USA Kamala Harris the 47th President of the United States - Hopefully.

[QuietB]

A better pick would have been Shapiro. Now the wealthy and influential Jewish constituency will go all out campaigning against Kamala / Walz.

They are a bit on the nose if you haven't noticed.

It is going to be very difficult for Trump to run a drain the swamp campaign again when he changes his view every single time a billionaire or powerful lobby group feathers his nest.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Because I dont think your question is framed correctly. Vance never said childless people shouldn't get a vote. He said should just have a bigger say.

It's like Kamala Harris is saying Tim Walz is for working Families only when singled them out in her post.

JD Vance was just saying the family unit and growing the US through having more children is hugely important for the US's futures.

I know how that must sound shocking. Better to run on abortion and to import a workforce rather than aiming to grow it through the family unit.

OK how do they have a "bigger say"? Extra votes per child?

 

[Nikita Blue]

My best or worst is not important here - I am not the one running for the presidency of the US.

The question still remains unanswered:

Do you think a cackling DEI hire (and yes, Joe Biden specifically stated that this was his key criteria in selecting a VP) who, amongst other bizarre behavioural traits, emphasizes the term 'woke' no less than six times in thirty seconds is the best person to lead the Democratic party to electoral success against a former US president?

What bizarre behavioural traits?

 

[Dazzler9]

My best or worst is not important here - I am not the one running for the presidency of the US.

The question still remains unanswered:

Do you think a cackling DEI hire (and yes, Joe Biden specifically stated that this was his key criteria in selecting a VP) who, amongst other bizarre behavioural traits, emphasizes the term 'woke' no less than six times in thirty seconds is the best person to lead the Democratic party to electoral success against a former US president?

All indicators suggest yes.

 

[QuietB]

Vance was a military correspondent.
He spent 5 months in an airfare base "watching DVDs and interviewing soldiers" He did not see combat.

He has not released any action cards either

 

[QuietB]

Not sure it means he's special, but he was free to leave for any reason, like others would have been in his situation.

He served 20+ years, re-enlisted after 9/11, and then left.

Even if he just didn't want to deploy again (since he had already been), though he also planned to run for office, so what? It's not a life commitment.

24 years is nowhere near enough

 

[Bloods86]

Because I dont think your question is framed correctly. Vance never said childless people shouldn't get a vote. He said should just have a bigger say.

It's like Kamala Harris is saying Tim Walz is for working Families only when singled them out in her post.

JD Vance was just saying the family unit and growing the US through having more children is hugely important for the US's futures.

I know how that must sound shocking. Better to run on abortion and to import a workforce rather than aiming to grow it through the family unit.

A bigger say = some people get more votes

That's not how democracy works mate.

And it's a moronic idea regardless. From the party who supposedly believes in freedom. You only have to switch your brain on for 2 seconds and the problems, fallacies mount up.

Some are not childless by choice. Eh, screw them, their vote is worth less.

You'd be vastly under-representing young people who don't have children yet, even though they may plan to, and as such, by Vance's "logic", have a vested interest for the future.

People who are more likely to be earning more, have a mortgage, already be educated etc, would have an outsized vote, likely to further screw over the have nots.

Older generations who may have more living children (do they get stripped away if they die?) have an outsized vote over 30-40 year olds who might have had smaller families.

The idea that families with multiple children are more invested in the future than families with one, is dumb.

The idea that childless people don't have younger people in their lives that they care about, is dumb. I'm childless, but have nieces who I love and hope they have a bright future.

The idea that childless people can't see beyond themselves, is dumb.

The idea that all parents have their children's interests at heart, is dumb, whether it's ignorance or wilful, it's the truth that some don't.

I think anyone who tries to defend it as legitimate policy in a democracy is outing themselves as having little analytical ability, or is blinded by ideology so much they actually don't care about democracy.

 

[Bloods86]

'Define woke' you say....well, why don't you just ask Kommola?

After all, she referred to it on no less than six occassions in a thirty-second clip. It must have some meaning.

Surely a serious presidential candidate wouldn't use such a meaningless word... surely?

