Kamala Harris for president 2024

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    Focusing on the democratic nominee instead of calling for Trump to step down is the exact reason she's winning the news cycle right now. The fact that trump has managed to hold a vice grip over the republican party while calling for policies that go against everything America stands for is mind boggling and the reason the Republican party will fail to take hold of the presidency once again.

    He had 4 years in office with a majority in the house and senate and only managed to get tax breaks for the top 1%, convince the ATF to go after bump stocks, and get the ball rolling on overturning Roe. He fullfilled zero promises.

    If any other candidate in history had said they would be a dictator on day one in office they would've been laughed off the ballot.

    The man wants full immunity to do whatever he pleases while president even if those actions don't fall under the purview of the president. He's the only president in history to try and overturn a legitamate presidency and maintain his hold on power.

    If the Democrats can get a new guy on the ticket there's no reason the GOP can't get someone sane on theirs.

    What can we actually expect from of a presidential candidate who chose a running mate that compares him to Hitler?
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    They are struggling to find a running mate that will run, or is clean enough to run.

    “Ask yourself the following question: why would Cooper, who is 67 years old, not want to be Kamala's running mate? He'll be 69 when he runs for the Senate, and, if he wins, he'd be 75 while seeking a second term. If that were successful, he'd be 81 when he potentially seeks a third term. Does anyone really believe he would rather be a U.S. Senator into his eighties than get to retire as vice president in his mid to late 70s? Of course he wouldn't.“

    “At the very least, why not take a chance at the vice presidency? The answer is simple. If Cooper ran on the ticket with Kamala and lost, that would hurt his plans to run for the Senate in 2026. North Carolina is a red-leaning swing state, and being saddled with Harris's record and ideology by being her running mate won't help him win that election.”

    “In other words, Cooper likely believes that Harris can't win in November, and he wants a clean slate when he runs for U.S. Senate in 2026.”

    “Make no mistake about it: If he thought she could win, he'd want to be on the ticket.”



    He backed out because joining the ticket would pave the way for a Republican to take over as Governor in his state. He knows she can win, but the idea of a Republican running his state is enough to keep him home.

    He's putting his constituents first.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    Did you know? Primaries are a relatively new idea when you look at the history of the country. For a large portion of the country's history party leaders chose their candidates, not everyday voters. AND they did it a few months before the election instead of year(s) in advance so whoever was in office at the time could actually lead instead of having to constantly think about the next election.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,768
    149
    Southside Indy
    iu
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    It also dovetails with the mindset that replaces awards for excellence with participation trophies.

    The Left refuses to accept that some people work hard and some people do the bare minimum. Should they both achieve the same outcome? If so, why?

    If they really believe that nonsense, then they should replace elections with a lottery. "It is only fair." :nuts:
    Have you ever considered that if every person's basic needs were met in the country then those that choose to still work hard would excel and lead lives at a higher echelon than those who are happy with the basics?
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    If we actually had journalists in the MSM (as opposed to PR flacks), the question I would like to hear one pose to Harris is, "Are you ruling out Jews for your VP choice in order to appease the anti-sematic members of your political party?"
    :stickpoke:
    Her husband is Jewish?
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,768
    149
    Southside Indy
    Have you ever considered that if every person's basic needs were met in the country then those that choose to still work hard would excel and lead lives at a higher echelon than those who are happy with the basics?
    And who would pay for all those "basic needs"? Certainly not those that are "happy with the basics". How long have you been a member of the communist party? Because you're spewing Marxist doctrine.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    Then maybe the biden/harris administration shouldn't be sending 60 BILLION plus to Ukraine
    Maybe we shouldn't be spending trillions on a military that doesn't win wars. The Taliban is in power. 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing. The middle east is still in shambles. 60 billion to keep a hostile nation from conquering like Japan in 1945 is an absolute deal. Maybe if a majority of our yearly budget didn't go into a peacetime military we could actually fund more public programs that help your average American.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    And who would pay for all those "basic needs"? Certainly not those that are "happy with the basics". How long have you been a member of the communist party? Because you're spewing Marxist doctrine.
    Do you think they just wouldn't be working? The basics are living wages, reasonable housing costs, and affordable healthcare.

