And? There were multiple recounts of the 2020 election. Even one conducted a year after the election was certified in AZ. Trump was given every legal opportunity to contest the election and some even illegally. Conspiring to have false electors, pressure state officials to “find votes” and threatening your VP isn’t legal.
This is a point I brought up. Many Trump supporters seem desperate to declare victory already. That the debates have been “complete victories”. It is as though any acknowledgement that things might be close or that the other side is doing better will be a display of weakness.
Pretty much how I feel about it. I was quite appalled on Jan. 6th, but the Biden-Harris policies are much more harmful.
I assume they are parroting what Trump says and it'll fit their narrative that the election was stolen again and we can get Jan 6th part deux.
I’m very certain if Trump loses we will see Jan 6th part deux. The difference will be there will be a lot more security around the Capitol.
This is not true because after the first Trump-Harris debate you saw many Trump supporters here saying his performance wasn't what they expected/should have been better. Meanwhile you had Dems here the night of the VP debate acting like Walz was the best debater the world has ever seen. But @Nook got one thing right in his post, the Republicans should win this in a landslide, and they will. What's happening with registration/early voting in California alone, if it holds, is enough to bring the PV back to a 2016 level difference and then you'd expect Trump to do better in the swing states. He might **** around and get 51-52% of the PV.
God at those purple lapels though; I had forgotten that. Like a wannabe superhero or X-woman or something. LOL.
Just quoting this part because it assumes a narrative I've seen come up quite a few times now. Historically, presidential debates were conducted in October. This wiki page has a list of debates with dates from 1960 to the present. Before 2024, the earliest debate was held on September 21. The latest on October 28. Having the first Trump-Biden debate on June 27 is not just early, it's aberrant (and good thing too because it gave Dems the opportunity to replace Biden on the ballot). Doing an unusually early September 4 second debate might have been in Biden's interest, but it would have been also very early by historical standards. Just because Trump and Biden entertained the idea though doesn't mean it would make any sense for Harris. Likewise, Trump's assertion that it's too late in the season to do a debate is an historical anomaly. Sure, things have been changing and there is more early voting than before, for instance. But even in 2020, Trump and Biden debated on October 22. Seems more likely that Trump is hiding from the debate and using the calendar as a (very meager) excuse. But that's fine. Debates aren't mandatory. If he thinks it won't help him, he shouldn't debate.
I'll do you one better and give you a response ChatGPT formulated for me, based on my input, in much more diplomatic language than I would choose myself. 1. Advocacy for Progressive Gender Policies: Kamala Harris has supported policies that advance transgender rights, including measures that allow transgender individuals to use facilities that align with their gender identity and supporting transgender youth in schools. Some libertarians may be concerned that government involvement in these areas infringes upon parental rights and imposes mandates on private institutions, conflicting with the principle of minimal government intervention. 2. Support for Transgender Healthcare for Minors: Harris has shown support for access to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender individuals, including minors. Libertarians worried about “transgendering children” might argue that medical interventions for minors should be approached with caution and that government policies promoting such interventions could overstep parental authority and individual autonomy. 3. Endorsement of Critical Race Theory and DEI Initiatives: Harris has expressed support for addressing systemic racism through educational and institutional reforms, which may include elements associated with Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Libertarians who oppose CRT and DEI might view these frameworks as promoting collective identity over individual merit, potentially leading to policies that mandate certain beliefs or trainings, which they see as infringements on free speech and thought. 4. Promotion of “Woke” Policies: As a figure who aligns with progressive values, Harris is associated with policies aimed at addressing social inequalities related to race, gender, and sexuality. A conservative libertarian might be concerned that these “woke” policies could result in increased regulations on businesses (e.g., requiring diversity quotas or anti-discrimination trainings), which they might perceive as government overreach into the private sector. 5. Consideration of Reparations for Historical Injustices: Harris has expressed openness to studying reparations for African Americans to address the legacy of slavery and systemic discrimination. Libertarians critical of reparations may argue that such policies involve redistributing wealth based on group identity rather than individual responsibility, conflicting with principles of individualism and limited government. 6. Potential Restrictions on Free Speech: Efforts to combat hate speech and misinformation, which Harris supports, might lead to regulations that libertarians perceive as limiting free speech. They may worry that government-defined parameters around acceptable speech could set precedents for censorship and suppress dissenting opinions. 7. Expansion of Government Programs and Spending: Harris’s support for comprehensive social programs in areas like healthcare, education, and social justice could lead to significant increases in government spending. Libertarians favoring low taxes and small government might be concerned that funding these programs would require higher taxes and expand federal government size and influence. 8. Criminal Justice Policies and Public Safety: While Harris advocates for criminal justice reform to address inequalities, some libertarians focused on low crime rates might worry that certain reforms—such as reducing cash bail or altering sentencing guidelines—could inadvertently lead to increased crime if not carefully implemented. 9. Immigration and Border Security Stance: Harris supports immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and has been critical of strict enforcement policies. Libertarians who prioritize secure borders may view her approach as too lenient, potentially affecting national security and the enforcement of immigration laws. 10. Foreign Policy Toward Israel: Although Harris has affirmed support for Israel, libertarians who are strong proponents may be concerned about potential shifts in policy due to pressures from progressive elements within her party that are more critical of Israeli government actions. This could lead to changes in U.S. foreign aid or diplomatic support that they find unfavorable. In summary, a libertarian with conservative leanings might have strong reservations about Kamala Harris as a potential U.S. President due to her support for progressive social policies, government interventions in personal and economic matters, and approaches to free speech and education that they perceive as infringing upon individual liberties. These concerns are rooted in a desire for minimal government involvement, protection of individual rights, and policies that align with their views on economic freedom, social issues, and national security.
