DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Comrade Harris Pt 3

I'm not the one stomping about telling everyone that I "call out my own team" but then don't. Issuing a factual correction is not calling anyone out. And even with that low of a bar you fail to show us how moderate you are.

But hey, be snide all you like, you show who you really are.

I have shown you where I did. You claim you saw where I did. And now you come up with some BS double talk because I don't do it every time. You never call your own kind out. Never. Speaking of showing people who you really are.....

I claim to have seen the post that you claim is "calling out" when it really was a discussion on fact. That is not calling out.

Here is what calling out looks like:

<Name redacted>: They are all nazis!
<You>: No one here is a nazi. Nazism is discusting and no one here has actually espoused anything close to actual nazi ideology. Tone down the rhetoric.

Not:
<anyone> <anything>
<you>: So you are saying... or You believe... a minor aspect of what you said I need to focus on so I can argue.

Call out? Please... you aren't even clear on what it means.

Wah. Still whining I see.

Still responding like a child I see.

When responding to something childish it would seem like the only logical path forward.

"I know you are, what am I" is another pittrope of childishness. Please do let us know when you grow up enough to have conversation with the adults in the room.

When an adult enters the room let me know. I haven't seen one from your side so far today.

Doubling down on the "I know you are but what am I?" On brand and not surprising.

In the famous words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."

WHy would you.. Trump is a NAZI... Harris isn't a Commie.

In fact, Trump is more likely to be a Commie.

I think it's hilarious coming from someone who never calls trump out for anything. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Harris is more marxist than commie, so I suppose you are right in that regard.

Still not getting enough attention pumpkin? Maybe someone will have cookies and milk for you and put you down for a nice nap soon.

Harris is indeed a Commie. She was indoctrinated by her Marxist father. Trump is not a Nazi. You don't even know what a Nazi is. You just parrot whatever youre told by your biased news sources.

Manchin won’t endorse Harris

Harris wanting to get rid of the filibuster? This is not surprising.

The Senate was always meant to be the more contemplative body, but that means having to work with people instead of just demanding and foot stomping.

A filibuster allows one member of congress to hold up the entire body and the decision making process they are intended to do as their job. It's the very definition of not working with other people.

This has nothing to do with the body of congress being contemplative. It has to do with a single member of congress being able to hold up the entire congress.

Let me guess. You think that's childish? lmao

Yes it does and it is a good thing. The house was meant to be the common man, it is not that any more, but the Senate was meant to be the statesmen. Removing the filibuster means we have two of the same thing. Instead of working out a plan both sides can get behind, which is the very definition of working with other people. Dictating because you have a simple (51) majority is not working with others.

Throwing a tantrum because you're going to lose a vote by mounting a filibuster doesn't have anything to do with working with other people. It has to do with what amounts to throwing a fit because you are about to lose the vote and delaying what's coming eventually anyway. We've seen this dog and pony show before. It's nothing more than an exercise in futility that never really changes anything.

What you're promoting here is that you should get every single member of congress to agree on everything. Because if any one of them doesn't they can pull some dog and pony show. The one who is throwing the dog and pony show is the one not willing to work with anybody.

No, what I am saying is the Senate needs to be slower. And you don't need every single member to agree, you need 60. That's 9 more than a simple majority.

How do you feel about 52 republicans and a national abortion ban? Yer ok cause they got it done?

Commrade Harris has put forth Soviet style policies for her "Presidency". She is a Commie. Big Time.

You have nothing. All you can do is parrot that Trump is a nazi with nothing to back it up. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Such a lemming.

I'm not okay with any of this actually. I think we both know the reality here. You will never get 9 Republicans to cross the aisle to vote to codify Roe vs wade. Using the phrase "working together" is a falsehood, a misnomer when it comes to abortion. And it's not a one sided issue. You would never get 9 Democrats to cross the aisle to vote for a national abortion ban either. That is the state of where we are in this country. Both sides are in a stalemate to the point there's almost nothing any of them are willing to work together on. And abortion is one of the most hotly contested on the list.

Now we disagree in terms of gun control. But nothing I promote actually restricts someone who is not a convicted felon from getting a gun. I'm not for restricting any kind of gun that is now legal to purchase. Because I think every law abiding citizen should have the choice and right to purchase a gun.

Sometimes I find myself promoting people having the right to make their own choices even when I disagree with those choices on a personal level. I hate seeing Nazi's in the town square having gatherings and rallies. I find that down right despicable. But they have the same right to protest as I do. And if I don't stand up for their right to assemble because I disagree with them, how long will it be before people come after those same rights for the people I agree with?

