump’s plan for “universal baseline tariffs” on imports. "
But...
"Trump was also wrong when he claimed Americans would not pay higher prices due to tariffs, and that the higher prices would be borne by the countries the tariffs are levied against. Many nonpartisan economists disagree about the amount that Trump’s proposed tariffs would raise prices for American consumers, but most agree it would be substantial."
"Trump has been inconsistent and opaque about what exactly he is proposing, but most often he has talked about a 10% across-the-board import tax combined with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. On other occasions, he has floated a baseline tariff as high as 20%.
"So Harris has taken advantage of Trump’s inconsistent comments about the amount of his proposed universal tariffs to provide a high estimate of its cost to Americans. But Trump’s claim that his tariffs wouldn’t cost Americans at all is misleading."
This one was all about context. I couldn't see any moderator taking that one on and teasing out all of the variables. It's in the weeds. Did she lie though? No she didn't.
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factc … mp-debate/More egregious than this? There moderators well were aware of all the mentioned... They let her slide. A VP unaware is dangerous.
Last night, Harris made a particularly egregious statement that went unchallenged by the moderators. The Vice President of the United States should absolutely be aware of the challenges our military faces when we send them into some of the most dangerous regions of the world.
Should this untruth/lie be ignored? Such an egregious form of lie...
"Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America’s taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. "
Fact --- right now, as they have been every single day since October 7, 2023 — in the Red Sea against the Iranian-backed Houthi militant group, an ongoing fight that has been widely noted to involve some of the most intense and sustained naval combat since the Second World War.
What about the three American soldiers who were killed in January near the Syrian border in Jordan in a missile strike launched by an Iranian-backed militia group. Forty other American servicemen were injured in that attack.
U.S. military personnel helped shoot down hundreds of Iranian missiles, rockets, and drones in a direct attack on Israel in April.No argument that the instances of military personnel injuries and deaths as you have outlined are true. But none of this is "war" according to the US government.
"An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur. Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the secretary of defense. However, it’s important to note that just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war. The US is not currently engaged in a war and does not have troops fighting in active war zones anywhere in the world.”
Harris does appear to have carefully chosen her wording ...“active duty in a combat zone in any war zone” though this may not be a particularly meaningful distinction for troops facing an incoming drone attack. One could also get further in the weeds and point out that the US hasn’t formally declared a war since World War II, and that US troops in Iraq and Syria are still operating under legal authorizations passed in the wake of 9/11."
Beyond the legal hair-splitting, Harris made the comment in the context of a defense of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, and it is true that under Biden, the US military posture overseas has significantly shrunk from what it was under the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was the first in 72 years that “didn’t have any wars,” despite the fact that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.
Since the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the number of US troops involved in counter-terrorist missions can be measured in the hundreds rather than the thousands or tens of thousands. The number of those troops who are killed every year is in the single digits. The number of drone strikes and special forces raids carried out by US forces around the world is down dramatically as well.
Biden/Harris can fairly claim to have presided over the end of an era of warfare that began with the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan as well as the beginning of a new one in which US forces in the Middle East are engaged in a much lower but still significant level of combat with terrorist groups and state-backed militias, more or less indefinitely and with little public debate.
Admittedly, though, maybe that’s not a pithy a debate line. Another comment that needed context and a lengthy explanation behind it
https://www.vox.com/kamala-harris/37149 … -war-zonesVery interesting reply, thanks for that. I certainly cannot fault Harris for using those words in her reply, as that is what politicians do.
I do not think that Trump or his followers have ever said that there were no wars. If you have him saying that please post it. What he has said in the past is that under his administration he did not start any new wars.It would be expected that a VP would be well-advised where any military troops are in harm's way. Our troops are all over the world, some in combat zones or zones where conflicts are occurring.
Her statement has been fact-checked Mostly False
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ry-in-com/
A Defense Department spokesperson told PolitiFact that the U.S. is not currently engaged in a war, nor does the U.S. military have service members fighting in any active war zones.
However, some U.S. military service members are stationed in areas the U.S. government recognizes as combat zones.
In 2024 alone, several U.S. service members have been killed or injured during military operations abroad.
US weighs sending additional military advisers to Ukraine as Russia gains momentum --- https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/2 … e-00153499
Israel war -- https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stori … l-ukraine/
"U.S. efforts in the Middle East remain focused on supporting Israel's defense needs as the nation battles Hamas terrorists in Gaza, deterring other actors who seek to use the Hamas war on Israel as a pretext to expand the conflict and to ensure force protection for U.S. forces serving in the region, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said today.
Approximately 900 U.S. troops are in the process of deploying to the U.S. Central Command area of operations, Ryder said.
These include forces that had previously been put on prepare-to-deploy status and they are deploying from the continental United States.
Deployed and deploying units include a terminal high-altitude area defense battery from Fort Bliss, Texas; Patriot batteries from Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Patriot and Avenger batteries from Fort Liberty, North Carolina and associated air defense headquarters elements from Fort Bliss and Fort Cavazos, Texas.
"I won't talk specific deployment locations for these forces, I can confirm that they are not going to Israel," Ryder said. The units and personnel are intended to support regional deterrence efforts and further bolster U.S. force protection capabilities.https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stori … l-ukraine/
U.S. Military Continues Focus on Supporting Israel, Ukraine
Oct. 26, 2023 | By Jim Garamone, DOD News |
U.S. efforts in the Middle East remain focused on supporting Israel's defense needs as the nation battles Hamas terrorists in Gaza, deterring other actors who seek to use the Hamas war on Israel as a pretext to expand the conflict and to ensure force protection for U.S. forces serving in the region, Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said today.
Approximately 900 U.S. troops are in the process of deploying to the U.S. Central Command area of operations, Ryder said.
A Defense Department spokesperson told PolitiFact that the U.S. is not currently engaged in a war, nor does the U.S. military have service members fighting in any active war zones.
However, some U.S. military service members are stationed in areas the U.S. government recognizes as combat zones.
In 2024 alone, several U.S. service members have been killed or injured during military operations abroad. -- https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ry-in-com/
After doing a bit of research, it was clear that both had been misleading. It wasn’t hard to find fact-checkers who provided honest coverage. I found Harris's statement on the military particularly troubling—she is the Vice President of the United States, and such ignorance is inexcusable. Given that she's just one step away from the presidency if anything happens to Biden, it's concerning. In my opinion, she is not adequately prepared or fit for the role. I can't even imagine the outrage if Trump had made such a mistake. Yet, you're focusing on hypothetical scenarios about what Trump might do, while overlooking the fact that the Vice President seems unaware of our military presence in combat zones. This is a real, immediate issue—not a "what if" about Trump."I found Harris's statement on the military particularly troubling—she is the Vice President of the United States, and such ignorance is inexcusable."
Yet....
Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was the first in 72 years that “didn’t have any wars,” despite the fact that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.
"Yet, you're focusing on hypothetical scenarios about what Trump might do, while overlooking the fact that the Vice President seems unaware of our military presence in combat zones"
I do not recall posting any hypotheticals concerning Trump and this issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … residency/"Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was the first in 72 years that “didn’t have any wars,” despite the fact that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia."
No, that is a correct statement. No new wars started under the President Donald Trump administration. He is not responsible for the wars taking place when he came into office.And how many holdovers in" combat zones" do we currently have? If folks want to nail Harris to the wall (while ignoring the completely bizarre commentary from Trump ) for her language of war zone and combat zone , then maybe separate out how many military personnel are in combat zone due to decades-old commitments versus current decisions.
President Donald Trump told the truth.
harris should be nailed to the wall for the 13 members of the military that were killed because of her blatant incompetence. harris claims she was "the last person in the room" when the decision was made.Because vice presidents make these types of decisions?
Also, just came to mind that Trump claims he will solve the Ukraine war before he even gets sworn in: Yet in the YEARS since it started he hasn’t lifted a finger what’s he waiting for?She openly claimed on the debate stage she supported Biden's decision on the Afghanistan pullout. She has admitted to being the last in the situation room when the decision was made. Her words told me she agreed with his plan. She did not add anything to say she would have done things differently. The context tells me she supported his plan. A plan that got many killed, and many left in Parel.
Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to withdraw from Afghanistan
"Top generals told lawmakers under oath on Tuesday that they advised President Joe Biden early this year to keep several thousand troops in Afghanistan — directly contradicting the president’s comments in August that no one warned him not to withdraw troops from the country.
The remarkable testimony pits top military brass against the commander-in-chief as the Biden administration continues to face tough questions about what critics are calling a botched withdrawal that directly led to the deaths of 13 American service members, scenes of chaos at the Kabul airport, and the abandonment of American citizens and at-risk Afghans in the war-torn country." https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/2 … ing-514491
While Harris's statement at the debate clearly supports Biden's military decision, on Afghanistan, is she or was she genuinely in agreement, or is she the type of leader who simply tells people what they want to hear, possibly due to a lack of expertise on a given issue?"
I find her decision and attitude reckless. It shows me once again she would pose a danger to our Nation.
Have I not made several references in this thread that I felt they both lied?
It seems you are very much interested in diverting to only lies Trump shared. Do you have any problem with Harris's many lies? She lied throughout. I found mistruths or half-truths in every one of her opportunities to speak at the debate... In my view, she shared some very offensive, hyperbolic mistruths. I offered sources to peruse the lies both told. Perhaps you did not check them out.
You have dwelled on concerns regarding Trump not answering a question on Banning on signing an abortion ban. Your concerns prompted me to rewatch the debate.
Please view the debate video I offer -- Trump makes a clear, and I quote --- "I am not signing a ban any ban, there's no reason to sign a ban..."
He followed that statement in-depth and at length, as to why it would not be necessary to sign such a Ban Bill...
Before his statement, Harris referred to Project 2025 as 'his" project 2025... This woman lied throughout the debate about Trump being on board with 2025, and so much more. Does this disturb you in any fashion?
Source on Trump's answer regarding signing ban on abortion Link enters at 18:23... It would seem you missed his statement on signing an abortion bill and his reasons why he would not need to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhc_nE-qQJk
Regarding -- "Trump has falsely claimed in the past that his presidency was the first in 72 years that “didn’t have any wars,” despite the fact that he oversaw four years of combat in Afghanistan as well as major military escalations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia."
I did not find the statement regarding Trump saying there were no wars during his time in the debate. I have heard him frequently share the statement No NEW wars in his time in interviews. Please offer the source where you obtained that quote."Please offer the source where you obtained that quote."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … residency/
"He followed that statement in-depth and at length, as to why it would not be necessary to sign such a Ban Bill.."
. He refused to answer yes or no, two times, if he would veto an abortion ban that came to his desk. He could have answered that very simply but he didn't because he needs to signal to evangelicals that they can continue to hope he would sign such a bill.It seems your quote wasn't from the debate, and I may have overlooked that you were referring to a past interview. As I mentioned, I’ve heard him make similar remarks, specifically using the phrase no new wars on my time. In the interview you shared, he clearly used the word "wars." perhaps a simple gaff. One consistent thing about Trump is that it's rare to see him change his mind. It happens occasionally, but it's not common. He doesn’t shift with the wind or say what people want to hear.
regarding signing an abortion bill -- He addressed them the first time they asked the question, but the moderator kept asking, which made me wonder why. Did they not catch his answer? Were they trying to provoke him into saying something different? He stated, "I would sign it"... His statement was very audible and clear.
Regardless, his answer was clear, and he even elaborated on why he believed he wouldn’t need to ever consider signing such a bill. When asked a second time, he reiterated his initial stance.
I have nothing more to say in that comment. It is clear you feel Trump did not do what you felt he should have --- repeatedly answer the same question with a yes or no... Tes or no can get tricky when variables change, and I prefer an answer be followed with the whys of it. As Trump clearly did with the question of whether would he sign an abortion bill.
It would seem you hold Trump to what he has said in the past.
I assume you feel similarly about Harris's stance on fracking, and universal healthcare. It seems like she's shifted her positions to fit her campaign, telling her supporters what they want to hear. There are clear videos of her expressing those views in the past.
So, the question is: has she changed her mind, or was she being untruthful, lying then or now?
Source's
Medicare for all -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWClPm4fhCw
banning fracking -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DibvhzmbrTA
Fact: A country is always at war as long as it had a standing army. What's the purpose of a military jet scourting the sky and earth? What's the aim of a sub-marine, or a carrier stationed on specific high seas or ocean, say the Pacific, or Atlantic, or Indian? What good is that in establishing a military base abroad, say in the Indian ocean? It's war. These are facts. But are not common knowledge.
Thanks for the link. That's it. A politician will never let his/her for foe go free. Words of hate are regular tradewarks. Tiump's high talk of the immigrants eating they hosts cats, dogs, and pets, is just political musing, no matter how false it is. Any other explaination like 'misleading' is a false painting.
Last night, Harris made a particularly egregious statement that went unchallenged by the moderators. The Vice President of the United States should absolutely be aware of the challenges our military faces when we send them into some of the most dangerous regions of the world.
Should this untruth/lie be ignored? Such an egregious form of lie...
"Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America’s taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century. "
Fact --- right now, as they have been every single day since October 7, 2023 — in the Red Sea against the Iranian-backed Houthi militant group, an ongoing fight that has been widely noted to involve some of the most intense and sustained naval combat since the Second World War.
What about the three American soldiers who were killed in January near the Syrian border in Jordan in a missile strike launched by an Iranian-backed militia group. Forty other American servicemen were injured in that attack.
U.S. military personnel helped shoot down hundreds of Iranian missiles, rockets, and drones in a direct attack on Israel in April.
Source https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/h … nes-today/Sky News from Australia has the best take on the debate that I've seen.
They are spot on with their review of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kGU7J5M9d4GOP pollster Frank Luntz: Debate will cost Trump the election
Republican pollster Frank Luntz predicted former President Trump’s performance in the Tuesday night debate will ultimately cost him the election in November.
“It was a pretty negative performance, pretty pessimistic, cynical, contemptuous,” Luntz told Morgan in the interview, highlighted by Mediaite, adding, “and I think that this will cost him, yes.”
Luntz hesitated, appearing to choose his words carefully.
“I’m trying to decide if I want to go on record, and the answer is yes,” he continued. “I think that, that he loses because of this debate performance.”
Luntz said he thought it wasn’t that the Democratic nominee won the debate, but “I think more accurately, is that Donald Trump lost.”
“And this is not the worst debate performance I’ve seen in my career, but it’s very close to it,” he added in the interview.
Also,
RFK Jr. suggests independent support for Trump will drop in wake of debate"Hillary Clinton will be elected president
Frank Luntz on Twitter, November 8, 2016: “Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … 16-214555/
Frank did go on to predict a Biden win in 2020...
Yes, he did lose. If a fighter steps into a ring with three others that are individually weaker than him but together are stronger he will lose. That will go on the fighters record as a loss.
If the fighter takes a knee to delay, it is the ref's job to take action. If a candidate is going to try and lie so egregiously as the one's that the moderators corrected, that's on the candidate to be better. Trump's inventions as strategy got called out for what they are - conspiracies with no place in American politics.
And when she lies egregiously, as we all saw, but the moderators do nothing...is that on her or the moderator? Or us for watching such a farce?
What statement did Harris make that would be on par with Trump's statement about doctors murdering newborns? You know, setting them aside and deciding how to murder them? Or Haitians eating pets?
Both candidates made statements lacking context and were not fact-checked by the moderators, as we've gone over in this thread. Both invented positions for the other and were not fact-checked.
So, what was Harris' egregious lie that you're referring to? The one that equaled the violent rhetoric towards Haitians, or babies being murdered after birth that would paint targets on doctors like we have seen in the past, or that the 2020 election was stolen that painted targets on police and elected officials?A 'farce'? But I described it as idiotic. The thing now is that it's getting hard to know who's the losser, or who's the winner in some circles. Recently, CNN, a hard media critic of Trump, rated him +2 and Kamala -2 add to the confussion all the nonsenses that are being peddle.
I re-watched the debate today --- she lied or twisted the truth on every occasion she had the Mic. However, it has become clear that is not being pointed out here. Media has covered her mistruth very sparingly and offered --" she may have meant ---" Trump also lied on many occasions or twisted the truth. Which is was well covered.
