If the gop had put ANYONE but trump as the nominee I think they would have had a great chance, but they doubled down on the con man (or he basically became the party) and they may end up paying the ultimate price. There will be a huge swath of people voting against trump, not necessarily for Harris and if they end up losing the gop will have no one to blame. I am in the camp of voting AGAINIST trump and I have stated I would vote for a ham sandwich over trump. Maga is dug in and they will NEVER concede that trump is the next coming of their lord and savior I have come to like Harris and she has a sharp wit about her, and I also have a cat I hope Harris wins and they are able to drop trump....I think the gop would have cruised to a victory if Haley had been the nominee
Meanwhile, I don't trust crypto and I appreciate that she did not go and make any promises to the bitcoin community that I wouldn't find favorable. That's the thing with pandering -- you might find some votes in one place, but it might cost you some somewhere else. I don't think Harris should go the experienced veteran route. To do so would imply an admission that she doesn't have enough experience herself. I don't think that should be how she wants people to see her. She is in her late 50s and is experienced. She can pick a contemporary, but it should be cast as training someone up. They would have if they'd installed anyone besides Harris. We all understand and accept the VP is next in line.
I think you misunderstood. You asked, "Why do you think that (a portion of his speech at the bitcoin conference that I quoted) is condescending?" I answered it directly. 'If not for me, you'd be dead. Thank me.' is a paraphrase of what Trump said to the audience at the Bitcoin conference.
Thats fine if you don't trust crypto but it's been here to stay. This became evident during the pandemic. Crypto had enormous growth during Trump's first term. And Harris might not be pandering here yet but she's done that elsewhere already. She's a politician. That's what they do. I misunderstood because you didn't explain yourself clearly. The second paragraph here in this post is what you should have said. Doubt he lost any votes because the other option is kamala who isn't popular with the crypto world at the moment. They've lived through Trump already.
If Trump loses. That's two in a row. I hope the GOP triple down and go with him again in 2028. And again in 2032.
I don't know (concerning votes). I've stated that I have no idea what the Bitcoin folks would do. But I'm quite sure, based on my experience at multiple conferences on technology and innovation, that it wasn't well received after reading the partial transcript provided by CoinDesk.
The point is they aren't running to kamala, especially after Trump's speech. They may not have liked everything or (and this is the real thing) hoped for more from him, such as a promise establishing a BTC reserve, but nothing he said was a negative to crypto unlike some actions the biden administration (one kamala is apart of) took the last couple years
Are people on board with Kamala's stated policy positions on: Defunding the police Making illegal immigration a civil, rather than criminal offence (she failed as border czar) Supporting (co-sponsoring) the Green New Deal Banning fracking for natural gas production (energy costs go up up and away) Funding foreign wars that we do not play a role in Mandatory gun buybacks (Australian model) Folks, this is just not a serious Presidential candidate. Checks some DEI boxes though.
I realize why Harris appeals to me magnitudes more than Biden did. She represents the future where the mood is better. A roaring 20s we deserved. Biden just didn’t have the ability to make us appreciate what we have. Trump wants to burn the whole thing the thing down.