Thank you for the effort on this list. Buuuuuut, for everyone who would see this nationally. about 50% would agree and 50% would disagree on each topic. Thats why this race is too close to call
None of that was the reasoning for Kamala declining the debate though. She could have locked him in but decided to see how she'd perform at the 9/10 debate first. It is clear as day. We all know Trump isn't a good debater. It's not like he won the debates in 2016. Even if the date 9/4 was not going to work out (or 9/25 for NBC), they could have VERY EASILY worked on a different date. But again, they thought Trump was going to be way worse on the first debate (but he wasnt), plus they didn't get all the debate modifications they wanted, which she could have gotten if she renegotiated the debate terms like Trump was asking for when she became the nominee. That incident too is more evidence they thought the first debate she had would be enough to surge in the polls. Oops
As a refresher, this "'never Trump' guest" was awarded an ambassadorship to the EU by Trump after a $1 million donation. He seemed to do an alright job before the Ukraine blackmail scandal. In that event, he was the one that told Ukraine they had to open a corruption investigation on the Bidens in order to get security assistance. When questioned, he initially lied to Congress during the impeachment inquiry, saying there was no quid pro quo. Only later, when other testimony made his lie obvious did he change his tune and admit there was a quid pro quo. That testimony was important in the impeachment and Trump fired him for it despite being acquitted. And he did sue the State Dept for not paying his legal fees. So, idk, maybe he "broke with Trump" over the Jan 6 thing, and maybe he was sore about getting canned. But, Sondland is not a 'never Trumper.' He was a good soldier for Trump for years , promoting him and giving him money, serving loyally, and even engaging himself in an unethical blackmail attempt for him, only blinking once when he faced his own legal jeopardy. I have a hard time believing he was outraged by Jan 6 when he apparently thought it was okay to engage in blackmail to create a fake scandal about a political opponent to achieve the same ends. So anyway, I guess I'm not surprised he'll vote for Trump though I doubt it has much to do with how the last 4 years have gone. Anyway, I certainly won't be taking my cues from this dude who betrayed the nation's trust be abusing his office to engage in blackmail for partisan gain. He should be in jail, not on MSNBC.
Is Kamala asking if the people in the Asheville NC area if they are OK ?... why isn't more being done by our pathetic Harris/Biden administration
In all seriousness .... no one that isn't really biased is buying that at all. First - if Harris did poorly at the first debate - she was toast... and the only way she could potentially bounce back would be a momentum changing second debate. The first debate was massively important because the entire line of attack against her by Trump and his band of social media quasi journalists was that Harris was a stupid woman and not capable and would be exposed. At this point Harris doesn't really NEED another debate. She got everything that she needed at the first debate and the election is a coin toss. If she does well at a second debate, it isn't going to change her support much and if she does poorly, then that will cause momentum for Trump.
Yes. Even with Republicans in the last few years attempting to cut disaster relief aid - Biden has promised aid for as long as necessary in Asheville NC from Helene. More than 5,000 personnel from across the federal workforce are deployed, including more than 1,500 from FEMA. To date, FEMA has shipped over 9.3 million meals, more than 11.2 million liters of water, 150 generators and more than 260,000 tarps to the region. President Biden yesterday increased funding as well for the disaster recovery in the region. Biden announced that the federal government would cover 100% of the costs of debris removal and emergency protective measures for six months for North Carolina, as requested by its Governor. Homeowners and renters with damage to their home or personal property from previous disasters, whether they received FEMA funds or not, are still eligible to apply for and receive assistance for Hurricane Helene as well.