    If businesses can't afford to pay their workers to meet a growing COLA they shouldn't exist.
     

    Magyars

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    46   0   0
    Mar 6, 2010
    12,342
    113
    Delaware County Freehold
    Maybe we shouldn't be spending trillions on a military that doesn't win wars. The Taliban is in power. 20 years in Afghanistan for absolutely nothing. The middle east is still in shambles. 60 billion to keep a hostile nation from conquering like Japan in 1945 is an absolute deal. Maybe if a majority of our yearly budget didn't go into a peacetime military we could actually fund more public programs that help your average American.
    Dillusional.....
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,768
    149
    Southside Indy
    Do you think they just wouldn't be working? The basics are living wages, reasonable housing costs, and affordable healthcare.

    If businesses can't afford to pay their workers to meet a growing COLA they shouldn't exist.
    They're not working now, so yeah, I think they just wouldn't be working. Again, who pays for it? Sounds an awful lot like "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" comrade.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    Dillusional.....
    You're right, continuing to pour into defense is delusional. I served. I've seen the waste. It's a moneypit that needs a complete overhaul and more extreme oversight. The very idea that the Pentagon could misplace a trillion dollars is insane, yet it happened.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    They're not working now, so yeah, I think they just wouldn't be working. Again, who pays for it? Sounds an awful lot like "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" comrade.
    Are you understanding what im saying or is calling everyone a communist the only bullet you have? If they're not working now, then they still wouldn't be able to afford housing, healthcare, or their basic needs if changes were made to bring the cost down for those things. The idea is that if they meet the bare minimum, which is holding a job, they should be able to afford basic housing, healthcare, and their everyday needs like food and utilities. Im not calling for eveyone to be given free bed and a meal ticket.

    If a business can't compete while paying workers a minimum wage that follows the yearly COLA it shouldn't exist. That's just capitalism.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,768
    149
    Southside Indy
    Are you understanding what im saying or is calling everyone a communist the only bullet you have? If they're not working now, then they still wouldn't be able to afford housing, healthcare, or their basic needs if changes were made to bring the cost down for those things. The idea is that if they meet the bare minimum, which is holding a job, they should be able to afford basic housing, healthcare, and their everyday needs like food and utilities. Im not calling for eveyone to be given free bed and a meal ticket.

    If a business can't compete while paying workers a minimum wage that follows the yearly COLA is shouldn't exist. That's just capitalism.
    So tell me this. Were things more affordable from 2016 to 2020, or are they more affordable now? Which party has been in power from 2020 to now? Yet you seem to want more of the same. That doesn't make sense to any sane person.
     

    Dardbr

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Mar 17, 2022
    50
    8
    Battleground
    So tell me this. Were things more affordable from 2016 to 2020, or are they more affordable now? Which party has been in power from 2020 to now? Yet you seem to want more of the same. That doesn't make sense to any sane person.
    The tax breaks Trump gave the top 1% of our country kept costs stagnant on a growing economy the Obama administration built. The Biden administration put a stop to that and told them to pay their fair share. Rather than do that they've passed that cost onto the consumer. What I do know is that the president in 2016 put considerable resources into a border wall that was never built, then used his choke hold on the party to prevent border bills from being passed after he lost in 2020. What I also know is that our 2016 president orchestrated what possibly was the most embarrassing retreat from the middle east in history.

    If you think costs are going down if Trump manages to get back in office youre in for one heck of a gut punch. He'll cut another 4 years of tax breaks and prices will stay exactly the same as they are now because why in the world would business leaders give up what they've learned they can get from us? He's been a millionaire his whole life. He doesn't care or know what it's like to be the average American. What he does know is that another 4 years would do wonders for his businesses.
     
    Top Bottom