I'm not assuming it is meaningless to her. That's why context matters.

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

One potential vp is calling the other tampon tim and boring. The other potential vp is calling the first a weirdo and a couch humper.

both are equally pathetic. Its like pre teen school boy bullying.

And this is where politics is at in the US? Seriously?

The difference is Walz said nothing about Vance shagging furniture.
As with any potential double entendre the inference is only created in the filthy minds of the listeners.

 

[Not Important]

Because I dont think your question is framed correctly. Vance never said childless people shouldn't get a vote. He said should just have a bigger say.

It's like Kamala Harris is saying Tim Walz is for working Families only when singled them out in her post.

JD Vance was just saying the family unit and growing the US through having more children is hugely important for the US's futures.

I know how that must sound shocking. Better to run on abortion and to import a workforce rather than aiming to grow it through the family unit.

he’s called for women's vote to be diminished due to them not having children. he’s not only delegitimising those women he’s rendering their votes of lesser value. he’s also delegitimising the children of those who don’t fall into the appalling “ bunch of childless cat ladies “ comment by assigning the vote to their parents. something that wouldn’t pass muster legally btw

VANCE: Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of those children.

he’s as thick as two planks and as each day goes by the extreme right who have the republicans by the balls will regret their choice. i look forward to a debate with walz who will tear him a newy. although i very much doubt the chump will agree to debate walz

 

[Dont_be_a_Plonka]

A bigger say = some people get more votes

That's not how democracy works mate.

And it's a moronic idea regardless. From the party who supposedly believes in freedom. You only have to switch your brain on for 2 seconds and the problems, fallacies mount up.

Some are not childless by choice. Eh, screw them, their vote is worth less.

You'd be vastly under-representing young people who don't have children yet, even though they may plan to, and as such, by Vance's "logic", have a vested interest for the future.

People who are more likely to be earning more, have a mortgage, already be educated etc, would have an outsized vote, likely to further screw over the have nots.

Older generations who may have more living children (do they get stripped away if they die?) have an outsized vote over 30-40 year olds who might have had smaller families.

The idea that families with multiple children are more invested in the future than families with one, is dumb.

The idea that childless people don't have younger people in their lives that they care about, is dumb. I'm childless, but have nieces who I love and hope they have a bright future.

The idea that childless people can't see beyond themselves, is dumb.

The idea that all parents have their children's interests at heart, is dumb, whether it's ignorance or wilful, it's the truth that some don't.

I think anyone who tries to defend it as legitimate policy in a democracy is outing themselves as having little analytical ability, or is blinded by ideology so much they actually don't care about democracy.

The thing that leaves me absolutely stupefied about all this is Vance (Born James Donald Bowman) was abandoned by his parents and raised by other family members.

He is living proof that his argument is stinking garbage

 

[Romeoh1]

My best or worst is not important here - I am not the one running for the presidency of the US.

The question still remains unanswered:

Do you think a cackling DEI hire (and yes, Joe Biden specifically stated that this was his key criteria in selecting a VP) who, amongst other bizarre behavioural traits, emphasizes the term 'woke' no less than six times in thirty seconds is the best person to lead the Democratic party to electoral success against a former US president?

Well regardless of your questionable and inaccurate characterisation, the answer is yes. She will clean Donnie up because she is very smart, experienced and capable and he’s an incompetent fool.
In the woke clip- she’s obviously having a bit of fun, and taking offence tells me more about the ‘offended’, than her. That’s just republicans making meaningless noise because they can’t actually find much wrong with her. Donnie’s done about a zillion offensive, damaging and incompetent things so to fuss about her in a clip like that is really clutching at straws.
I imagine it’s mostly self- entitled wealthy republicans who take real issue with DEI.

 

[Stokey]

A bigger say = some people get more votes

That's not how democracy works mate.

And it's a moronic idea regardless. From the party who supposedly believes in freedom. You only have to switch your brain on for 2 seconds and the problems, fallacies mount up.

Some are not childless by choice. Eh, screw them, their vote is worth less.

You'd be vastly under-representing young people who don't have children yet, even though they may plan to, and as such, by Vance's "logic", have a vested interest for the future.

