The debate. Who wins?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
"Discussing the US southern border, Trump asserted that “more terrorists have come into the United States in the last three years. And I think probably 50 years.”

This is probably true, although there are no statistics to confirm it. The reason I say it is probably true is because the border has never been so wide open and so many people coming across as has been happening in the past 3 1/2 years. Wide open border and ten million people coming in means that most likely more terrorists came in with them. Just kinda how the math average would work out.

He bloviated a lot. He exaggerated a lot. And yeah, he lied.
But he probably got this one right.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

Is any of that in Das Kapital or any Marxist manifesto or is anything you don't like automatically "Marxist"?

Marxism refers to the political, social and economic theories of Karl Marx, practiced as socialism or communism.

Harris dad was a Marxist economist.
Harris policies are Marxist.
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Vermilion
Trump is correct, Harris is a Marxist lunatic trying to destroy America.
She’s told you herself.

True. Harris has straight out said she's socialist.
And some of what she wants to do is Marxist.
For instance, taking patents away from corporations and given them to the Federal Gov't.
And the EV mandate. Restricting people and making them buy EVs instead of gas
cars when in fact the free market doesn't want all EVs, the majority of people want
gas cars.
Her gun grab. Anti 2nd Amendment and that's the first thing the communists want,
people to be defenseless and without guns.
Her stand on having wide open borders ... basically meaning no borders ..
makes her a globalist as well. And yeah, no borders destroys countries.

a reply to: Vermilion

www.britannica.com...

Have Democrats advocated for public ownership of the means of production for the benefit of all and the overthrow of capitalism in the US?

One thing that was evident last night is that both of these candidates are not good at thinking on their feet. On both sides, there were moments where each could have introduced a clever remark, which would have given them some momentum, but at every turn, they both fell back on memorized remarks.

For example during the ecomic portion of the debate; Harris went after Trump for being a member of the wealthy elite and was only working for the rich ... and then in the next breath bosted that she has the support of Goldman Sachs. Trump could have easily turned that around by saying something like "My opponent just accused me of working for the wealthy but just admitted to being in bed with Goldman Sachs"

Is it because its hard to be up on that stage? Is it because spending weeks prepaying for the debate locks you into a message your afraid to deviate from? Is it that they are just not smart enough?

a reply to: malte86

Hunting in the United States is well regulated by
Fish and Game Wardens. Eating wildlife is a crime,
hunting wildlife is a crime without a permit.

Unless one obtains a license to hunt, Fish and Game
Wardens are very serious about arrests and fines,
even imprisonment.

The crime is "Poaching". Game Wardens will hunt
you down like an animal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala prepared using a Trump imitator, the same Trump imitator that Hillary Clinton used for debate prep. Some news station showed a video of a clips of that guy chasing Hillary around the stage to give her a hug, and a clip of him nearly pulling her to her knees with his Trump signature "yankin handshake". It was hilarious! Hillary couldn't keep a straight face.

I thought I could see Kamala, during the debate, laughing at Trump because he was so much like the over-the-top Trump imitator, she worked debate prep with! Maybe it was just me.

She was prepped to go in aggressively with that handshake greeting, she gave Trump at the start.

I honestly thought Trump had to be fought on his level.

I stated in a previous post — she was “debating” a personality — not a politician.

She did what needed to be done. She out conned a con.

I don’t think this represented her “political chops”.

She should be given the chance to prove herself in a new job (the past is inconsequential).

Do you bring your baggage from a previous job into your new one?

BEFORE YOU POST.
READ THIS....

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (Redux)


Community Announcement re: Decorum




These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.
YOU are responsible for your own posts






And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: SomeStupidName

Grumpy, too.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

www.britannica.com...

Have Democrats advocated for public ownership of the means of production for the benefit of all and the overthrow of capitalism in the US?

Yes! Yes they do.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala prepared using a Trump imitator, the same Trump imitator that Hillary Clinton used for debate prep. Some news station showed a video of a clips of that guy chasing Hillary around the stage to give her a hug, and a clip of him nearly pulling her to her knees with his Trump signature "yankin handshake". It was hilarious! Hillary couldn't keep a straight face.

I thought I could see Kamala, during the debate, laughing at Trump because he was so much like the over-the-top Trump imitator, she worked debate prep with! Maybe it was just me.

She was prepped to go in aggressively with that handshake greeting, she gave Trump at the start.

I honestly thought Trump had to be fought on his level.

I stated in a previous post — she was “debating” a personality — not a politician.

She did what needed to be done. She out conned a con.

I don’t think this represented her “political chops”.

She should be given the chance to prove herself in a new job (the past is inconsequential).

Do you bring your baggage from a previous job into your new one?

So she should be elected to see if she can do the job? That's stupid.

Kind of like passing Obamacare to see what's in it.

And she has no "political chops", none.
She was/is the worst VP in history, even worse than the Cheney, who shot someone.

Stop the malarkey.

originally posted by: Annee


She did what needed to be done. She out conned a con.

Then you admit she resulted to right out lying with no effort by the mods to fact check her.

The debate was the moderators doing all they could to support Harris.

It didn’t look like a win. It looks like a cheat.

originally posted by: Annee

She should be given the chance to prove herself in a new job (the past is inconsequential).

She had the chance to show true leadership under failing Biden. She already failed. It’s obvious it’s not about elected officials, but what elected officials the dem machine can control.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: Annee


She did what needed to be done. She out conned a con.

Then you admit she resulted to right out lying with no effort by the mods to fact check her.

The debate was the moderators doing all they could to support Harris.

It didn’t look like a win. It looks like a cheat.

It's no surprise that these guys think that fake, scripted and rehearsed answers are a win.

If the Dems are not cheating, they are not trying.

originally posted by: Annee
She should be given the chance to prove herself in a new job

The exact opposite is true.
She should prove herself first and then she can try to get the job.
You don't put a 'well maybe, lets see if she can do it' candidate in as POTUS.
That's insane.

(the past is inconsequential).

The past tells the future. The past is everything. It tells the experience and the capability that the person has or doesn't have. If the past is inconsequential, as you claim, then Trumps sexual harassment conviction of E Jean Carroll should be inconsequential since it was from 1996 - almost 30 years ago.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: Annee

She should be given the chance to prove herself in a new job (the past is inconsequential).

She had the chance to show true leadership under failing Biden. She already failed. It’s obvious it’s not about elected officials, but what elected officials the dem machine can control.

Sure she was.

Most people can’t even remember past vice presidents let alone their significant accomplishments.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

That's a good conspiracy site discussion!

These are the earing Harris wore.

x.com...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Vermilion

www.britannica.com...

Have Democrats advocated for public ownership of the means of production for the benefit of all and the overthrow of capitalism in the US?

One method government uses to "own the means of production" is by regulating specific areas like transportation and taxation. 😀