In the end I think not making it legal for every woman in this country from making their own choice is wrong. My daughter's mom was pregnant with her when we were both very young. My granddaughter was in her third year of college when she became pregnant. In both cases my family chose life. But that was our choice to make. I just think it's crazy to think we would let a bunch of old men with no uterus make the decision to take away the choice of our citizens who do. I think it's crazy that we let the religious beliefs and personal morals of others dictate their beliefs on the whole of society.

So as far as the process goes of using the filibuster I'm not crazy about that idea. Sadly with today's political divide I also know to get this done there's no other way it will ever happen.

And as far as going slower is concerned. Roe vs Wade was on the books since 1973. Codifying it isn't something new that these government officials have never seen or read. It isn't some new, complicated bill that takes weeks or months to go through the minutia of. It's a very straight up known context.

I guess what it all boils down to is I'm not for stripping others of their rights. I'm not for stripping people from having the right to choose. The same thing goes for gay marriage. On a personal level gay marriage has zero impact on me. But does it have an impact on anyone who isn't gay? No, it doesn't. It took forever to get gay marriage passed into law. And depending on how future elections go I'm not sure it's safe either.

But it's all really quite simple. If you're against gay marriage, don't get gay married. If you're against abortion don't have one. That's a choice you will always have. Stripping others from having those same choices is inflicting your personal, religious or morals on everyone else.

The way the filibuster works though is both sides need each other. They can work out compromises, each side gets something. You won't get 9 people to cross the aisle when they have nothing to gain. It doesn't matter what the issue is, in the end they all have to justify their votes to their constituents and every one of them wants to stay in office as long as possible. Tell ing their constituents they had to give a little to get a little is getting things done, yelling they would have "done something" except for those evil people on the other side doesn't.

Getting rid of the filibuster would be more convincing if the minority ever said "While we seat the new Senate we should also abolish that filibuster because we don't think we need a say in what happens."

I don't see how that changes anything I stated. Unless you would reduce it down to a heartbeat bill which would only allow abortions up to 6 weeks, Republicans aren't going to budge. And the fact is many women don't even know they're pregnant by 6 weeks into their pregnancy. This among other such issues are non starters for both sides.

I understand the concept and what it was intended to accomplish. I get it. But there are certain issues that this simply is not going to work. Roe vs Wade was the law of the land for over 50 years. It clearly states that abortions are legal to the point of viability which is about 24 weeks. That is and was a compromise from the outset.

And there are certainly a host of issues where I would agree with you. In this case however women were stripped of a right they had for just over 50 years. I would certainly disagree with using the filibuster to strip someone of their rights but when it comes to restoring rights to people I don't have an issue with.

I fully understand this is a case of be careful what you wish for. I understand it could be used in the opposite direction to strip rights away from people. And as you suggested, no, I wouldn't like that at all. I don't like that our nation has come to the point where a man running for president actually stated he would only appoint SCOTUS judges that would strip the right to abortion from women, did so and it was a tool to take away the rights of millions upon millions of women. Yet here we are.

Name one policy for her “presidency” that is a Soviet Communism policy?

Trump has said he’ll extend revenge on is adversaries. Definitely a Putin communist policy right there.

By that logic Trump was indoctrinated by the KKK. In 1927, Daddy Trump was arrested at a Ku Klux Klan demonstration.

As Paul Harvey would say... “Now you know…the rest of the story."

I'm sure she won't like how it worked out when you used the exact same tactics that she does. lol

In light of the title of this thread and the issues taken with Harris' price cap argument, question to the board: How does everyone feel about interest rate caps on credit cards? Trump introduced the idea for a 10% rate cap. I've seen where Harris wants to eliminate medical debt, but I haven't seen where she has set out any platforms on the credit card front.

Infringing upon that kind of free market ideology might invoke Marxist assertions. So for those who have called Kamala "Marxist", what are your thoughts on this?

The issue as it currently stands is a ton of credit card debt is not secured, so the high interest rates offset the risk to the card companies to contend with bankruptcy filing. I for one think this is an issue where the Government would likely make things worse. I think a 10% cap would set off a negative chain reaction, much like removing taxes on tipping, which I've said before.

I think no matter which way you lean many wouldn't like the outcome. As you stated credit card debt is not secured. I think the biggest issue with that is credit card companies give out credit cards to people that really don't have a credit rating to deserve them in the first place. So at that point they have a choice. Either pay interest rates that are high by those that don't have good credit in the first place to cover the losses of people that can't be depended on to pay their debt to credit card companies or they will need to require a higher credit score to issue credit cards in the first place.

