President Kamala Harris

[newnative]

1 hour ago, radiogeneris said:

It's insane to see the Democrats rewriting the rules to win. They are pushing to legalize anything for power. 

 

Imagine the disaster it would be for America to become a permanent one-party, deeply socialist state if they succeed in winning this election.

 

Most people who do not see this are just probably Brainwashed by the mainstream media. It will be unfortunate if America becomes socialist nation and follow Venezuela. I really hope it will not happen 🙏 

       Doubtful the US would ever end up with just one party--especially these days with Democrats and Republicans so hardened.  Pew Research breaks it down this way: 33% Democrat.  32% Republican.  35% who lean Democrat, lean Republican, don't lean to either party, or don't say.   So, in reality, the US really has three fairly equal large parties, plus some minor ones.   Should either the Democrat or Republican party falter, a new party would likely form, which would likely attract some remnants of the old party, plus a share of the independents and the remaining major party, who might be attracted to the new party's platform.   

      I think the Republican Party's failure to win even 50% of the vote in the last two elections reflects more on the party's poor presidential candidate than on anything else.  Trump has been fielded twice.  He lost the popular vote by 2.8 million in 2016.  Actual voters did not want him.  After 4 years of the worst presidency in history, he lost by 7 million votes in 2020--a disaster for a sitting president.   Again, actual voters did not want him--even more  than in 2016.   2024 will likely result in another large popular vote loss, as Americans for the third time tell the Republican Party that they don't like its choice for president.   Apparently lots of slow learners in the Republican Party.  

[Will B Good]

1 hour ago, radiogeneris said:

It's insane to see the Democrats rewriting the rules to win.

 

I can only assume you are totally ignorant (could have stopped there) of what Republicans are attempting to do......in addition to false electors and Trump demanding extra votes......

 

In recent years, Republicans have pursued various changes to state voting laws, which some critics argue could improve Donald Trump’s chances in future elections, including the 2024 presidential race. Here are key ways in which these efforts are unfolding:

 

1. Tightening Voter ID Requirements:

 

• Many Republican-controlled states have pushed for stricter voter ID laws. These laws typically require voters to present a government-issued ID (like a driver’s license or passport) at polling stations. Proponents argue these laws prevent voter fraud, but critics say they disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and younger voters—demographics that tend to lean Democratic. States such as Georgia, Texas, and Florida have enacted stricter ID laws in recent years .

 

2. Limiting Early Voting and Mail-in Ballots:

 

• Changes to early voting and mail-in voting processes have been a focus. During the 2020 election, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that mail-in voting was susceptible to widespread fraud. Following this, some states moved to restrict mail-in voting or tighten the rules for obtaining and returning mail-in ballots. Georgia and Arizona, for instance, passed laws that limit the number of drop boxes and set stricter deadlines for submitting absentee ballots .

• Limiting early voting windows has also been a strategy in some states, making it harder for people who cannot vote on Election Day to cast a ballot. This could disproportionately affect working-class voters, many of whom supported Democrats in 2020.

 

3. Changes to Election Oversight:

 

• In some states, Republicans have sought to change the structure of election oversight bodies, often giving state legislatures—controlled by Republicans—greater power over election administration. This has included attempts to limit the power of secretaries of state or local election boards, which oversee the counting of votes and certification of elections. For example, in Georgia, a law was passed allowing the state legislature to exert more influence over local election boards .

• These efforts are seen by critics as a way to exert greater partisan control over election outcomes, particularly in swing states like Arizona and Georgia.

 

4. “Election Integrity” Laws:

 

• Bills branded as “election integrity” measures have proliferated, aiming to address alleged (but largely unproven) voter fraud. These laws often impose new restrictions on voter registration, limit the assistance voters can receive in casting their ballots, or purge voter rolls. While these laws are presented as necessary for maintaining public confidence in elections, opponents argue they target Democratic voters and suppress turnout.

 

5. Revisiting Electoral Processes:

 

• Some Republicans have suggested changes to how electoral votes are allocated. States like Wisconsin and Michigan have explored proposals to allocate electoral votes by congressional district rather than statewide popular vote. In heavily gerrymandered states, this could benefit Republicans even if a Democrat wins the popular vote statewide.

 

Impact and Criticism:

 

These efforts are often justified as necessary to prevent voter fraud and protect election integrity, but critics argue they disproportionately affect groups that tend to vote for Democrats, such as people of color, young voters, and urban populations. The concern is that by making it harder for these groups to vote or by centralizing control of election administration, Republicans could tilt future elections, including the 2024 race, in Trump’s favor.