People who are more likely to be earning more, have a mortgage, already be educated etc, would have an outsized vote, likely to further screw over the have nots.

Older generations who may have more living children (do they get stripped away if they die?) have an outsized vote over 30-40 year olds who might have had smaller families.

The idea that families with multiple children are more invested in the future than families with one, is dumb.

The idea that childless people don't have younger people in their lives that they care about, is dumb. I'm childless, but have nieces who I love and hope they have a bright future.

The idea that childless people can't see beyond themselves, is dumb.

The idea that all parents have their children's interests at heart, is dumb, whether it's ignorance or wilful, it's the truth that some don't.

I think anyone who tries to defend it as legitimate policy in a democracy is outing themselves as having little analytical ability, or is blinded by ideology so much they actually don't care about democracy.

Is it legitimate policy though?

Just seems to be something Vance said in describing the decay of the family unit. I don't support it and it would never be supported by either side of the house.

It's only use is to get Dems knickers in a twist.

 

[Stokey]

he’s called for women's vote to be diminished due to them not having children. he’s not only delegitimising those women he’s rendering their votes of lesser value. he’s also delegitimising the children of those who don’t fall into the appalling “ bunch of childless cat ladies “ comment by assigning the vote to their parents. something that wouldn’t pass muster legally btw



he’s as thick as two planks and as each day goes by the extreme right who have the republicans by the balls will regret their choice. i look forward to a debate with walz who will tear him a newy. although i very much doubt the chump will agree to debate walz.

Lol.

 

[Bloods86]

Is it legitimate policy though?

Just seems to be something Vance said in describing the decay of the family unit. I don't support it and it would never be supported by either side of the house.

It's only use is to get Dems knickers in a twist.

Ah the "he didn't really mean what he said" argument. Seems to happen a lot for Republicans.

“Let’s give votes to all the children in this country and let’s give control over votes to the parents in this country”

“When you go to the polls in this country, you should have more power — more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic — than people who don’t have kids,” he says. “If you don’t have much of an investment in the future of this country, then maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”

If he's concerned about the voices of children being heard more, lower the voting age to 16.

 

[QuietB]

$1.85 v $1.90 now. This is turning into a rout. Trump will be $3 in a month.

 

[darrenmorgan]

Lol.

are you going to actually respond?

 

[Stokey]

are you going to actually respond?

I did.
I find this posturing of 'he/she is too afraid to debate our candidate cos our candiadte will wipe the gloor with them' utterly comical. Hence my response.

 

[pjcrows]

$1.85 v $1.90 now. This is turning into a rout. Trump will be $3 in a month.

My money is still on Trump.

 

[Stokey]

you are such a clown.

Lol.

 

[QuietB]

My money is still on Trump.

I don't know - Trump's campaign is turning into a clown show. JD Vance, Elon Musk, Tim Tok losers, all the other lunatics (that idiot who said if you vote for a woman you transition to a woman).

The "weird" thing is going to annihilate Trump. And Trump is receding further and further into safe spaces. The bully is b=getting bullied. He is done.

 

[Blue1980]

Well regardless of your questionable and inaccurate characterisation, the answer is yes. She will clean Donnie up because she is very smart, experienced and capable and he’s an incompetent fool.
In the woke clip- she’s obviously having a bit of fun, and taking offence tells me more about the ‘offended’, than her. That’s just republicans making meaningless noise because they can’t actually find much wrong with her. Donnie’s done about a zillion offensive, damaging and incompetent things so to fuss about her in a clip like that is really clutching at straws.
I imagine it’s mostly self- entitled wealthy republicans who take real issue with DEI.

Lol people on right being triggered by the word woke.

 

[Blue1980]

Lol.

Where did the progressives touch you?

 

[kalex6251]

..... all the other lunatics (that idiot who said if you vote for a woman you transition to a woman).

the name of the 'scientist' who gave watters the inside tip will remain a closely guarded secret until the end of time

 

[skipper kelly]

What's with the fawning over a 60 yo white bloke? Seems a bit creepy.