Shar, wilderness, it's not what you see with your own eyes or hear with your own ears. According to the left, that is a form of brainwashing.
Kamala is the original shapeshifter. Don't trust her at all. She acts on pure expediency. She wants to be the president-AT ANY COST. It is sad that there are people who are brainwashed by her. She epitomizes evil.
They must be Grace, how else can the sudden obsession with her be explained?!?
She took the late Nina Simone's estate from her heirs. She is a hypocrite of the highest order. She is against people having guns yet she is a GUN OWNER. It is do as I say, not do as I do. In other words, Kamala believes that she is the elite while the rest of Americans are the hoi polloi.
THERE WILL BE NO DEBATE TONIGHT
When former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris meet tonight on stage there will be no debate, because a debate is a thoughtful, sober investigation of truth-claims following mutually-agreed upon protocols and characterized by respectful decorum, good faith argumentation, and evidence-based disputation. Donald Trump doesn't even understand that sentence.
Kamala Harris will do her best to communicate to the American people her stance on the issues, the content of her character, and her real-world solutions to America's everyday problems. Donald Trump will spew lies so fast and hard that no one will even bother factchecking him (otherwise there won't be time for anything else).
So who is Trump talking to? Not swing voters, not Independents, and not ordinary Republicans. His real audience is the hardcore fringe that has already abandoned democracy in favor of authoritarian dictatorship and political violence. And he's talking to his fellow autocrats around the world because that's what 21st century autocrats do--they network together to denigrate democracy, mischaracterize America as a degenerate, amoral wasteland, and collaborate in the shaping of a familiar message: that they alone can fix it.
Listen carefully tonight. It won't be difficult to discern their contrasting messages. One paints a dark picture of a dystopian future where everything good, true, and beautiful (read white, conservative, and Christian) will be overrun by evil Democrats and immigrants, while the other paints a picture of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, pluralistic society based on rational discourse, the rule of law, and individual freedom--the freedom to vote, to make your own medical decisions, to read and study what you want, to love who you love, to breath clean air, to drink clean water, and the freedom to not get shot in a classroom.
But perhaps Trump's most dangerous message is that democracy itself is no longer a viable option. This is straight out of chapter one of the Fascism Playbook--erode faith in higher education, in journalism, and in our free and fair elections. Even though Trump, in a rare moment of actual truth-telling, let it slip in a podcast interview last week that he "lost by a whisker" in 2020, his message is still clear: if I don't win on November 5, the election was stolen.
I fear another Donald Trump presidency. But I also fear that if he loses to Harris, a new wave of chaos and violence will unfold. January 6th was a dress rehearsal.
There has never been a presidential election like this. America has never been tested like this. Either way, it's going to take years to heal from these wounds.
-Peter Bolland
(and it pretty much played out that way)So we are to believe that starving Haitians who risked it all to come here would ignore free roaming animals? You do realize thst this wasn't made up by Trump, there are many accounts, right?
Yes in Minnesota and a few other other blue states, a baby who survives an abortion attempt can be finished off, if that's what the Parents and "Doc" decide to do.
The 2020 election was compromised, big time!
BLM and Antifa radical leftists painted targets on Police and elected officials.Right? Not even worth breaking through such levels of brainwashing.
There's some brainwashing which has taken place no doubt, but look to the left, not right!
Anyway...
IMO, Trump was the loser, but not because he was unhinged, because he said crazy things and/or repeated the same all night.
That is Trump, always, all the time.
He was and is a loser, because he admitted to his MAGAs what we always knew, that he is a liar, that has no ideas or plans and that he was/would be a terrible president.This isn't me, but it could be, LOVE HER!!
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/kCRbeZ … tid=TrneLpAgain...President Donald Trump told the truth.
"ABC News rebuked by pro-life group, asked for correction of abortion claim by debate moderator
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America sent a letter to ABC News president Almin Karamehmedovic and debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis on Wednesday that urges them to issue a correction and meet with abortion survivors over a viral moment where Davis fact-checked Trump.
"[The] ABC News Presidential Debate featured network moderator Linsey Davis attempting to debunk former President Trump's assertion that some states allow for the killing of an infant after birth," Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in the letter
During the debate, Trump referred to infamous comments made by former Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam in 2019 but was promptly "fact-checked" by Davis. At the time, Northam suggested that in those rare instances of third-trimester abortions, a baby could be born alive and a "discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
"The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," Northam said in 2019.
Trump's apparent reference to Northam at the debate drew a quick rebuke from Davis.
"There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born," Davis said.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claims the ABC moderator was "inaccurate" and should correct the record.
"This is 100% inaccurate. Her statement tragically ignores the reality of babies who survive failed, late-term abortions but are denied basic medical care and left to die," Dannenfelser wrote.
The pro-life advocate then added several claims to back up the request for a correction, including "numerous examples of babies born alive after failed abortions" and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that "between 2003 and 2014, around 143 babies died after being born alive following failed abortions."
It also cited a report from the center-right outlet The Dispatch about Minnesota recording eight deaths among infants who survived abortion attempts during Tim Walz’s tenure as governor.
"It’s also a fact that, as a U.S. senator, Kamala Harris voted against protections for babies born alive after failed abortions. And as a member of Congress, her running mate Tim Walz even issued a public apology for ‘accidentally’ voting for said legislation after he previously voted against it," Dannenfelser wrote."I don't know which makes me sadder Mike, the fact that this happens and will continue to happen to helpless, innocent babies OR that some human beings condone it. :°(
It is sad this is not recognized as infanticide and out lawed.
When confronted with this reality, it's like the pro-choice crowd is in denial. As if they can't deal with the reality of what is being done in the name of their cause.
I've noticed some confusion regarding whether Trump answered the question about signing an abortion ban early in the debate. He stated, 'I would not sign a ban,' and went on to explain why he believed it wouldn’t be necessary. He also later in the debate claimed made the "I am not for an abortion Ban"... Yet he was pushed over and over to speak on the subject. Harris also went on to use statements such as referring to the Supreme Court's decision as "Trump's abortion ban. Trump is not the president, nor if president would he have the power alone to change abortion laws. Nor would Harris, she is making promises that would be very hard to keep without the full benefit of Congress. I find her cheap politicking insulting to one's intelligence.
What prompted Trump to make the statement "I would not sign a ban" -- Harris accused him of having intentions of banning abortion referred to how she put it due to " his Project 2025." "He will sign a National abortion ban" Kamala Harris.
Strangely, Trump was asked the same question twice more during the debate, even though he had already provided his answer once, and an added view at another point in the debate. ("I would not sign a ban") and detailed response. To me, this felt like an attempt to push for a different answer.
For the full context of the conversation, you can watch this section of the debate starting at 17:00. One needs to listen to the full context of the conversation which starts with Harris answering a question, and then Trump's response to Harris's accusation. Full context matters... So do lies...
source enter at 17:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhc_nE-qQJk"Former President Donald Trump repeatedly declined to say during this week’s debate if he would veto a national abortion ban if he were elected again — a question that has lingered as the Republican nominee has shifted his stances on the crucial election issue..
In Tuesday’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump said he would not sign a federal abortion ban, insisting that a ban would not pass Congress anyway. But he refused twice to say if he would veto such legislation if it landed on his desk. Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, a Republican from Ohio, said in an interview with NBC News last month that the former president would veto a ban.
In response to moderators prompting him about Vance’s statement, Trump said: “I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness. And I don’t mind if he has a certain view, but I don’t think he was speaking for me.”
He was given the opportunity to make a definitive statement, to be perfectly clear and he did not when he avoided the question twice.
https://youtu.be/u473xI0_Ctk?si=G-4c5V2OQnsYXl4a
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-tru … ee51a9c060
I will tell you what will occur as a result of the debate. Those who are astute will see Kamala for what she is-a conniving person who will use any methodology to be president. She has an extensive history of being conniving. She is a shifter-saying what she believes the public wants to hear. She imprisoned those who smoked marijuana while she smoked marijuana. She now acknowledges that she owns a gun while forbidding others to have firearms. She has the gift of guile-she makes Eva Peron a saint. She will appeal to those who refuse to see the truth but only proverbial rose gardens.
