Jump to content

Democrat Joe Biden chooses U.S. Senator Kamala Harris for White House running mate


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tlandtday said:

Looks like they chose Kamala to try to make up for Biden's past racist words and actions against the black community.  However it is a strategic mistake.  Trump can easily chessmate the Dumbocrats by simply choosing a Latino running mate to replace Pence.  Should be interesting.  I hope Joe can crawl out of his basement to actually attend a debate.  He owes the American people at least that for decades of sucking the public tit. 

Come on man, everyone knows

 

"Unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things"

Edited by Joe well ya know
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

He is much healthier than the President and trump could get the virus the way he defies. 

I was asking a question, that's all. If you don't know the answer why bother writing nonsense.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

if Mod will permit: The drug you mention has not proven to be effective and is no longer used for the prevention of Covid-19; another furphy by trump. Yes, trump is a hypocrite when he claims to know better than medical experts, refused to wear a mask etc etc  at the same time, as I said, having a huge medical protection screening process everywhere he goes. Thankfully looks as though trump won't be President much longer, even though he is trying to use his power to shut down postal votes. Why? as trump admits because it disadvantages the Democrats by way of voter disenfranchisement. trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA.

Dr Birx declared - and I think it's absolutely true: "  "He has been so attentive to the details and the data, and his ability to analyze and integrate data has been a real benefit during these discussions about medical issues" -

Trump doesn't identify with the population the most at risk. With all the implications.   

Edited by Opl
Posted
16 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

*Deleted post edited out*

 

That's not what defunding the police means. Let me explain.

Most cities police departments are called upon for pretty much everything; dealing with the homeless, the mentally ill, people on drugs, domestic problems, traffic crimes etc etc. In many cases the police are neither equiped or experienced enough to handle these situations which are better handled by other experts. By defunding the police, you are taking some of their vast budgets (and they are vast) and reappropriating these funds to other organistaions that are better suited to handling these issues. The benfits are blem is sorted out much better and without the need for an armed response (the police are trained to handle matters in a particular way that doesn't neccessarily involve de-escalation and therefore can make matters worse) and secondly, the police can then focus their attention on matters that they are best suited to (murders, armed robberies, looters, rape etc). It ensures the best people are doing the most appropriate jobs.

It also doesn't neccessarily mean a reduction in police numbers but it can in some cases. If it does, this is usually acheived through natural attrition and the scaling down of unneccessary units. The money can also be saved by the police not investing in military style equipment such as armored personnel carriers (APCs), assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police.

It does not mean scrapping the police. This is a different matter that is more to do with institutionalised racism and has only ever been done once in Camden, N.J., where the whole police force was disbanded and a new, better one built instead https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/police-reform-ideas-united-states-george-floyd-1.5601990

Defunding the police simply means giving them less money and resources to do their jobs. Sounds like disaster. All the other things you write about are about reorganizing responsibilities. It OK but the reorganization and reducing the load on the police must come first and the forces left must be well staffed and trained. 

In the current environment stronger tools are needed so that the anarchy mobs know the police mean business. 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

Defunding the police simply means giving them less money and resources to do their jobs. Sounds like disaster. All the other things you write about are about reorganizing responsibilities. It OK but the reorganization and reducing the load on the police must come first and the forces left must be well staffed and trained. 

In the current environment stronger tools are needed so that the anarchy mobs know the police mean business. 

I always wonder why they don't just reassign funding and personnel from the army to the police.

Seems so obvious to me.

 

As for the current anarchy, snipers on rooftops with orders to shoot anyone breaking windows or entering illegally.

Edited by BritManToo
  • Like 1
  • Sad 3
Posted
10 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

You know fully well that the Trump supporters who claim that defunding the police will mean more crime will neither be able to read this long intelligent post never mind comprehend it. You have to keep it in short twitter side sound bites for them.

I assume from your post that it is your contention, that defunding the police will Not mean any reduction in police numbers. 

The fact that police budgets are cut by whatever amount of millions of dollars and diverted to " community projects", the formation of new units, presumably using more " social workers". Will definitely not mean police officers losing their jobs, is that correct. 

Because we could all see that a lack of police presence in the cities of Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Minneappollis etc, etc, recently, resulted in a massive drop in the crime rate. 

It was incredible there were no murders, rapes, Arson, looting, or robberies. 

In this new crime free utopia of yours, what unit would be dispatched to an incident where a powerfully built man, showing signs of being high on drugs, attempting to pass counterfeit cash in a store.? 

You can use big words if you like, if there's anything I don't understand I can Google it, oh, and it doesn't have to be in short sound bites either  as I'm not on Twatter.! 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's a deliberately leading question presuming guilt.  The reporter knew it and Trump knew it.  Of course Trump is going to blow his question off.  Who wouldn't?  I'd say it's silly of you to use it as an example.

 

It’s something far more damaging to Trump and something I pointed out after his disastrous performance in the Axios interview.

 

The ratings are now firmly attached to calling out Trump’s lies and BS.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It wasn't a legitimate question. It is a question that can never be answered without self harm.

Freedom of speech extends to not saying anything, as in a reply to a gottcha question.

 

Given as this is a thread about Biden and Harris, IMO he picked her because he knew she is controversial and will take the pressure off him as everyone talks about her instead of him.

IMO a calculated move for his benefit.

Trump absolutely doesn't care. Why would you?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...