ADVERTISEMENT

It was a coup.

She’s a danger to our country. All the central tenets and qualities and characteristics that make our nation great. She’s a moron to boot
All the Republicans had to do was put up a decent candidate and none of this would matter. As it is, we have two idiots running for the top spot, both of who are objectionable to the majority of the country.

As it stands now, this may be a dog fight to the finish between two awful candidates.
 
She’s a danger to our country. All the central tenets and qualities and characteristics that make our nation great. She’s a moron to boot
The country is f#cked. @BradStevens wants to take all of our wealth and give to the government. I love Brad. He’s one of my favorite internet people in the entire galaxy. He’s intelligent and smart and very loveable (I guess that’s not a word), but he still thinks the government can save us. Too many people believe that. It doesn’t matter how many times socialism doesn’t work, people still believe it will work this time. The day Brad comes on here and says f#ck the government, I’m an Austrian Economist, is the day the world has a chance of turning around. Until then, we’re f#cked. #buybitcoin#imdrunk#onlybradcansaveus
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
I think the Trumpers invested way more than I realized in Biden being their opponent.
Really, why would people assume Biden would be the opponent? How fcking stupid is that after hearing Biden, Harris and the whole Administration tell us over and over how sharp he was behind the scenes and his statements he was running?
 
Really, why would people assume Biden would be the opponent? How fcking stupid is that after hearing Biden, Harris and the whole Administration tell us over and over how sharp he was behind the scenes and his statements he was running?
He was the best candidate the world has ever seen, the defender of democracy and the victor over fascism, authoritarian rogues and bad ice cream . . . . . until he wasn’t.
 
I don’t know that anyone is terrified. Certainly disappointment because Biden was toast. Now Democrats have been awakened, therefore it will be a much closer election.
Perhaps. They are in the honeymoon phase where they are scrubbing her record to make her look good. The problem for her is that she is going to have plenty of moments to be herself over the next few months. When that happens, people don't tend to like her all that much.

Nobody is "scared" of Harris any more than they would be "scared" of [insert generic Democrat here]. She is the competition, Republicans are generally not going to like that competition, so she gets negative treatment in relation to that. Just like the same people wishing for the better days of George W. were calling him a chimp, "Shrub", a war criminal, etc., etc. when he was in office and running. Paul Ryan wanted to throw Grandma off a cliff. When they were worried about DeSantis he was evil and worse than Trump. This is the game.
 
Last edited:
So why not just say that instead of this "coup" nonsense? If the scary part is her policy, attack her policy.

No, I think they scary part is she could win. I think the Trumpers invested way more than I realized in Biden being their opponent.

The coup stuff may or may not be nonsense. Maybe Biden was forced out just like Hersh said. It makes for an interesting story, maybe a fun drama movie in 10 years. But it doesn't matter in terms of the race how she got there. She's there now and the battle is on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
The coup stuff may or may not be nonsense. Maybe Biden was forced out just like Hersh said. It makes for an interesting story, maybe a fun drama movie in 10 years. But it doesn't matter in terms of the race how she got there. She's there now and the battle is on.
Dems went way left so it’s immaterial to me but I think it does matter in the bigger picture. This should have happened months ago and legitimate primaries occurred. I doubt very seriously Harris would have been the choice of Dem voters yet here she is as a result of this debacle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
It presupposes that by providing others with more we’ll end up in the same place. The more is money. Take from one and give to another. It discounts all the qualities and characteristics that give rise to success and failure. It’s disturbing rhetoric and she’s a disturbing candidate. She should speak in equity of opportunity. Not equity in where we end up (outcome)
Speaking of which Sam Altman just published his findings on the largest ever study of UBI, the results were…. mixed to put it kindly.


No measurable mental health benefits, decreased labor force participation at the expense of leisure time, decreased wages.

Seems like the majority used that hand up to **** around more.
 
Dems went way left so it’s immaterial to me but I think it does matter in the bigger picture. This should have happened months ago and legitimate primaries occurred. I doubt very seriously Harris would have been the choice of Dem voters yet here she is as a result of this debacle
I said Biden should announce he wasn’t running before the primaries. Most people voted for him and against Trump thinking he would be a one termer. He was too old to do two terms and many hoped we’d have two new candidates to choose from. I sure did. I was looking forward to having a good sane Republican, one of the many popular Republican Governors would have been a great choice. However, we got what we got, two old lousy choices again. At least now one is a young choice and Dems and Republicans will argue about whether she’s lousy or not. If trump wasn’t the candidate she’d likely lose big.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
Dems went way left so it’s immaterial to me but I think it does matter in the bigger picture. This should have happened months ago and legitimate primaries occurred. I doubt very seriously Harris would have been the choice of Dem voters yet here she is as a result of this debacle

I guess I should have said it doesn't matter for most voters. Dems hate Trump and always will. Pubs hate the POLICIES of Harris and always will. So, does it matter to the 3-5% who are uncommitted voters? I doubt it.
 