Those will be the same people who detest Trump because he speaks the truth as he did during the debate. They are threatened by Trump because they are afraid of the truth. They hate America & American values. They want America to be total globalist. They love Biden because he espouses anti-American values & Kamala will continue in such policies.
Then there are those who see Trump as the beacon of truth. Trump wasn't afraid to state his position unless Kamala who swerved away from the topics at hand. Trump wants America to be the best.According to the extremely left-leaning Reuters New Service undecided voters are leaning toward voting for President Donald Trump after the debate.
"Sept 11 (Reuters) - Kamala Harris was widely seen as dominating Tuesday's presidential debate against Republican former president Donald Trump, but a group of undecided voters remained unconvinced that the Democratic vice president was the better candidate.
Reuters interviewed 10 people who were still unsure how they were going to vote in the Nov. 5 election before they watched the debate. Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him. Three said they would now back Harris and one was still unsure how he would vote."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-u … 024-09-11/It's all about lighting. Kamala was placed in the perfect lighting with sparkles and butterflies added, while Trump had to contend with blinding headlights coming at him. But this is what MSM does and has done and will continue to do.
Uh? They don't like Trump? Fake news reporting?
Why are you harping on this? The matter of abortion is NOW a States matter according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Trump were truly of the opinion that it is a state's matter, he would have absolutely no problem with clearly stating he would veto a national ban.
He won't make such a statement and it leaves one to wonder why.
Like I said, if God forbid he should land in the White House again, a National abortion ban could end up on his desk and he would simply have to do nothing for 10 days and voila it would be law. He doesn't need to commit to a veto.God and abortion in the same sentence?
Come on now we are already on very thin ice here.I believe that some of her statements needed context. Trump told a lot of whoppers and at least one of them have had consequences.
Haitians in Ohio are experiencing a wave of hate and the town has received bomb threats, schools evacuated and public offices forced to close .
The bomb threat that resulted in the evacuation of Springfield City Hall in Ohio on Thursday used harmful language against the city’s immigrant community, aligning with recent false claims touted by Trump.
All this due to Trump and Vance spreading baseless lies about migrants. To dehumanize a group for some perceived personal gain is about as low as you can go.
The mayor pleaded for this misinformation to stop.
"We need those that have a national stage that have a mic, with millions and millions (of followers), we need them to understand what their words are doing to cities like Springfield, Ohio," Rue said. We don't need this misinformation."
Has Harris said anything this despicable with these types of consequences? What type of person vilifies another group, another person for their own benefit? And this goes far beyond anything stated by Harris during the debate. It always goes back to character and Trump has none.
It seems that he may have gotten this talking point from his new buddy Laura Loomer. A woman who has spewed some of the most vile and hateful rhetoric around.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … rant-hate/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ting-claimHow about what the residents of Springfield, Ohio are saying?
A Springfield, Ohio, resident sounded the alarm about the city's Haitian migrant surge, warning her community is like a "dystopian nightmare" as it struggles to provide basic resources for taxpayers.
Springfield resident Diana Daniels joined "Fox & Friends" to describe what life has been like in recent years since thousands of Haitians have been transported to their city, starving it of resources like housing and health care, while also having an impact on public safety.
"It's like living in a dystopian nightmare," Daniels told Lawrence Jones on Thursday. "You hope you wake up and it's 2019 again, and then you realize it's 2024, and it's the same thing over and over again, day after day. It's hard sometimes to get up in the morning and hear residents that I've known for years struggle. This is a paycheck-to-paycheck… kind of town… working class. The citizens that depend on our social services like health care, the Rocking Horse [Community Health Center], going down to the Social Security office for benefits are waiting in line, and they're not getting the services they need."
"It breaks my heart to see people that I taught and their children experiencing this, so I took it upon myself to make sure that I showed up at every City Commission meeting pleading our case," she continued.
Thousands of Haitians have arrived in Springfield since the COVID-19 pandemic, and residents have been pointing to an uptick in crime, mayhem and car crashes due to the massive influx of new residents. In a town of 58,000 people, about 20,000 Haitians have arrived, according to city officials.
Residents have pushed back on the influx, sharing outrage at the ongoing surge during recent city council meetings to demand action on the issue.
"I see what's going on in the streets. And I see you guys sitting up there and, comfy chairs and suits… I really challenge you guys to get out here and do something," said Anthony Harris, 28. "These Haitians are running into trash cans. They're running into buildings. They're flipping cars in the middle of the street, and I don't know how, like, y'all can be comfortable with this."
Another resident called out general failures in leadership. "When am I getting my money back?" he asked.
According to Daniels, some city leaders have accused residents of racism amid their pleas for help.
She has pushed back on those claims, arguing the cultural difference, as opposed to the "color" difference, is really what is at play with the recent strife between both groups.
"Some of those comments are being made by people… that I've known for many years, and that's probably the hardest thing to deal with because the city has always been a close-knit community," Daniels said. "We have pockets of neighborhoods and what's happening is a disruption of the smaller neighborhoods, and it has never been a race issue… It's not about color, it's about culture."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/springfie … s-my-heart
Springfield resident says roads are like 'Escape from New York' after Haitian migrants overrun rural town
'You don't know if you're going to get from point A to point B without getting run over, run into or have a SUV flip over in front of you,' Mark Sanders said
Springfield, Ohio resident Mark Sanders detailed Thursday how the influx of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants has left a devastating impact on his community's small population.
Sanders told Fox News host Jesse Waters that about 30,000 Haitians have come to Springfield over the past two years, leading to a housing, jobs and healthcare crisis for the city's 60,000 residents.
A big problem, he says, is the impact on the roads and driving: "Our roads are like it's like ‘Escape from New York’… You don't know if you're going to get from point A to point B without getting run over," he said, referring to the 1981 movie.
"Life-long residents have been moved out of their homes that they've rented for decades. People who own their homes have accepted very high offers and then they've been turned into basically dormitories by landlords, both American and Haitian. There's a lot of greed on both sides of the fence," Sanders said on "Jesse Waters Primetime."
"We have a temp service. A temporary staffing service, that actually is probably employing about 95% of those that have arrived here that are working. Many aren't. Not everybody's working. And people will say that not everybody is. But the staffing service owns 63 homes. Those homes are used as dormitories. They shuttle the workers to and from their jobs. And, you know, they go. He takes a portion of their check, charges them for transportation charges and for lodging," he continued.
Residents say auto wrecks have also spiked since migrants arrived.
Last year in Springfield, dozens were injured and a boy was killed after a Haitian migrant without a valid driver's license swerved and caused a school bus to crash.
Sanders says Springfield residents aren't "anti-immigrant;" they just want the town to feel safe again and for its residents to have the resources they need.
"Nothing can be further from the truth," Sanders said. "What we are is a city that only wants our safety, security and sovereignty back."So this is a reason to lie about Haitians eating pets? Trump can demonize a whole group people to gain some points? Who's next? He's a sick man, someone needs to come get him and bring him back to Mar-A-Lago for a nice bowl of Jell-O.
I think you're saying the residents of Springfield are lying about Haitians eating pets.
This is a small city that has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants in their city. It has been turned into a nightmare.
It is a direct result of the policies of democrats. They are responsible for the problems being experienced by Springfield and nobody else.
It's time they own what they've done."This is a small city that has been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants in their city"
Are you sure they're "illegal?"
Also...
"The Springfield Police Division told the Springfield News-Sun on Monday that it has received no reports about anyone stealing or eating pets."
Another voice from Springfield..
Jaime McGregor, who owns the manufacturing factory McGregor Metals in Springfield, told PBS...
"McGregor told the outlet that about 10% of his workforce, about 30 employees, is Haitian.
“I wish I had 30 more,” he said. “Our Haitian associates come to work every day. They don’t have a drug problem. They’ll stay at their machine. They’ll achieve their numbers. They are here to work. And so in general, that’s a stark difference from what we’re used to in our community.”
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/i … ield-ohio/I think you're saying the residents of Springfield are lying about Haitians eating pets.
Yes.
'It just exploded': Springfield woman claims she never meant to spark false rumors about Haitians
The woman behind an early Facebook post spreading a harmful and baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating local pets that helped thrust a small Ohio city into the national spotlight says she had no firsthand knowledge of any such incident and is now filled with regret and fear as a result of the ensuing fallout.
