Hanaguma

Also supported confiscation of 'assault weapons ' during her 2020 presidential run. She disguised it as a 'mandatory buyback ', but that of course is nonsense. The government can't 'buy back 'your guns because they didn't sell them to you in the first place.

That's reasonable. Harris met and exceeded what many expected. She was very well coached and the strategy was obvious from the start- avoid policy discussions and instead put Trump on trial as unfit for office. And he largely took the bait, wasted too much time trying to defend himself. On the few occasions where the moderators tried to steer the debate back towards issues that voters actually care about, Trump did better. But the tone set by the moderators was obvious from the beginning- they wanted to avoid any talk about the economy, immigration etc. Trump's closing statement was very good, but too late.

Not true. ABC and CNN both hosted. CNNs moderators were surprisingly better though.

When did it become the debate moderators job to "fact check" the debaters? That should be left to the other debater. Makes it far too easy for the mods to insert themselves into the action, when they really need to keep out of the spotlight.

No, she won't. She got zero bounce from her convention or "interview " with CNN. This will be no different. Just like 2020, the more she talks, the less people like her.

Exactly. The 'last person in the room ' with Biden for all his disastrous decisions. The tie breaking vote on his worst policies. But oh so separate...

Harris was well coached and stuck to her talking points. Trump let her get under his skin, which was a mistake. Otherwise, the issues that Americans actually care about were ignored. Almost nothing on immigration, inflation, the economy in general. Typical legacy media performance.

I quite enjoyed David Muirs closing statement.

David Muir is debating Trump more than Harris...

More than a passing resemblance to Nick Nolte...

So you would support the bill if it didn't contain the 'vigilante wording '?

AFAIK, most civilized countries require proof of citizenship to vote. Why should the Democratic party's policy be against it?

This is the state of journalism in 2024. Asking for a reaction to a comment made in an interview with no context or relevance. God forbid anyone talk about issues or platforms. I am sure Kamala would be happy to comment on JD's reaction to a comment.... Jesus.

Well, the debate is at the safe confines of ABC news, whose director is a former Clinton staffer and surrounded by friendly faces. But God forbid she talk to someone like Bret Baer or Britt Hume... those radicals... I would say Trump should do Cenk's show, why not? Not exactly the equivalent of appearing on Fox for Her Kamalousness, though. More like Kamala with Matt Walsh.

Why should she do it? Because she wants to be the goddam President, that's why. She has to show that she can handle a little heat. If she can't handle a tough reporter, what chance does she have going up against Xi or Putin? At the moment, she is hiding in plain sight- letting various spokesholes deliver her missives to the press. It is a rather pathetic way to campaign.

Exactly. Which is why the Harris campaign eagerly agreed to debate on the conditions established for the Biden debate. Oh, wait... never mind.

Her parents were both university professors, met and married in the Bay Area of California. Later divorced, mother went to McGill University in Montreal (with her 2 daughters) as a cancer researcher. Father kept in touch and supported them, etc. This is not the stereotypical "raised by a struggling single mother" story by any means.

Aside from the 'inconsistencies ' in his bio, he IS very good on the stump. Far better than Harris, which admittedly is a very low bar. But he may cost her the election. Pennsylvania is looking increasingly tough for the Democrats to win, and ignoring Governor Shapiro to pick Walz may be the reason. There really is no path to victory without Pennsylvania.

Interesting. Yet it does not specify which race she was accused of stirring up hatred for.

English law only, thank God. Although might be the same in other places soon. Europe is starting to lose its freedom in the quest for avoiding offence to others.

`I am still a bit confused as to who exactly this woman was racist AGAINST. And yes, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is OK, if the theatre is on fire. I look at speech that promotes direct and specific violence as being possibly criminal. Saying "let's kill the ..... (insert group here)" should be legal. Saying, "let's kill Barney the (insert group here), we can meet at the pub at 6"- not acceptable.

When American citizens are being held hostage, yes. Otherwise, it just encourages other terrorists to do the same.

There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza. The last Jew left nearly 20 years ago- removed forcibly by the IDF. The Palestinians have had 20 years and billions of dollars given to them. They created nothing other than an Islamo-fascist terror state. Aid money was either stolen or used to buy weapons and build terror facilities. So yes, the real sticking point is Hamas.

...and where is Joe Biden in all of this? Americans are being held hostage. There can only be one possible answer- send in whatever Special Forces are needed to retrieve them, and eliminate every last member/supporter of Hamas. But Joe probably doesnt even know how many hostages are still being held.

Israel did not kidnap torture or murder more than 1000 innocent people in a one-day orgy of violence. The real source of violence is Hamas. Hamas has had nearly 20 years and billions of dollars in foreign aid to build Gaza into a thriving community. They instead stole the money, and used some to create a terror tunnel network to rival the subway system in any major city. Their leaders are sitting in luxury with hundreds of millions of dollars in stolen aid. Their children live like royalty. They treat minorities in their community like dirt. And yet it is Israel that must compromise?