The debate. Who wins?

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

Marxist redistribution tactics will always ruin every economy and state it ever touches. Just look at economies in South America and Africa where Marxist communist and socialist policies prevailed.
Only a person completely ignorant of his the economy works wound go for it. By the way, one if the mainstays of Marxism is “ the ends justifies the means.”
And the end result is always bad

I entirely agree and Marxist redistribution tactics are definitely part of it. Kamala looks to me like a hand-picked Klaus Scwhab Global Marxist. There's more to the agenda than just redistribution. It's a multi-pronged attack on virtually ALL economic classes with the aim to reduce all of them to dependence while at the same time severely limiting mobility. And by mobility I mean both geographical mobility and economic/class mobility. Their model is a bastardized version of the CCP economic policies. And Gavin Newsome is even making noises about the State of California buying and assuming control of all of the Refineries in the State. At a national level, that's "Nationalization". Venezuela "nationalized" their oil industry. It's a disaster.

Trump however is stuck in a 1980's economic framework. He seeks to return industrial production back to the US by way of tariffs but fails to realize that the wage structure in the US locks US Industrial production into astronomical cost structure. The US auto industry is a perfect example. UAW plants can't begin to compete with Mexican auto manufacturers.

There's no easy answer to US economic woes. Labor costs are out of control because of a shortage of workers which concomitantly drives up materials prices. All the while, high tariffs ensure even higher prices for both foreign goods and commodities.

It doesn't get fixed until it collapses.

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Harris was in a unique situation under a president that she could have bravely stated the truth about Biden’s health, but she lied like everyone else.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: CriticalStinker

She champions Mandatory Gun Buy Back Program complete with lists
and door to door confiscation.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Call if whatever you want.

Marxist, Hitler, etc.

It is Authoritarian!

That link didn’t reference mandatory buy backs. The door to door remark said it was for prohibited owners.

I’m an owner and don’t like her 2nd policy, but I just find it odd you posted a link that didn’t support your claim.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

That link didn’t reference mandatory buy backs. The door to door remark said it was for prohibited owners.

Umm are you just making stuff up?
Didn't read, or TLDR?

By Kerry Picket - The Washington Times - Thursday, August 1, 2024

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris once threatened to use databases of gun owners to send police to their homes to confiscate firearms.

Ms. Harris described her gun control stance in August 2019 at a Democratic presidential primary forum that took place shortly after two deadly mass shootings in California and Texas.

She said she was “prepared to take executive action” to implement comprehensive background checks, crack down on gun dealers and ban the import of so-called assault weapons.

www.washingtontimes.com...

In any case, enjoy your day wishing and washing.

I'm still hung up on..."Opportunity Economy".

We all know the old saying..."It's not a problem; it's an 'opportunity'".

So, all I hear every time Harris says "Opportunity Economy" is..."Problem Economy".

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala Harris, as a 2019 presidential primary candidate, said, "I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. We found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Annee

Kamala is in office, she is saddling herself with
the dictator image, . . .

Your opinion.

Not mine.

If anyone was pushing dictator — it’s Trump.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Annee

Kamala is in office, she is saddling herself with
the dictator image, . . .

Your opinion.

Not mine.

Thank you captain obvious.

I've come to the conclusion that when you repeat this NPC response that it is equivalent to "I have no response to what you said."

If anyone was pushing dictator — it’s Trump.

As is evidence by.......well nothing.

Yet, the same person you are trying to pin as a dictator has had two failed impeachments and 90 some charges as well as almost being assassinated.

Just to be clear...

a reply to: burntheships

Read the context of the article.

It referenced that she said she sent officers to homes of people who were prohibited from owning firearms.

The mandatory buybacks were for one style of gun. And she was talking about stricter background checks and red flag laws.

I don’t agree with her on those issues, but that’s a little bit different than framing it as mandatory buybacks which makes it sound like all guns, and going door to door of legal gun owners.

I’ll eat crow if you can find a clip or quote of her saying she’d send officers door to door of legal gun owners.

That’s not defending her, as again I disagree with her stance on guns. But I just don’t like when people use hyperbole and demand I take what they say as truth when there may be more to it.

I’ve pointed out several times where a bit from Trump was taken out of context too.