Lee recently posted on Facebook about a neighbor’s cat that went missing, adding that the neighbor told Lee she thought the cat was the victim of an attack by her Haitian neighbors.
Newsguard, a media watchdog that monitors for misinformation online, found that Lee had been among the first people to publish a post to social media about the rumor, screenshots of which circulated online. The neighbor, Kimberly Newton, said she heard about the attack from a third party, NewsGuard reported.
Newton told Newsguard that Lee’s Facebook post misstated her story, and that the owner of the missing cat was “an acquaintance of a friend” rather than her daughter’s friend.
Lee said she had no idea the post would become part of a rumor mill that would spiral into the national consciousness. She has since deleted the Facebook post.
Other posts have also contributed to the false allegations, including a photo of a man holding a dead goose that was taken in Columbus, Ohio, but was spread by some online as evidence of the claims about Springfield. Graphic video of a woman who allegedly killed and tried to eat a cat was also found not to have originated in Springfield but in Canton, Ohio, and does not have any connection to the Haitian community.
“I feel for the Haitian community,” Lee said. “If I was in the Haitians’ position, I’d be terrified, too, worried that somebody’s going to come after me because they think I’m hurting something that they love and that, again, that’s not what I was trying to do.”
LINKThis administration has caused not only major cities chaos due to flooding them with migrants, but also small towns that truly can not afford to support them. We need solutions to deport many of the migrants that don't have a legal reason for being here. Period
The Haitians in Springfield are not illegal.
I was referring individuals with temporary legal status who await asylum claim hearings that may be denied due to not reaching a legal reason via our asylum laws. As well as millions of migrants (gotaways) who have entered the country without any legal status and are unaccounted for. I hope to see an increase in deportations of those here illegally, as well as migrants who attend their hearings but are found by a judge to have no valid claim to stay. The Biden administration’s policies have led to many challenges in both large cities and small towns due to the sheer number of people awaiting hearings, and gotaways in these areas. I would like to see an increase in deportation and in a speedy fashion. Just don't agree with letting poorly vetted people into America at the numbers this administration let pour in.
I felt my point was clear, and I did not mention Springfield or Haitians. I understand that some Haitians are here under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which grants them limited rights to live and work in the U.S. temporarily."I think that there are two separate issues here that are being conflated. Those being immigration law and Trump's claim that Haitians are eating pets in Ohio.
Someone who would use a group of people to fearmonger for his own perceived political advantage is about as low as you can go. Scapegoating these people was wrong and now they're paying the price as well as the town of Springfield. Treating people so callously, without any regard to the consequences, with absolutely no compassion...some may call it sociopathic.
Somehow the issue is being shifted to immigration policy while folks are totally ignoring what Trump did.So speaking the truth, may hurt someone's feelings, and when you knowingly risk hurting feelings, to speak truth, its sociopathic.
Good to know.
Here, fun little short:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M8j1xWbyfjIKen, there is no hidden information here. Trump lied for what he felt would be political gain. It's not okay to dehumanize others. Look at the consequences that have resulted.
Trump's rhetoric has really gotten more and more extreme and stranded. Either it's an age-related issue or it's a Laura Loomer issue.Which statement by Harris equals Trump's scapegoating of Haitians?
If she had lied about a group of people eating others pets, I would not be supporting her right now. Trump's rhetoric has consequences as we have seen in Springfield.She stood at a podium Thursday and stated and I quote "He intends to cut Social Security and Medicare, and he wants to impose a National sales tax.on everyday necessities " These are pure lies. Trump has never suggested he would cut Social Security or Medicare nor has he proposed a National sales tax. I would think you might consider how her words would be taken by a senior who depends on their benefits to survive.
Source can be found on YouTube Kamala Harris falsely accuses Trump of wanting to cut Social Security at lie-filled NC rally
Here are just a few of her lies from the debate all from reputable fact-checkers
*Harris made several statements that fact-checkers found misleading or inaccurate. She claimed that law enforcement officers died during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, but none actually died on that day,
*Additionally, she inaccurately suggested that Trump had been indicted specifically for inciting the Capitol violence, whereas his indictment focused on conspiracy charges, not directly on the violence itselfFactcheck.org
* One of Harris's key misstatements involved unemployment. She claimed that Trump "left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression." While it’s true that the unemployment rate spiked to 14.8% in April 2020, this was largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, not economic policies unique to Trump's administration. By the time Biden took office in January 2021, the rate had DROPPED BACK to 6.4%, which is not as severe as Harris's statement suggested.
* Harris also claimed that Trump would sign a national abortion ban if reelected, referencing the conservative policy document "Project 2025." However, Trump has distanced himself from this project and has never explicitly endorsed such a ban, making Harris's assertion speculative at best.
* Healthcare Claims: Harris accused Trump of trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without offering an alternative plan. While Trump did advocate for repealing the ACA, he did propose alternatives, though they were not enacted. Her claim oversimplifies the situation, omitting these details.
* Harris also misrepresented Trump’s statements on violence, suggesting he threatened violence if the election didn’t go his way. Trump had referred to a "bloodbath" during a speech but in the context of economic concerns related to auto industry jobs, not electoral violence
* Harris said she would offer families a tax credit of up to $6,000 for each eligible child, as well as a $50,000 tax deduction for small businesses if she succeeds President Joe Biden in the Oval Office. She claimed Trump would favor billionaires and corporations over anyone else, and said the former president planned a sales tax that would hurt ordinary Americans.
*Harris accused Trump of systematically undermining law enforcement throughout his presidency. While Trump did face criticism for his handling of various policing issues, he also increased funding for law enforcement in many instances and emphasized the importance of "law and order" during his time in office.
* Trade Deficit: Harris claimed the Trump administration resulted in "one of the highest trade deficits in history." While the trade deficit under Trump was significant, it wasn't the largest. In fact, during George W. Bush's administration, deficits were LARGER, and the DEFICIT UNDER Biden has exceeded Trump's worst year(PolitiFact
* Domestic Oil Production: Harris claimed that Biden oversaw the largest increase in domestic oil production in history. While current production levels are high, previous administrations, including Trump's, saw larger year-over-year increases(PolitiFact
As I said --- she lied much of the time her mic was turned on. She out and out lied to the American people over and over. Not misplacing her words --- intentional lies.Shar,
Here are some other ones.
Some of the non-truths Harris could (and should have been) fact-checked on:
1. Talking about Project 2025 as if it were Trump’s manifesto, and saying that he will pass a nationwide abortion ban
2. Dredging up Trump’s Charlottesville comment – that there were "very fine people on both sides" – which has been debunked
3. Saying Trump had overseen the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, which was caused by the pandemic
4. Saying Donald Trump has opposed IVF
5. Denying that Kamala Harris ever called for gun confiscation (there are videos of her doing just that)
6. Saying that Trump’s tax cuts only helped rich people
7. saying that she and Biden have "created" 800,000 manufacturing jobs, which is simply not true."Denying that Kamala Harris ever called for gun confiscation (there are videos of her doing just that)"
Do you have any links to such videos? I haven't seen these.Here she is on NBC news talking about a "Mandatory" gun buy back program.
https://x.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/119 … 88609?s=20She is discussing "mandatory gun buy back" programs. The key word is "Mandatory."
That is how they confiscated everyone's guns in Australia.You are referring to a statement in 2019. Currently....
"While Harris still supports a ban on purchasing assault weapons, her campaign told us that, as of 2024, she is no longer advocating that Americans be required to give up the assault weapons that they previously purchased."
https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/factc … mp-debate/More flip flopping
For mandatory gun buy backs now against mandatory gun buy backs
For banning fracking now against banning fracking
For defunding the police now against defunding the police
For mandatory EV purchasing now against EV mandatory purchasing
For Medicare for all and doing away private insurance, now against Medicare for all and wants private insurance.
When asked if harris is flip flopping, Senator sanders said she is just being pragmatic about what she has to do to get elected.
If her values haven't changed, then everything she said since being coronated as the democrat presidential nominee is a lie.
I believe Senator sanders is right in telling everyone she is saying what she has to say to get elected.