 

The debate around these changes remains deeply polarized, with Republicans framing them as crucial for safeguarding democracy and Democrats calling them voter suppression tactics designed to shape the electorate in favor of Trump and the GOP.

 

Sources:

 

• Reuters

• The New York Times 

[Hanaguma]

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

       Doubtful the US would ever end up with just one party--especially these days with Democrats and Republicans so hardened.  Pew Research breaks it down this way: 33% Democrat.  32% Republican.  35% who lean Democrat, lean Republican, don't lean to either party, or don't say.   So, in reality, the US really has three fairly equal large parties, plus some minor ones.   Should either the Democrat or Republican party falter, a new party would likely form, which would likely attract some remnants of the old party, plus a share of the independents and the remaining major party, who might be attracted to the new party's platform.   

      I think the Republican Party's failure to win even 50% of the vote in the last two elections reflects more on the party's poor presidential candidate than on anything else.  Trump has been fielded twice.  He lost the popular vote by 2.8 million in 2016.  Actual voters did not want him.  After 4 years of the worst presidency in history, he lost by 7 million votes in 2020--a disaster for a sitting president.   Again, actual voters did not want him--even more  than in 2016.   2024 will likely result in another large popular vote loss, as Americans for the third time tell the Republican Party that they don't like its choice for president.   Apparently lots of slow learners in the Republican Party.  

Relying on the so-called popular vote to make any judgements is an exercise in futility. Nobody can tell what the actual vote would be if everyone thought their vote mattered in choosing the President.

 

As for the Trump years being "the worst in history", well current polling suggests otherwise. Voters prefer Trump to Harris on handling the economy, inflation, and immigration.  Also, pre-covid America under Trump was humming along. Low inflation, low interest rates on loans/mortgages, low unemployment.  Seems a strange recipe for being the worst ever. 

[candide]

3 hours ago, radiogeneris said:

 

 

On September 25, Patrick J. Lechleitner — ICE’s deputy director and de facto acting head — sent a bombshell letter to Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and 22 other House members revealing that 425,431 convicted criminals — including thousands of murderers and sex offenders — and 222,000-plus other aliens facing criminal charges are on the agency’s non-detained docket of removable aliens, known to the agency but at large in the United States.

 

Source: https://cis.org/Arthur/Why-ICE-Babysitting-Not-Removing-425431-Convicted-Criminals

 

Letter: https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/24-01143-ICEs-Signed-Response-to-Representative-Tony-Gonzales.pdf

 

Video link from Fox News:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362556076112

 

Fox News Article:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blames-harris-amid-data-showing-tens-thousands-criminal-migrants-us-deliberately-erased-border

"The data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that, among those not in detention, there are 425,431 convicted criminals and 222,141 with pending criminal charges.

The figures include 62,231 people convicted of assault, 14,301 convicted of burglary, 56,533 with drug convictions and 13,099 convicted of homicide. An additional 2,521 have kidnapping convictions and 15,811 have sexual assault convictions..."

As expected, I don't see a quote of Fox News stating Biden/Harris Administration knowingly released a total of 425,431 convicted criminal illegal immigrants". Where is it (not in the articles , obviously)?

 

You've been lied by your own camp.

[candide]

4 hours ago, radiogeneris said:

 

 

On September 25, Patrick J. Lechleitner — ICE’s deputy director and de facto acting head — sent a bombshell letter to Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and 22 other House members revealing that 425,431 convicted criminals — including thousands of murderers and sex offenders — and 222,000-plus other aliens facing criminal charges are on the agency’s non-detained docket of removable aliens, known to the agency but at large in the United States.

 

Source: https://cis.org/Arthur/Why-ICE-Babysitting-Not-Removing-425431-Convicted-Criminals

 

Letter: https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/24-01143-ICEs-Signed-Response-to-Representative-Tony-Gonzales.pdf

 

Video link from Fox News:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362556076112

 

Fox News Article:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blames-harris-amid-data-showing-tens-thousands-criminal-migrants-us-deliberately-erased-border

"The data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that, among those not in detention, there are 425,431 convicted criminals and 222,141 with pending criminal charges.

The figures include 62,231 people convicted of assault, 14,301 convicted of burglary, 56,533 with drug convictions and 13,099 convicted of homicide. An additional 2,521 have kidnapping convictions and 15,811 have sexual assault convictions..."

And here the explanation on how you've been lied:

Quote from the article:

The data isn't only listing people who entered the country during the Biden administration but includes people going back decades who came during previous administrations, said Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was the predecessor to ICE.