He was the best candidate the world has ever seen, the defender of democracy and the victor over fascism, authoritarian rogues and bad ice cream . . . . . until he wasn’t.
The new Democrat primary rules are you are the winner until the polls show you are going to lose. THEN the party ELITES will throw your ass out and replace you.
 
I guess I should have said it doesn't matter for most voters. Dems hate Trump and always will. Pubs hate the POLICIES of Harris and always will. So, does it matter to the 3-5% who are uncommitted voters? I doubt it.
The difference is that it’s a squad Dem. The most liberal of Dems with radical policies and ideology. I’m not sure all Dems support that. Unfortunately that’ll never be the focus of our media. Most voters won’t get into the details and will just base their decision on superficial stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3ZSDAD
The difference is that it’s a squad Dem. The most liberal of Dems with radical policies and ideology. I’m not sure all Dems support that. Unfortunately that’ll never be the focus of our media. Most voters won’t get into the details and will just base their decision on superficial stuff

Exactly. Dems would vote for Fidel over Trump. So, it didn't matter that there was a coup. 45% won't vote for Trump. The media couldn't get Biden to the 48% they needed for him to win, especially after the debate. Now, they have new energy with a new puppet and they think they can get her to 48%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snarlcakes
Exactly. Dems would vote for Fidel over Trump. So, it didn't matter that there was a coup. 45% won't vote for Trump. The media couldn't get Biden to the 48% they needed for him to win, especially after the debate. Now, they have new energy with a new puppet and they think they can get her to 48%.
It doesn’t matter in a general but it matters intra. To the Dems. At least it should. They’ve been deprived a say and the benefit of hearing alternative candidates. Remember Harris on her own wasn’t first or second
 
  • Like
Reactions: ribbont
It doesn’t matter in a general but it matters intra. To the Dems. At least it should. They’ve been deprived a say and the benefit of hearing alternative candidates. Remember Harris on her own wasn’t first or second

Agree, but NOTHING matters but "saving democracy" to Dems. The intra party stuff becomes important after Trump is defeated.
 
The difference is that it’s a squad Dem. The most liberal of Dems with radical policies and ideology. I’m not sure all Dems support that. Unfortunately that’ll never be the focus of our media. Most voters won’t get into the details and will just base their decision on superficial stuff
Almost all Democrats support it, is why they’ll vote for her. Think of all the spending and woke shit that has went on the past 4 years. Now think of the liberals responses to it. Have any of them said they’re not voting for liberals? No. It’s because they’re for it (or fine with it).

Also, save me the but Trump bullshit. In 2028 the same people will be voting for the Democrat nominee and the new Republican candidate will be the most horrible blah blah blah. A slight majority of the country wants to take from the other half of the country. It’s only going to continue and get worse. The question is how quickly? That’s determined by how often Democrats get control of all government branches or a “crisis” arises. Leftist aren’t going to wake up one day and admit they’re wrong and become Austrian Economists.
 
Last edited:
One can read those remarks and reasonably assume she’s talking about equality of opportunity - which is the correct equality to pursue. Equality of outcome is a non-starter.
I don’t think that interpretation is congruent with everyone ends up in the same place. Equality of opportunity doesn’t result in everyone ending up in the same place. Only equality of outcome does
 
I don’t think that interpretation is congruent with everyone ends up in the same place. Equality of opportunity doesn’t result in everyone ending up in the same place. Only equality of outcome does
Agreed - but the part about where people start different places is why I interpret it as she’s pushing opportunity.

Again, equality of outcome is a complete non-starter. There are probably those who disagree with that here but it’s because they’re much dumber than they think they are.
 
Agreed - but the part about where people start different places is why I interpret it as she’s pushing opportunity.

Again, equality of outcome is a complete non-starter. There are probably those who disagree with that here but it’s because they’re much dumber than they think they are.
Yeah maybe she just did a piss poor job of articulating her message. Maybe she meant with those measures everyone ends up at the same place - at the starting line, not the finish line
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
One can read those remarks and reasonably assume she’s talking about equality of opportunity - which is the correct equality to pursue. Equality of outcome is a non-starter.
No, she is clearly talking about equity. Equal opportunity would mean that we all have a chance to make something of ourselves and excel given the laws and opportunity provided in the US. As you said, this is good. She goes further than that though. The second paragraph appears to be describing that. Her first and final paragraphs is where she signals she is talking of something different.

"We want everyone to get an equal amount" is explicitly stated in the third paragraph. She goes on to further state, "And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be a goal of saying everyone should end up in the same place." That is the "To each according to his needs" portion of her statement. "From each according to his ability" is more implicit. "Some folks might need more equitable distribution" because "not everyone starts out from the same place."
 