With harris there is no substance or true heart-felt beliefs. I think the appropriate term to describe her is an empty suit.So a candidate's position on a particular issue can't evolve over time?
Trump.... There must be some form of punishment for the woman. (Speaking on abortion)
Also Trump... My administration will be great for women's Reproductive Rights... Now supports abortion.
Thank you, I could have written a book... I truly feel we need to point out this woman's lies... I have never witnessed such propaganda. I mean she tells lie after lie, in my view.
Trump has made various, differing statements about social security and Medicare through the years.
Trump was asked in an interview with CNBC whether he had changed his outlook on how to handle entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to tackle the national debt.
“There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements,” Trump said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
He added: “There’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do.”
He's been on both sides of this issue.
We can look back at 2019..
"Over the next 10 years, Trump’s 2020 budget proposal aims to spend $1.5 trillion less on Medicaid — instead allocating $1.2 trillion in a block-grant program to states — $25 billion less on Social Security, and $845 billion less on Medicare (some of that is reclassified to a different department). Their intentions are to cut benefits under Medicaid and Social Security. "
A sales tax? She has clearly equated Trump's proposed tariffs as acting as additional sales tax for consumers. Economists agree with her. The costs will be passed on to all of us.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohe … -spending/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics … index.html
Scapegoating is the practice of unfairly blaming a person or group for something they didn’t do and then treating them negatively as a result. This can occur between individuals or groups. Did Harris not do this at the debate by telling one lie after another?
Fearmongering, which is what Harris seems to also engage in, involves deliberately stirring up public fear or alarm about a particular issue. I’ve provided a detailed list of her false claims here on this thread, so no need for me to repeat them.
Fearmongering is about inciting undue fear, and Harris appears to use this tactic by spreading falsehoods about Trump and his agenda. This seems like a cheap political strategic move to gain an advantage over him.
Do you feel respect for American citizens is crucial for both Harris and Trump? It seems that Harris hasn't faced the consequences she deserves; many feel she won the debate and accepted her lies without concern for truthfulness, which I view as a lack of discernment.
While some have moved past the "eating pets" comment and are now focusing on the genuine issues affecting Springfield Ohio, it seems you are not ready to address the many problems associated with the woman you support. Instead, you continue to fixate on a few statements.
Trump made those statements during the debate, and it's widely acknowledged that he said them. It almost seems like you're expecting his supporters to criticize him. Have you done the same with Harris?Who did Harris scapegoat? Trump's specifically singled out a Haitian population in Springfield Ohio. As a result there were bomb threats, schools and public buildings had to close and Haitians are now receiving hate. And fearmongering? Trump is using other human beings to incite fear and anger. That's not ok.
Had Harris done this, I certainly would be criticizing it. I absolutely wouldn't support someone who showed that lack of character. I think I've stated before, if there is no character, I can't seriously consider that individual for the highest office in the land. For me, it isn't "oh well he said it let's move on" such abhorrent character is disqualifying.
There was absolutely no reason for him to pick up on that false story, a story that had been debunked. That was terrible judgment. It had no place in the debate.
Haitians eating pets, doctors murdering newborns, schools performing sex change operations, how low have we sunk that this is coming out of a presidential candidate's mouth?In my view, you are supporting a woman who has little character, she has lied over and over to Americans from the debate to the rally stage, and she tells lie after lie. Again you don't defend or note the concerns I have offered regarding Harris's many lies.
For me, Absolutely nothing Harris has stated even approaches what Trump has said.
Are we to assume that you were okay with his repeating the eating of the pets lie? The murder of newborns? I mean this stuff is just so far out there.
His rhetoric has become increasingly more divisive since he started traveling with Laura Loomer
Totally concur with your statement regarding deportation of illegals & a stricter, more stringent vetting of incoming immigrants. It used to be before the mid-century, incoming immigrants were strictly vetted. Any type of discrepancies & the said immigrant/immigrants were deported back to their original countries. Immigration has become extremely lax since the mid-1960s.
His 'whoppers' are so intrigueing, specific that of the Haitainians eating domesticated animals. Trump, would have had listen, and stay with advice of his fellow Republicans. But he gyped them all. Seriously, and curiously, I had not failed to note that, Trump, is a woman's man. And that that woman that flew with him to the debate badly influenced him.
My thoughts exactly. The only reason I can think of is that they are hoping that Trump will come out and say that he supports the murder of children, like his Democratic opponent who does not consider the people in the states should be allowed to decide what is correct.
The man can't answer a simple yes or no question.
He said very clearly that it was now a states right issue. Is this really the issue you want to ramble on about?
The question was .... Will you veto a National abortion ban should it come to your desk? Simple yes or no would suffice.
Yes. But is not 'yes' or 'no' answer like a trap? Why try to put words into the mouth of a person one dislike? The man speaks his mind out.
"A state judge has struck down North Dakota’s ban on abortion, saying that the state constitution creates a fundamental right to access abortion before a fetus is viable"
"The state's GOP attorney general promised to appeal the decision, which would take effect within a few weeks." .... Gotra wrestle back control
Who's not considering the people? I'm not seeing the "people" anywhere in this process. And this goes for many of our red states.
Maybe government, big and small, should mind their own damn business
ab, I'm very curious. But can you furnish a link? Thanks.
I've noticed some confusion regarding whether Trump answered the question about signing an abortion ban early in the debate. He stated, 'I would not sign a ban,' and went on to explain why he believed it wouldn’t be necessary. He also later in the debate claimed made the "I am not for an abortion Ban"... Yet he was pushed over and over to speak on the subject. Harris also went on to use statements such as referring to the Supreme Court's decision as "Trump's abortion ban. Trump is not the president, nor if president would he have the power alone to change abortion laws. Nor would Harris, she is making promises that would be very hard to keep without the full benefit of Congress. I find her cheap politicking insulting to one's intelligence.
What prompted Trump to make the statement "I would not sign a ban" -- Harris accused him of having intentions of banning abortion referred to how she put it due to " his Project 2025." "He will sign a National abortion ban" Kamala Harris.
Strangely, Trump was asked the same question twice more during the debate, even though he had already provided his answer once, and an added view at another point in the debate. ("I would not sign a ban") and detailed response. To me, this felt like an attempt to push for a different answer.
For the full context of the conversation, you can watch this section of the debate starting at 17:00. One needs to listen to the full context of the conversation which starts with Harris answering a question, and then Trump's response to Harris's accusation. Full context matters... So do lies...
source enter at 17:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhc_nE-qQJkThose favouring Trump, to make a bad statement on the abortion ban, are evil intentional.
Rasmussen: Trump Leads Harris After Debate
A Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday showed former President Donald Trump with a two-point lead of 49% to 47% over Vice President Kamala Harris in the race for the White House after their contentious debate Tuesday.All the things the moderators fact-checked Donald Trump on, like crime, they were wrong and President Donald Trump is telling the truth.
DOJ Data Indicates Crime Up Under Biden-Harris
Former President Donald Trump, during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris earlier this week, apparently was not wrong to say crime was "through the roof" under President Joe Biden.
Justice Department data released Thursday showed that there were 22.5 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in the U.S. during 2023. That finding was similar to the 2022 rate (23.5).
The rate of property victimization remained stable from 2022 to 2023 (102.2 victimizations per 1,000 households). In urban areas, the rate of property victimization increased from 176.1 per 1,000 households in 2022 to 192.3 per 1,000 last year.
The numbers for violent crime and property crime in 2023 were significantly higher than in 2020, the last year of the Trump administration.
The data also showed Americans aren't reporting some of the most common crimes to police as often.
A smaller percentage of robbery victimizations that occurred in 2023 (42%) than in 2022 (64%) were reported to police.
Crime Prevention Research Center President John R. Lott Jr. said the numbers indicate that crime has risen under Biden.
"Violent crime increased by 37% under the Biden administration, compared to a drop of 17% under the Trump administration," Lott said, The Washington Times reported.
According to Lott in a breakdown of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data released Thursday, violent crime has soared under Biden-Harris.
"If you look at rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults (the NCVS doesn't measure murder), between 2016 and 2020, violent crime fell by 15% under Trump and soared by 55% under Biden between 2020 and 2023," Lott wrote.