They're accused or convicted of committing crimes in America as opposed to committing crimes in other countries and then entering the U.S., said Meissner, who is now director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.

"This is not something that is a function of what the Biden administration did," she said. "Certainly, this includes the Biden years, but this is an accumulation of many years, and certainly going back to at least 2010, 2011, 2012."

A 2017 report by Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General says that as of August 2016, ICE had about 368,574 people on its non-detained docket who were convicted criminals. By June 2021, that number was up to 405,786.

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/09/30/ice-data-convicted-migrants-donald-trump-fact-check

 

Now maybe you understand why tweets or videos from crappy sources are not allowed on this forum. Only reliable sources are allowed.

Edited 11 hours ago by candide

[newnative]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Relying on the so-called popular vote to make any judgements is an exercise in futility. Nobody can tell what the actual vote would be if everyone thought their vote mattered in choosing the President.

 

As for the Trump years being "the worst in history", well current polling suggests otherwise. Voters prefer Trump to Harris on handling the economy, inflation, and immigration.  Also, pre-covid America under Trump was humming along. Low inflation, low interest rates on loans/mortgages, low unemployment.  Seems a strange recipe for being the worst ever. 

       Strange comment, 'if everyone thought their vote mattered...'.   Everyone's vote should matter, and be of equal value.   It is indeed sad that the Electoral College results in so many votes not mattering at all, with the votes rendered in some states mattering so much more than those in other states.   Bad system, which 63% of Americans want to get rid of.

      America was 'humming along', as you say, largely due to Obama, not Trump.  Wages were on a steady upward trend under Obama.  Jobs were on a steady upward trend, since 2010 under Obama.  Unemployment was on a steady downward trend, since 2010 under Obama. 

    All of these trends continued under Trump, but they began with the Obama administration.   Since Trump lost in a landslide in 2020, it seems American voters didn't give him too much credit for the economy, or anything else.  

     The graphs below clearly show what I am talking about.  Note 2017, when Trump jumps into the pilot's seat.  The steady trajectories continue, with nary a blip.  The US economy, like a large super tanker, does not turn on a dime.   Of course, the same is true for 2021, when Biden took over the pilot's seat from Trump.  For better or worse, Biden would be dealing with the economy he inherited from Trump.  

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

       Strange comment, 'if everyone thought their vote mattered...'.   Everyone's vote should matter, and be of equal value.   It is indeed sad that the Electoral College results in so many votes not mattering at all, with the votes rendered in some states mattering so much more than those in other states.   Bad system, which 63% of Americans want to get rid of.

      America was 'humming along', as you say, largely due to Obama, not Trump.  Wages were on a steady upward trend under Obama.  Jobs were on a steady upward trend, since 2010 under Obama.  Unemployment was on a steady downward trend, since 2010 under Obama. 

    All of these trends continued under Trump, but they began with the Obama administration.   Since Trump lost in a landslide in 2020, it seems American voters didn't give him too much credit for the economy, or anything else.  

     The graphs below clearly show what I am talking about.  Note 2017, when Trump jumps into the pilot's seat.  The steady trajectories continue, with nary a blip.  The US economy, like a large super tanker, does not turn on a dime.   Of course, the same is true for 2021, when Biden took over the pilot's seat from Trump.  For better or worse, Biden would be dealing with the economy he inherited from Trump.  

No argument there. Trump kept a good thing going and made it better.  Covid was the cause of the election loss iMHO.

[radiogeneris]

12 hours ago, mdr224 said:

People usually get the government they deserve. Do americans think for themselves, or just what the media tells them to think? This election will reveal the answer

 

Assuming it will not be rigged...

[radiogeneris]

🚨 KAMALA’S TAX PLAN: ATLAS SHRUGGED IN REAL LIFE?

 

In “Atlas Shrugged,” society’s brightest minds—the entrepreneurs, inventors, and visionaries—are pushed to the brink by policies that punish success. 

 

Kamala’s proposal to tax unrealized gains brings that dystopia to life, threatening Silicon Valley with crushing taxes on paper wealth that doesn’t yet exist.

 

Sebastian Thrun, founder of Udacity, is a real-life Atlas Shrugged character in this scenario. 

 

When Udacity reached unicorn status, Thrun’s wealth looked massive on paper, but in reality, there was no cash to pay taxes on those hypothetical gains. 

 

This policy could’ve forced him into impossible decisions: pay taxes on unrealized income or risk jail—for building something valuable for society.

 

Taxing theoretical wealth risks turning innovators into criminals, making ambition a liability. 

 

Are we headed toward an economy where those who create the most are punished the hardest?