We can debate whether or not these people are good choices with facts. We don’t have to exaggerate when there’s plenty to go off of for each candidate.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Annee

Kamala is in office, she is saddling herself with
the dictator image, . . .

Your opinion.

Not mine.

Thank you captain obvious.

I've come to the conclusion that when you repeat this NPC response that it is equivalent to "I have no response to what you said."

Again — I am anti-Trump. That’s it. I want him gone.

I am not pro anyone.

However — Kamala deserves a chance to prove herself.

a reply to: Annee

Not an opinion, its a fact.

"none so blind as those who will not see"

a reply to: Annee

3.5 years isn't enough proof?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala Harris, as a 2019 presidential primary candidate, said, "I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. We found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.

www.politifact.com...

I suppose I interpreted it as mandatory buy backs on all guns.

I disagree with a mandatory buyback even on what they deem as an assault weapon, as that would probably apply to me.

But I think the original post I responded to with link was a little disingenuous once you read the article.

a reply to: pianopraze

“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a post on the social network

''termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution''

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The mandatory buybacks were for one style of gun. And she was talking about stricter background checks and red flag laws.

Is said "style of gun" an arm that can be kept and bared?

I get you're trying to be neutral but the 2nd is pretty clear. Yet we find that there is a consistent push to erode that one, an the 2nd is not unique in that regard.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I already posted that proof, lol. TWICE.

But your not defending her, or trying to cloud the issue,
right ok lol.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The mandatory buybacks were for one style of gun. And she was talking about stricter background checks and red flag laws.

Is said "style of gun" an arm that can be kept and bared?

I get you're trying to be neutral but the 2nd is pretty clear. Yet we find that there is a consistent push to erode that one, an the 2nd is not unique in that regard.

I have one.

But I also can’t get a fully automatic or suppressed without special licensing. So it’s not as absolute as you say.

There are some politicians I disagree with, but I can still differentiate their stance with a broader claim that they’re going to take all of our guns.

I see her stance as more authoritarian than most on the 2nd and disagree with it. I won’t be voting for her.

They all have a flavor of authoritarianism and anti constitutionalism unfortunately. Which ones have talked about repealing the Patriot act? We know they’ve been illegally spying on American citizens, hell, Trump got spied on. Yet none of them talk about rolling back a loophole to make the constitution meaningless against Americans under the guise of national security.

Or how about the rampant use of people being charged under the espionage act even if they didn’t communicate with a foreign actor? Under that act, you may not get to argue your intent, secret evidence may be used against you that your lawyer can’t even see, ect.

How about what happened to Julian Assange? He’s not even a citizen, nor was he in America at the time of his “crime”. Why is it other media outlets can be leaked classified information without fear of imprisonment.

So it’s hard to me to find selective outrage over specific sound bites when they’re all guilty, and we just have to pick who’s less worse.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala Harris, as a 2019 presidential primary candidate, said, "I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. We found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.

www.politifact.com...

I suppose I interpreted it as mandatory buy backs on all guns.

I disagree with a mandatory buyback even on what they deem as an assault weapon, as that would probably apply to me.

But I think the original post I responded to with link was a little disingenuous once you read the article.

Wouldn't it depend on their arbitrary definition of an "assault weapon"?

a reply to: burntheships

You’re right.

I misinterpreted your post thinking you meant all guns. That’s what led me to think it was disingenuous.

My mistake.

That said, I wasn’t able to find anything aside from Washington times, or X stating she’d send officers door to door past prohibited gun owners.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Kamala Harris, as a 2019 presidential primary candidate, said, "I support a mandatory gun buyback program" for assault weapons. We found no examples that she supports mandatory gun confiscation now and the majority of guns sold in the U.S. are handguns.

www.politifact.com...

I suppose I interpreted it as mandatory buy backs on all guns.

I disagree with a mandatory buyback even on what they deem as an assault weapon, as that would probably apply to me.

But I think the original post I responded to with link was a little disingenuous once you read the article.

Wouldn't it depend on their arbitrary definition of an "assault weapon"?

It would, which I imagine would fall under mag size, that could pull guns into the mix I imagine I wouldn’t even closely view as assault weapons.