"The year before they became president and then how it had changed by the either the end of Trump's [presidency] or the latest year for Biden-Harris. Even if you take the starting period for Biden as 2019 or the five-year average before COVID because the numbers may have been artificially depressed during COVID, violent crime rose by 19%.
"Under Biden, rape soared by 42%, robbery by 63%, and aggravated assaults by 55%."
The NCVS survey annually reaches nearly a quarter-million people in 150,000 households. The FBI's national crime reporting database compiles crimes reported to local police departments.
The NCVS data suggests the FBI data is wrong to say crime reports had dropped over the past couple of years.
During Tuesday night's debate, ABC News moderator David Muir fact-checked Trump using FBI data.
Lott said less than half of police departments reported complete data to the FBI, the Times reported.
Unlike the NCVS data, the FBI reports on homicide, which is almost always reported. The latest full-year FBI data, showed a 6.1% drop in homicides in 2022 from 2021.Mike,
Thank you for sharing these facts. Accurate information is becoming increasingly scarce. Much of what Harris said during the debate was misleading, and the moderators allowed her to continue unchecked. Yesterday, at her rally, she falsely claimed that Trump plans to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and even the Constitution. She also made baseless assertions about Project 2025, alleging that Trump intends to raise taxes and impose a sales tax on all commodities.
I’ve included a link to her rally, which, from start to finish, is filled with falsehoods. If you’re up for it, I recommend watching it—it’s a stark example of what propaganda truly looks and sounds like, in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeOfRjtEEu0
Kamala Harris Trailing Donald Trump on 8 Key Issues: Post-Debate Poll
A recent poll shows Kamala Harris currently trailing Donald Trump on eight key issues following the debate between the candidates on Tuesday.
The poll, conducted by YouGov between September 10 and 11, shows that although 55 percent of respondents believed Harris to be the winner of the debate, they still see her as falling behind Trump on many topics.
When asked "how well do you think Donald Trump would handle this issue" versus "how well do you think Kamala Harris would handle this issue," voters saw Donald Trump as the better candidate for handling the economy, crime, veterans, immigration, inflation, taxes, national defense, and foreign policy.
Of the 11 topics respondents were asked about, Harris only came out on top on the issues of abortion, the environment, and healthcare.
Two biggest gaps between the candidates are on the economy and immigration. In terms of the economy, 40 percent of voters believe Trump would handle it "very well" whereas only 25 percent of voters believe the same for Harris.
Similarly, 42 percent of voters saw Trump as handling immigration "very well," but only 22 percent of voters felt the same about Harris.
Another big difference between the candidates is inflation, as 38 percent of voters believe Trump would handle inflation "very well" compared to only 23 percent of voters who feel the same about Harris.
The economy is considered a crucial voting topic in the election. A Pew Research poll in 2023 found that 65 percent of voters see inflation as a "very big problem."
Inflation was at its highest peak in the past 20 years under the Biden-Harris administration, as the Consumer Price Index reached a peak of 9.1 percent in June 2022. Inflation was relatively low during the Trump administration, and reached a peak of 2.9 percent in 2018.
Inflation under Biden was in line with global inflation, which was affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and post-Covid anxiety, according to the International Monetary Fund, which saw global inflation rise to 8.8 percent in 2022, and then correctly predicted that it would start to fall.President Donald Trump once again told the truth.
Kamala Harris told ACLU she’d fund trans surgeries for migrant inmates, decriminalize drugs and end ICE detainers during 2020 campaign
Remember, her values have not changed.
Vice President Kamala Harris backed spending taxpayer dollars on gender reassignment surgeries for prison inmates, decriminalizing drugs and ending US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers for illegal immigrants accused of crimes in response to a questionnaire from the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union during her ill-fated 2020 presidential campaign.
The survey was resurfaced by CNN just over 24 hours before Harris and former President Donald Trump square off in their only scheduled debate in Philadelphia.
“Kamala’s support for the decriminalization of all drugs will worsen the drug epidemic in this country leading to more overdoses, deaths, homelessness and heartbreak,” Trump 2024 press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
“Kamala’s plan to fund sex change surgeries for illegal immigrants is absolutely insane and unfair to American taxpayers,” Leavitt added. “Kamala Harris is dangerously liberal.”
Since Harris became the Democratic standard-bearer following President Biden’s departure from the race July 21, her campaign has quietly issued statements walking back progressive policy positions including her opposition to fracking and support for electric vehicle mandates — without Harris herself going on the record to explain her reasoning.
The 59-year-old veep then muddied the waters in her lone major pre-debate TV interview Aug. 29, when she told CNN’s Dana Bash that “the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed.”
Transgender surgeries for migrant inmates
The then-senator from California affirmed that she would use executive power as president to ensure transgender and non-binary individuals “including those in prison and immigration detention” get access to “all necessary surgical care.”
Harris noted that while the Golden State’s attorney general, she had pushed for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to offer transgender surgeries to inmates.
“I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained,” she wrote.
“Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.”
Decriminalizing ‘all drugs’
Despite her track record of prosecuting marijuana cases, Harris declared that she would back decriminalization of “all drug possession for personal use” at the federal level.
“[i] believe it is long past time that we changed our outdated and discriminatory criminalization of marijuana,” Harris wrote during her earlier campaign. “Throughout my career I have supported treating drug addiction as a public health issue.”
On the 2024 Harris-Walz campaign’s newly created policy web page, her team touts her past history of prosecuting drug traffickers and cracking down on opioids, without mentioning her prior support for weed decriminalization.
“This past year, the number of overdose deaths in the United States declined for the first time in five years,” the page says. “As President, she will sign the bipartisan border bill that will fund detection technology to intercept even more illicit drugs and she’ll keep fighting to end the opioid epidemic.”
crapping ICE detainers
ICE utilizes detainers to request that state or local law enforcement hold someone in the US illegally and accused of a crime until they can be transferred to federal custody.
Harris backed ending the use of ICE detainers to the ACLU, arguing that law enforcement should “not act as federal immigration agents.”
“As president, I will focus enforcement on increasing public safety, not tearing apart immigrant families,” she wrote.
At the time, progressives were standing against former President Donald Trump’s hardline policies meant to rein in illegal immigration and tighten the US-Mexico border
After Biden took office, his administration saw the rate of ICE detainers plunge significantly as he drifted to the left on immigration policy.
Opposition to bills that restrict BDS movement
The Israel-Hamas war looms large in the 2024 cycle, but back in 2019, Harris conveyed opposition to legislation that “impedes or prohibits political boycotts, including with regard to BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions].”
The BDS movement calls for boycotting, divesting and backing sanctions against Israel due to its settlement policies. Scores of state and local GOP legislatures have passed bills targeting the BDS movement, which they describe as antisemitic.
“I absolutely believe that we must protect the right of individuals to engage in political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment,” she wrote. “I oppose legislation that may be interpreted as infringing on or impeding constitutionally protected speech.”
“At the same time, I personally oppose the BDS movement because it questions the legitimacy of Israel, and strongly support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.”
https://nypost.com/2024/09/09/us-news/k … -campaign/The statements quoted by the Post in terms of gender surgeries for the incarcerated
Are referring to a 2019 questionnaire by the ACLU filled out by Harris.
Do you find such care to be part of her current platform?
I mean Trump clearly stated he wanted to punish women for receiving abortions at one point but noted it is not currently part of his agenda.
Decriminalization?
"I believe it is long past time that we changed our outdated and discriminatory criminalization of marijuana,” Harris wrote during her earlier campaign. “Throughout my career I have supported treating drug addiction as a public health issue.”
And what's wrong with that?
Right now, I think folks would be more concerned with Trump shutting down the government.No, not Trump had any intention of shving dawn the government. No president can.
The Trump-Kamala questions about the presidential debate and other political issues is pissing me off. Whose telling truth from fiction? Apparently, as both guys are political opponents, these conflicts, accusations, and so on are bound to rise. God save America!
The one who is not part of the deep state is for the people. The one that is a puppet of the deep state is for the deep state.
'real' Donald Trump, for the people? Yesterday even, I read on facebook Kamala said Trump, had thrown away 83 million o them?
Keep your sanity and believe it. Its true.
" 'real' Donald Trump, for the people."