If you cap the interest rates on credit cards there are a lot of Americans that wouldn't get credit cards at all. Because you can't expect credit card companies to hand out credit cards to people that shouldn't have them, undertaking such a huge risk while not giving them the ability to recuperate their losses through higher interest rates.

Actually I have been against the entire concept of handing out credit cards to people you know are high risk gambles not to pay their bills in the first place. Those of us with good credit can get low rate cards but even we help pay the bill for those who don't have good credit ratings. Credit is simply far too easy to get in this country.

But the very same people who want rates cut are mostly people that have poorer credit scores in the first place. If you think they're complaining about credit card interest rates, just imagine how much they'll complain about not being able to get a credit card at all.

I think we would be better off, in general if the government would quit trying to get involved and fix everything. Especially for votes.

As with anything I don't think you can simply allow capitalism run amuck without some checks and balances. But I don't see this case as being one of them.

It would stop banks from issuing as many credit cards. I'd imagine it would cause more problems than it solves. But that's what the government does, tries to fix problems and ends up creating more problems. Then again, with fewer credit cards, maybe people could learn to live within their means again.

I'm with you... but man oh man would it get ugly before it turned the corner.

This thread is ironic. A party for American Nazis, White Supremacists, Hate Groups, and domestic terrorists is calling the dem nominee (a marxist) comrade. All the while their candidate-dictator-wannabe is campaigning like a third world thug and accepting political interference from Russia. So, give me all the Comrade Harris my vote will buy!

Harris never mentioned a price cap on anything. She wants to put a stop on price gouging, especially during major economic events like pandemics, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and such. Seems pretty reasonable it’s not Marxist, or communist. Calling Harris a commie or Marxist is just a red herring fallacy put forward by Trump and his goofball followers.

I slipped up. I should have said price controls not price caps.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Sept. 30, 2024
It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.


Most presidential elections are, at their core, about two different visions of America that emerge from competing policies and principles. This one is about something more foundational. It is about whether we invite into the highest office in the land a man who has revealed, unmistakably, that he will degrade the values, defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.

As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.

Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator and a state attorney general.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Over the past 10 weeks, Ms. Harris has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division. She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families.

While character is enormously important — in this election, pre-eminently so — policies matter. Many Americans remain deeply concerned about their prospects and their children’s in an unstable and unforgiving world. For them, Ms. Harris is clearly the better choice. She has committed to using the power of her office to help Americans better afford the things they need, to make it easier to own a home, to support small businesses and to help workers. Mr. Trump’s economic priorities are more tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the wealthy, and more tariffs, which will make prices even more unmanageable for the poor and middle class.


Beyond the economy, Ms. Harris promises to continue working to expand access to health care and reduce its cost. She has a long record of fighting to protect women’s health and reproductive freedom. Mr. Trump spent years trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and boasts of picking the Supreme Court justices who ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

Globally, Ms. Harris would work to maintain and strengthen the alliances with like-minded nations that have long advanced American interests abroad and maintained the nation’s security. Mr. Trump — who has long praised autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Kim Jong-un — has threatened to blow those democratic alliances apart. Ms. Harris recognizes the need for global solutions to the global problem of climate change and would continue President Biden’s major investments in the industries and technologies necessary to achieve that goal. Mr. Trump rejects the accepted science, and his contempt for low-carbon energy solutions is matched only by his trollish fealty to fossil fuels.

As for immigration, a huge and largely unsolved issue, the former president continues to demonize and dehumanize immigrants, while Ms. Harris at least offers hope for a compromise, long denied by Congress, to secure the borders and return the nation to a sane immigration system.

Many voters have said they want more details about the vice president’s plans, as well as more unscripted encounters in which she explains her vision and policies. They are right to ask. Given the stakes of this election, Ms. Harris may think that she is running a campaign designed to minimize the risks of an unforced error — answering journalists’ questions and offering greater policy detail could court controversy, after all — under the belief that being the only viable alternative to Mr. Trump may be enough to bring her to victory. That strategy may ultimately prove winning, but it’s a disservice to the American people and to her own record. And leaving the public with a sense that she is being shielded from tough questions, as Mr. Biden has been, could backfire by undermining her core argument that a capable new generation stands ready to take the reins of power.

