Harris Vs. Trump 2024. The battle to save America. Lets do this.

Cameron wrote:[tw]1829268546893095001[/tw]

If I wanted Republicans in the cabinet, I'd vote for a Republican. This is dumb and I hope she reconsiders.

Yeah I just shook my head when I heard her say that. WTF. Just say you don’t have a problem working with them. This was her first big gaffe in my opinion.

Cameron wrote:[tw]1829268546893095001[/tw]

If I wanted Republicans in the cabinet, I'd vote for a Republican. This is dumb and I hope she reconsiders.

There are a lot of cabinet positions. If she thinks a Republican is best suited to run the Ag Department (for example), I don't think it's that big of a deal.

I mean...Mayor Pete goes on FoxNews all the time. There is value in having discussions. Not every single thing needs to be a polarizing issue.

NigelUno wrote:

Cameron wrote:[tw]1829268546893095001[/tw]

If I wanted Republicans in the cabinet, I'd vote for a Republican. This is dumb and I hope she reconsiders.

There are a lot of cabinet positions.  If she thinks a Republican is best suited to run the Ag Department (for example), I don't think it's that big of a deal.  

I mean...Mayor Pete goes on FoxNews all the time.  There is value in having discussions.  Not every single thing needs to be a polarizing issue.  

I don't want a single Republican in charge of a single thing anywhere in the country. Fuck 'em.

Cameron wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

There are a lot of cabinet positions.  If she thinks a Republican is best suited to run the Ag Department (for example), I don't think it's that big of a deal.  

I mean...Mayor Pete goes on FoxNews all the time.  There is value in having discussions.  Not every single thing needs to be a polarizing issue.  

I don't want a single Republican in charge of a single thing anywhere in the country. Fuck 'em.

My uncle has some interesting political opinions, but he's a damn good accountant.

Politics doesn't have to impact every single aspect.

Motown Spartan wrote:I want the best person for the job.  And if that person is a decent person that happens to be a Republican, so be it.  

But “im going to pick a Republican for the sake of having a Republican” is not the same thing as “I’m going to get the best person for the job.” 

It’s fine if she picks a Republican Senator that has a Democratic governor. But they’d never, ever take the job so

NigelUno wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I don't want a single Republican in charge of a single thing anywhere in the country. Fuck 'em.

My uncle has some interesting political opinions, but he's a damn good accountant.  

Politics doesn't have to impact every single aspect.  

Plenty of good accountants with good politics out there. We're a nation of 333 million, when the liberals win elections, they can fill the government with qualified liberals. No conservatives required.

Stop trying to compromise with monstrous idiots and just focus on beating them conclusively and delivering tangible results for the people who vote for you.

I swear I may have just met Travelin' Man...

this guy taps on my door, introduced himself. Nice enough, seemed really rigid - like the kind of guy that irons his socks. He then went into this long thing about how hard he's worked, how he's "self-made".. how, because of that, he and his wife lead this comfortable life.. and how he has no tolerance for "lazy people"...

little did he know that he had needed assistance with something (a process-related thing), sought me out, knocked on my office door.. and asked me.. for some help and support with something.  

here I was.. this person he voiced that he has no tolerance for with my feet up on my desk watching mountain bike videos and eating fresh blueberries.

oh well - hope TM found me at least entertaining and engaging.

Isn't it better to just vote for the better person and trust that they will make the decisions that they feel are best for the country? The one who is kinder? Less self interested? The one who looks to history for answers and has learned from their mistakes? Who understands that they are not perfect and that you can't solve every problem by being a bully and that you have to work with people who are different from? Someone who aspires to greatness vs someone who thinks they are great?

Voting is easy if you have some simple guidelines.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I swear I may have just met Travelin' Man...

this guy taps on my door, introduced himself. Nice enough, seemed really rigid - like the kind of guy that irons his socks. He then went into this long thing about how hard he's worked, how he's "self-made".. how, because of that, he and his wife lead this comfortable life.. and how he has no tolerance for "lazy people"...

little did he know that he had needed assistance with something (a process-related thing), sought me out, knocked on my office door.. and asked me.. for some help and support with something.  

here I was.. this person he voiced that he has no tolerance for with my feet up on my desk watching mountain bike videos and eating fresh blueberries.

oh well - hope TM found me at least entertaining and engaging.

Is there a point to this that I am missing?

Motown Spartan wrote:

Cameron wrote:Stop trying to compromise with monstrous idiots and just focus on beating them conclusively and delivering tangible results for the people who vote for you.

We’re a nation of 333 millions people, not 80 million. Someone has to start acting for all Americans, not just the voters.  