This is what I believe.
Yes...the debate was rigged.
Viral ‘ABC whistleblower affidavit' makes shocking claims, Bill Ackman seeks a probe, finds 'allegations credible’
An affidavit, purportedly from an anonymous "ABC News whistleblower," has sparked controversy after being circulated online. The document alleges close collaboration between the network and Kamala Harris’ campaign leading up to the recent debate against Donald Trump.
What does the viral ABC whistleblower affidavit suggest?
The affidavit alleges several serious claims regarding the debate preparation and ABC News' role. One of the primary allegations is that Kamala Harris was given access to sample or similar questions before the debate. If true, this would have given her an unfair advantage over Donald Trump by allowing her to prepare more thoroughly for specific topics.
Another claim is that the Harris campaign actively blocked ABC News from questioning Joe Biden’s health. This issue has been a point of discussion throughout the election cycle, with some critics suggesting that Biden’s fitness for office should be more rigorously examined. According to the whistleblower, Harris’ team ensured that this line of questioning was off-limits.
The affidavit also asserts that the Harris campaign influenced ABC to avoid probing into allegations against Harris’ brother-in-law, who has been accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.
Additionally, ABC staff members are said to have been fearful of retribution from Trump, possibly implying that they felt pressured to comply with the Harris campaign's requests to avoid conflict.
The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings that prove the Harris campaign pressured moderators to fact-check Trump during the debate. These recordings, if they exist, could provide key evidence in backing the whistleblower's assertions.
Moreover, it is alleged that ABC News was given instructions about which questions to steer clear of during the debate, implying that the Harris campaign had significant influence over the content and flow of the event. This control over the debate, according to the whistleblower, included a demand for live fact-checking of Trump while Harris faced no such scrutiny, even when she made statements that were factually questionable.
The whistleblower reportedly signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, further raising the stakes as these claims are now in the hands of political leadership.
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vi … ngNewsSerpWhen will the 'real' Donald Trump, get fair coveragd from the American news media? He sedms to be dislike much.
The Swamp wants to remain in power and control ... (and wants even more through increasingly totalitarian tactics.)
DJT's stated goal has always been to drain it.
The Swamp is in cahoots with the American News media.
If I(we) have to say it once, I(we) have to say it a hundred times!
The Swamp does not want to go down the drain. The Swamp-People, (MSM, Liberal Big Corporations, Big Pharma, Liberal Government Officials,) will do and say whatever it takes to get us to hate him.
However, he is very lovable. I am enjoying the cat/duck memes so much! Its his soothing, sincere and caring voice that carries forth in the simple rap song they made of his lines from the debate.
Everyone knows the truth: DJT is trying to wash The Swamp away with limited government, less taxation, strong military, percolating economy through energy independence and ending the $-making, war-profiteering activities instigated by the Swamp.
What's to not understand?
Its not rocket-science!A basic civics is what everyone needs. Thank you.
If those on the left want to know why there are assassination attempts against President Donald Trump they simply need to look in the mirror. They have a long history in being reckless in what they say.
Among the comments:
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"If we were in high school I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him," from Joe Biden
"When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?"
"They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump. That's a fact."
"Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him?"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House."
The Trump campaign itself released a compilation of some of the threats, and identified those making the threats. They mostly are political or media figures or political operatives:
Kamala Harris: "Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms."
Harris: "It's on us to recognize the threat (Trump) poses."
Harris: "Does one of us have to come out alive? Ha ha ha ha!"
Joe Biden: "It's time to put Trump in a bull's-eye."
Biden: "I mean this from the bottom of my heart: Trump is a threat to this nation!"
Biden: "There is one existential threat: It's Donald Trump."
Biden: "Trump is a genuine threat to his nation … He's literally a threat to everything America stands for."
Biden : "Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country."
Biden: "Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. … and that is a threat to this country."
Tim Walz: "Are (Republicans) a threat to democracy? Yes … Are they going to put peoples' lives in danger? Yes."
Gwen Walz: "Buh-bye, Donald Trump."
Nancy Pelosi: "(Trump) is a threat to our democracy of the kind that we have not seen."
Jasmine Crockett: "MAGA in general – they are threats to us domestically."
Dan Goldeman: "He is destructive to our democracy and … he has to be eliminated."
Disgraced Harris staffer TJ Ducklo: "Trump is an existential, urgent threat to our democracy."
Liz Cheney: "Trump presents a fundamental threat to the republic and we are seeing it on a daily basis."
Steve Cohen: "Trump is an enemy of the United States."
Maxine Waters: "Are (Trump supporters) preparing a civil war against us?"
Waters: "I want to know about all of those right-wing organizations that (Trump) is connected with who are training up in the hills somewhere."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Trump is an "existential threat to our democracy."
Adam Schiff: Trump is the "gravest threat to our democracy."
Gregory Meeks: "Trump cannot be president again. He's an existential threat to democracy."
Dan Goldman: "Trump remains the greatest threat to our democracy."
Jake Auchincloss: "What unifies us as a party is knowing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to Democracy."
Abigail Spanberger: "Trump is a threat to our democracy … the threats to our democratic republic are real."
Annie Kuster: "Trump and his extreme right-win followers pose an existential threat to our democracy."
Becca Balint: "We cannot underestimate the threat (Trump) poses to American democracy."
Jason Crow: "Trump is an extreme danger to our democracy."
Michael Bennet: Trump is "a threat to our democracy."
Steven Horsford: "Trump Republicans are a dangerous threat to our state."
Gave Vasquez: "Remove the national threat from office."
And more….
https://www.wnd.com/2024/09/found-video … ald-trump/It appears that the bomb threats in Ohio are hoaxes from overseas. According to the governor of Ohio.
"Ohio governor contradicts Democrat narrative with damning revelation about bomb threat 'hoaxes' in Springfield
Gov Mike DeWine revealed the bomb threat 'hoaxes' are coming from 'overseas'
Ohio's Republican governor revealed on Monday that reported bomb threats against various sites in Springfield, Ohio, that have been blamed on Republican rhetoric surrounding the Haitian migrant crisis in the town were all "hoaxes."
"Thirty-three threats; Thirty-three hoaxes," Gov. Mike DeWine announced during a press conference. "I want to make that very, very clear. None of these had any validity at all."
DeWine said during the press conference that many of the threats came from "overseas."
"We have people unfortunately overseas who are taking these actions," DeWine added. "Some of them are coming from one particular country."
The governor's office said it is not disclosing the country in an effort to discourage threats to the schools and other buildings."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-g … pringfieldGuess some Nation wants Harris to win... I am pleased to hear that these threats were false alarms. It is sad to see this community pulled apart at the seams.
"It is sad to see this community pulled apart at the seams."
It doesn't seem that many had that opinion even yesterday.... When Trump and Vance amplified false claims against Haitians eating people's pets, wasn't that pulling a community apart at the seams?
All politicians are very terrific people. One shouldn't blame them for being that. It's their nature. But some choose to be more real, despite what is said above.
Related Discussions
- 121
Final Presidential Debate of 2020: Who won? Donald Trump or Joe Biden?
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
Before anyone else opens up a forum about this, and I know the debate is still going on. Who do you think won this year's final presidential debate of this year?
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 15 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 16
Biden Agrees To Debate President Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 4 months ago
Thoughts?I don't think things will go for biden in this debate. I will be watching it."Biden and Trump will debate in June and September. But the terms have changedPresident Biden and former President Donald Trump have agreed to a pair of presidential debates hosted by television...
- 28
Why Not Keep Us Informed About Ongoing Biden Investigations?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
America is known to be a free country, a country that is free to cover the news — not to cover up the news that they perhaps find does not suit their given agenda. Yet, that’s precisely what many journalists did in the final few weeks before the presidential election. Let's take a time...
- 99
The Effect of NO TRUMP in The World
by Kathryn L Hill 7 days ago
I am wondering if Trump's very existence is significant in today's world. For the brave commenters here, what if aliens take him to some far-off planet?How would the next day look? ( here ... or on that planet )
- 29
President Donald Trump as Presidential Candidate or President ...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 months ago
If Trump had a crystal ball which showed he might (somehow) start a civil war here in the good ol' USA, would/should he decide not to run? - wondering.