Ms. Harris is not wrong, however, on the clear dangers of returning Mr. Trump to office. He has promised to be a different kind of president this time, one who is unrestrained by checks on power built into the American political system. His pledge to be “a dictator” on “Day 1” might have indeed been a joke — but his undisguised fondness for dictatorships and the strongmen who run them is anything but.


Most notably, he systematically undermined public confidence in the result of the 2020 election and then attempted to overturn it — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and resulted in him and some of his most prominent supporters being charged with crimes. He has not committed to honoring the result of this election and continues to insist, as he did at the debate with Ms. Harris on Sept. 10, that he won in 2020. He has apparently made a willingness to support his lies a litmus test for those in his orbit, starting with JD Vance, who would be his vice president.

His disdain for the rule of law goes beyond his efforts to obtain power; it is also central to how he plans to use it. Mr. Trump and his supporters have described a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. He vows, for instance, to turn the federal bureaucracy and even the Justice Department into weapons of his will to hurt his political enemies. In at least 10 instances during his presidency, he did exactly that, pressuring federal agencies and prosecutors to punish people he felt had wronged him, with little or no legal basis for prosecution.

Some of the people Mr. Trump appointed in his last term saved America from his most dangerous impulses. They refused to break laws on his behalf and spoke up when he put his own interests above his country’s. As a result, the former president intends, if re-elected, to surround himself with people who are unwilling to defy his demands. Today’s version of Mr. Trump — the twice-impeached version that faces a barrage of criminal charges — may prove to be the restrained version.

Unless American voters stand up to him, Mr. Trump will have the power to do profound and lasting harm to our democracy.

That is not simply an opinion of Mr. Trump’s character by his critics; it is a judgment of his presidency from those who know it best — the very people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House. It is telling that among those who fear a second Trump presidency are people who worked for him and saw him at close range.



Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has repudiated him. No other vice president in modern history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

Mr. Trump’s attorney general has raised similar concerns about his fundamental unfitness. And his chief of staff. And his defense secretary. And his national security advisers. And his education secretary. And on and on — a record of denunciation without precedent in the nation’s long history.

That’s not to say Mr. Trump did not add to the public conversation. In particular, he broke decades of Washington consensus and led both parties to wrestle with the downsides of globalization, unrestrained trade and China’s rise. His criminal-justice reform efforts were well placed, his focus on Covid vaccine development paid off, and his decision to use an emergency public health measure to turn away migrants at the border was the right call at the start of the pandemic. Yet even when the former president’s overall aim may have had merit, his operational incompetence, his mercurial temperament and his outright recklessness often led to bad outcomes. Mr. Trump’s tariffs cost Americans billions of dollars. His attacks on China have ratcheted up military tensions with America’s strongest rival and a nuclear superpower. His handling of the Covid crisis contributed to historic declines in confidence in public health, and to the loss of many lives. His overreach on immigration policies, such as his executive order on family separation, was widely denounced as inhumane and often ineffective.

And those were his wins. His tax plan added $2 trillion to the national debt; his promised extension of them would add $5.8 trillion over the next decade. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal destabilized the Middle East. His support for antidemocratic strongmen like Mr. Putin emboldened human rights abusers all over the world. He instigated the longest government shutdown ever. His sympathetic comments toward the Proud Boys expanded the influence of domestic right-wing extremist groups.

In the years since he left office, Mr. Trump was convicted on felony charges of falsifying business records, was found liable in civil court for sexual abuse and faces two, possibly three, other criminal cases. He has continued to stoke chaos and encourage violence and lawlessness whenever it suits his political aims, most recently promoting vicious lies against Haitian immigrants. He recognizes that ordinary people — voters, jurors, journalists, election officials, law enforcement officers and many others who are willing to do their duty as citizens and public servants — have the power to hold him to account, so he has spent the past three and a half years trying to undermine them and sow distrust in anyone or any institution that might stand in his way.


Most dangerous for American democracy, Mr. Trump has transformed the Republican Party — an institution that once prided itself on principle and honored its obligations to the law and the Constitution — into little more than an instrument of his quest to regain power. The Republicans who support Ms. Harris recognize that this election is about something more fundamental than narrow partisan interest. It is about principles that go beyond party.

In 2020 this board made the strongest case it could against the re-election of Mr. Trump. Four years later, many Americans have put his excesses out of their minds. We urge them and those who may look back at that period with nostalgia or feel that their lives are not much better now than they were three years ago to recognize that his first term was a warning and that a second Trump term would be much more damaging and divisive than the first.

Kamala Harris is the only choice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/...Ok4.jxqi.CaT3E4hZOrmF&smid=url-share