The way to best serve all 330 million Americans is almost assuredly NOT by working with Republicans.

Spartytruth wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I swear I may have just met Travelin' Man...

this guy taps on my door, introduced himself. Nice enough, seemed really rigid - like the kind of guy that irons his socks. He then went into this long thing about how hard he's worked, how he's "self-made".. how, because of that, he and his wife lead this comfortable life.. and how he has no tolerance for "lazy people"...

little did he know that he had needed assistance with something (a process-related thing), sought me out, knocked on my office door.. and asked me.. for some help and support with something.  

here I was.. this person he voiced that he has no tolerance for with my feet up on my desk watching mountain bike videos and eating fresh blueberries.

oh well - hope TM found me at least entertaining and engaging.

Is there a point to this that I am missing?

me and Travelin' Man have this longstanding disagreement about life.. he claims to have "worked hard" to get to where he is (whatever that means) - that sort of things just annoys me for a lot of reasons.

anyway, I told him that I've never "worked hard" a day in my life. He seemed aghast at the idea of that and tried to convince me that I have indeed "worked hard" (as if he knows more about me than I do) -

that's about it.

The Dems were uncharacteristically competent for a few weeks between Biden dropping out and the convention. Then they returned to form.

Trump slobbering in Potterville says the government will mandate insurance companies cover the 7.8 billion in annual costs for IVF.

This idiot can’t even stay on message with his own campaign. Not that his knows what that message is.

"Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment," Trump said in an interview with NBC News. "Or we're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay."

“your government will pay for or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment."

Then the clown blabbers something about abortion rights.

Former President Donald Trump indicated he would vote in favor of abortion rights in his home state of Florida, where it is on the ballot. Saying he thinks the "six week [ban] is too short," he said he favored "more time."

When asked explicitly, "so you'll vote in favor of the amendment?", Trump seemed to affirm that he would.

Cameron wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:

We’re a nation of 333 millions people, not 80 million. Someone has to start acting for all Americans, not just the voters.  

The way to best serve all 330 million Americans is almost assuredly NOT by working with Republicans.

So, it was a mistake to let (R) Geoff Duncan speak at the Convention?

Man.. the black and white white with some of you. ABSOLUTELY no shades of grey, like EVER...


I'd stick Mit Romney on the LA Olympic planning team. Adam Kinzinger on the fair and free election committee. Pres Bush on the american beer counsel. Liz Cheny in some anti-fascist role.

So, yeah, it's possible.

kingstonlake wrote:Trump slobbering in Potterville says the government will mandate insurance companies cover the 7.8 billion in annual costs for IVF.

This idiot can’t even stay on message with his own campaign. Not that his knows what that message is.

"Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment," Trump said in an interview with NBC News. "Or we're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay."

“your government will pay for or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for all costs associated with IVF treatment."

it's why I believe there is only about 10-15% chance he shows up at the debate.

early stage dementia, combined with a decades long drug addiction, irrespective of his multitude of other mental health issues, are really starting to visibly impair his cognitive abilities.

it can't be overstated the degree to which he will pale in comparison to Kamala on that stage. His handlers and caretakers know it.. and I suspect even he does, too.

I'm sure any Republicans would be an anti-Trump Republican.  They have shown themselves to be true to themselves and the country.  It isn't like they can implement things against the President's wishes anyway.

There are plenty of cabinet and administration posts that should NOT in anyway be based on someone's partisan leanings, but based on their actual ability to do the job and be NON-partisan.  For example, anything involving international relations.  SecState, SecDef, UN Ambassador, other Ambassadorships, Director of National Intelligence and all of its Deparments (CAI, NSA, DIA, etc.).

Fun fact: until 1804, the VP was the presidential runner-up. Imagine that in today's world.

MiamiSpartan wrote:I'm sure any Republicans would be an anti-Trump Republican.  They have shown themselves to be true to themselves and the country.  It isn't like they can implement things against the President's wishes anyway.

There are plenty of cabinet and administration posts that should NOT in anyway be based on someone's partisan leanings, but based on their actual ability to do the job and be NON-partisan.  For example, anything involving international relations.  SecState, SecDef, UN Ambassador, other Ambassadorships, Director of National Intelligence and all of its Deparments (CAI, NSA, DIA, etc.).

if they have a consistent history of country over party, I'd have no issue with an apolitical department like Dept of the Interior or Ag, etc.

at least I don't think Dept. of Interior or Agriculture is overly political. I guess I could be wrong.

NigelUno wrote:

Cameron wrote:

The way to best serve all 330 million Americans is almost assuredly NOT by working with Republicans.

So, it was a mistake to let (R) Geoff Duncan speak at the Convention?  

No. Letting him speak is entirely different from letting him take an active role in the day to day governance of our country.

When Republicans win, do they put Democrats in their cabinets and nominate them for lots of spots in their government?

To reiterate what I said before: if and when we run out of competent liberals to fill the necessary positions, then we can consider Republicans. But not a moment before. Fuck 'em. We don't owe the losers anything, and they wouldn't and won't return the favor.

Cameron wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

So, it was a mistake to let (R) Geoff Duncan speak at the Convention?  

No. Letting him speak is entirely different from letting him take an active role in the day to day governance of our country.

Don't you think you're overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions (regarding day to day governance)?

Are you saying compromise isn't an important part of governance and/or effective leadership?

The increasing polarization of politics isn't a good thing.

I think we should push candidates to name cabinet members pre election

NigelUno wrote:

Cameron wrote:

No. Letting him speak is entirely different from letting him take an active role in the day to day governance of our country.

Don't you think you're overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions (regarding day to day governance)?  

Are you saying compromise isn't an important part of governance and/or effective leadership?

The increasing polarization of politics isn't a good thing.  

I'm sure I am overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions. Just because they don't matter doesn't mean I want Republicans in there.

Compromise is important, when it is necessary and done for the right reasons. This hypothetical compromise is neither.

The influence of Republicans on our government is not a good thing.

Cameron wrote:When Republicans win, do they put Democrats in their cabinets and nominate them for lots of spots in their government?

To reiterate what I said before: if and when we run out of competent liberals to fill the necessary positions, then we can consider Republicans. But not a moment before. Fuck 'em. We don't owe the losers anything, and they wouldn't and won't return the favor.

This covers it. I’ve seen to many “sane” republicans go completely face when convenient. Shit wasn’t Nancy Mace at one time lauded as a moderate breakthrough in South Carolina? Vance, anyone?

Hard pass.

Cameron wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Don't you think you're overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions (regarding day to day governance)?  

Are you saying compromise isn't an important part of governance and/or effective leadership?

The increasing polarization of politics isn't a good thing.  

I'm sure I am overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions. Just because they don't matter doesn't mean I want Republicans in there.

Compromise is important, when it is necessary and done for the right reasons. This hypothetical compromise is neither.

The influence of Republicans on our government is not a good thing.

I'm gonna guess that Harris will do what is politically good for her (and maybe even the country).

I guess we'll find out.

NigelUno wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I'm sure I am overestimating the importance of some cabinet positions. Just because they don't matter doesn't mean I want Republicans in there.

Compromise is important, when it is necessary and done for the right reasons. This hypothetical compromise is neither.

The influence of Republicans on our government is not a good thing.

I'm gonna guess that Harris will do what is politically good for her (and maybe even the country).

I guess we'll find out.

I hope we get to find out.

if not, this will be our last election.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Man.. the black and white white with some of you. ABSOLUTELY no shades of grey, like EVER...


I'd stick Mit Romney on the LA Olympic planning team. Adam Kinzinger on the fair and free election committee. Pres Bush on the american beer counsel. Liz Cheny in some anti-fascist role.

So, yeah, it's possible.

I've suggested Kinzinger for VA on here before.

What do you expect her to say? She's trying to win an election and pick up a few votes. Showing the ability to compromise might win elections as opposed to being complete and total polarizing assholes.

But I could be wrong.

Heat Miser wrote:The Dems were uncharacteristically competent for a few weeks between Biden dropping out and the convention. Then they returned to form.

How do? The only blunder I've seen is not entirely the fault of the party, and that's letting trump steal the spotlight with new deplorable behaviors (Arlington)

Trump.has been getting desperate with posts about Harris giving blowjobs etc.

He and his campaign staff keep breaking the laws praying that they can steal attention away from Harris.

I've been watching football off and on all day and if I've learned one thing it's that Kamala is dangerous. I cannot wait until this nightmare is over.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I've been watching football off and on all day and if I've learned one thing it's that Kamala is dangerous. I cannot wait until this nightmare is over.

She's a dangerous LIBERAL!

Heat Miser wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I've been watching football off and on all day and if I've learned one thing it's that Kamala is dangerous. I cannot wait until this nightmare is over.

She's a dangerous LIBERAL!

Not just any dangerous Liberal, a dangerous SAN FRANCISCO LIBERAL!

Trump ads 5-1 over Harris up here.

My political pea brain says Harris campaign knows there aren’t many swing voters in this area. Also that Trump may be trying to stop the bleeding or motivate un motivated supporters.

Or I’m just coping.