Yeah maybe she just did a piss poor job of articulating her message. Maybe she meant with those measures everyone ends up at the same place - at the starting line, not the finish line
No, I think you are closer. She explicitly states everyone should end up at the same place. End. Not begin. She says in order for everyone to end up in the same place, we have to equitably distribute at the beginning so that can occur. There is a reason she was the most left senator before becoming VP.
 
No, I think you are closer. She explicitly states everyone should end up at the same place. End. Not begin. She says in order for everyone to end up in the same place, we have to equitably distribute at the beginning so that can occur. There is a reason she was the most left senator before becoming VP.
No, I think you are closer. She explicitly states everyone should end up at the same place. End. Not begin. She says in order for everyone to end up in the same place, we have to equitably distribute at the beginning so that can occur. There is a reason she was the most left senator before becoming VP.
Aloha Hoosier while you’re obsessing over labels the above is the reality.
 
No, she is clearly talking about equity. Equal opportunity would mean that we all have a chance to make something of ourselves and excel given the laws and opportunity provided in the US. As you said, this is good. She goes further than that though. The second paragraph appears to be describing that. Her first and final paragraphs is where she signals she is talking of something different.

"We want everyone to get an equal amount" is explicitly stated in the third paragraph. She goes on to further state, "And if the goal is truly about equality, it has to be a goal of saying everyone should end up in the same place." That is the "To each according to his needs" portion of her statement. "From each according to his ability" is more implicit. "Some folks might need more equitable distribution" because "not everyone starts out from the same place."
You could be right and if you are she’s as dangerous and as dumb as I fear. Perhaps I naively want to believe I’m right and her wording is ass and she’s talking about how we all need to end up at the same starting point.
 
Exactly. Dems would vote for Fidel over Trump. So, it didn't matter that there was a coup. 45% won't vote for Trump. The media couldn't get Biden to the 48% they needed for him to win, especially after the debate. Now, they have new energy with a new puppet and they think they can get her to 48%.
I think Trump's ceiling is around 45 to 46 percent. I agree the winner will be very unlikely to have 50 percent of the vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indyhorn
You could be right and if you are she’s as dangerous and as dumb as I fear. Perhaps I naively want to believe I’m right and her wording is ass and she’s talking about how we all need to end up at the same starting point.
I'm good with equality of opportunity and equitable outcome is an abominable position for anyone to take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadWakeboarder
Your words and actions don’t match
I'm more than good with my actions. Besides it's only one issue and I don't think the President is as all powerful as many do. Congress matters much more.

I won't be comparing policies until they are clearer and posted on their websites or on one of the reputable political sites which do that for the major races. Who I won't vote for will never change so I would suggest that people stop wasting time with trying to change that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
I'm good with equality of opportunity and equitable outcome is an abominable position for anyone to take.
I'm more than good with my actions. Besides it's only one issue and I don't think the President is as all powerful as many do. Congress matters much more.

I won't be comparing policies until they are clearer and posted on their websites or on one of the reputable political sites which do that for the major races. Who I won't vote for will never change so I would suggest that people stop wasting time with trying to change that.
Lol from the unfit in every other thread? Her positions are based on what has come from her own mouth and what the administration has already done. You don’t need publications. You read it right in this thread. From her mouth.

And the president is incredibly influential. The president establishes the narrative and creates the menu
 
No, I think you are closer. She explicitly states everyone should end up at the same place. End. Not begin. She says in order for everyone to end up in the same place, we have to equitably distribute at the beginning so that can occur. There is a reason she was the most left senator before becoming VP.
I agree. It’s classic Marxism couched in a word salad. The government gets to decide how much we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
I'm good with equality of opportunity and equitable outcome is an abominable position for anyone to take.

Humanity has already been through this question with very real world experiments.

Given how they worked out, it’s bizarre to me that we’d have any interest in trying it again. We’re gluttons for punishment, I guess. But it’s just such a seductive concept for so many people.
 
Unreal! Crickets around here buddy! That right there is a definition of the left. They never liked her, she had the worst approval rating, she failed miserably at the border, cost of everything went up.

However, suddenly she is the dem savior with a great approval rating. And yet you have people right here on this board defending that POS. Meanwhile, they persecute and attempt assassinations on Trump. Things are not okay, IDC what anyone says.
 
Lol from the unfit in every other thread? Her positions are based on what has come from her own mouth and what the administration has already done. You don’t need publications. You read it right in this thread. From her mouth.

And the president is incredibly influential. The president establishes the narrative and creates the menu
I’m good. There’s a reason I plan to vote for Republicans for Congress as usual. I wish we had nominated a fit candidate for President but we didn’t.
 
Lol from the unfit in every other thread? Her positions are based on what has come from her own mouth and what the administration has already done. You don’t need publications. You read it right in this thread. From her mouth.

And the president is incredibly influential. The president establishes the narrative and creates the menu
We don’t have up to date positions from Harris, 2020 campaign is the best we got. Presumably they mirror Biden’s but I would love to hear them out of her own mouth so she can be held to account. Not holding my breath…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT