|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Oct 23, 2024 7:09:04 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences. This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 23, 2024 7:31:30 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences. This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose. you refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful conversation about this election. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 23, 2024 9:15:23 GMT -5
OK. You "lol" about the war chest, so apparently ou don't understand the campaign finance laws relating to funds raised for Biden. You also apparently don't appreciate the apparatus necessary to run a national campaign or what it means to already have your own campaign team already in place and the Biden team willing to step] 1. The war chest was a valid point in nominating Harris, who was then unproven as a national fundraiser. 2. She went on to raise more than a billion dollars in two months, negating the need for the Biden war chest. 3. The Biden campaign team is laughably incompetent and she should have fired them immediately. Oops, I didn't mean to post that cuz it wasn't done. A cofefe post. #2 is confirmation she was a good choice. It did not negate the need for the jump start. What the OP forgets is that the nomination WAS opened up, and that she galvanized the support of enough delegates to claim the nomination within a day or two. The fact she could do that she could pull that off surprised and impressed a lot of powerful people. The moment she was announced, the floodgates opened and the response by small, first time donors was overwhelming. That showed a very strong and broad level of support, so if she wasn't the very best choice, she was certainly a very good one, while being realistically the only one that could have hit the ground running. Again for the OP, I like Mayor Pete a lot and am not saying he could not out debate her, because he is really good. I'm glad he is still using that skill in support of her. He has issues with minority support and his orientation may have been harder to sell to the middle right. We won't know his national appeal for at least 4 years and the landscape could be much different by then. I'm not sure exactly your complaint of her campaign staff. It hasn't been perfect, but it has been pretty good and it's hard to imagine any new campaign staff coming together nearly in time for this short window. Some people think she waited too long to d o a bunch of interviews, but she was still introducing herself and solidifying her base and gaining a level of comfort. She now seems very capable and comfortable going anywhere and she is, at the same time Trump is being hidden away from all but the most friendly Fox appearances, and he is still blowing those. At this point she is ahead with, with that trend holding, but it is super close. That fact will keep the Hillary complacency at bay. I agree with the sentiment I read that she is ahead and trending well, but it is super close, and that with their ground game in place and with a lot of money left, compared to a poorly run GOP ground game with less money and a tired candidate that they don't trust to answer a question, that I would prefer the Dem position to the GOP position over the final two weeks. In no way does that mean it is a slam dunk. It could be way too close and end up in the courts. Certain signs say that the GOP agrees with that and plans to sow confusion and anarchy when they lose, to once again try to steal the election in the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 23, 2024 9:32:59 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences. This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose. Nothing you do here is acceptable or allowed under forum rules, and you could have, and probably should have, been permanently banned long ago. I don't care if you are banned or not, but good grief, don't get all sanctimonious about it |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 23, 2024 9:47:04 GMT -5
1. The war chest was a valid point in nominating Harris, who was then unproven as a national fundraiser. 2. She went on to raise more than a billion dollars in two months, negating the need for the Biden war chest. 3. The Biden campaign team is laughably incompetent and she should have fired them immediately. Oops, I didn't mean to post that cuz it wasn't done. A cofefe post. #2 is confirmation she was a good choice. It did not negate the need for the jump start. What the OP forgets is that the nomination WAS opened up, and that she galvanized the support of enough delegates to claim the nomination within a day or two. The fact she could do that she could pull that off surprised and impressed a lot of powerful people. The moment she was announced, the floodgates opened and the response by small, first time donors was overwhelming. That showed a very strong and broad level of support, so if she wasn't the very best choice, she was certainly a very good one, while being realistically the only one that could have hit the ground running. Again for the OP, I like Mayor Pete a lot and am not saying he could not out debate her, because he is really good. I'm glad he is still using that skill in support of her. He has issues with minority support and his orientation may have been harder to sell to the middle right. We won't know his national appeal for at least 4 years and the landscape could be much different by then. I'm not sure exactly your complaint of her campaign staff. It hasn't been perfect, but it has been pretty good and it's hard to imagine any new campaign staff coming together nearly in time for this short window. Some people think she waited too long to d o a bunch of interviews, but she was still introducing herself and solidifying her base and gaining a level of comfort. She now seems very capable and comfortable going anywhere and she is, at the same time Trump is being hidden away from all but the most friendly Fox appearances, and he is still blowing those. At this point she is ahead with, with that trend holding, but it is super close. That fact will keep the Hillary complacency at bay. I agree with the sentiment I read that she is ahead and trending well, but it is super close, and that with their ground game in place and with a lot of money left, compared to a poorly run GOP ground game with less money and a tired candidate that they don't trust to answer a question, that I would prefer the Dem position to the GOP position over the final two weeks. In no way does that mean it is a slam dunk. It could be way too close and end up in the courts. Certain signs say that the GOP agrees with that and plans to sow confusion and anarchy when they lose, to once again try to steal the election in the courts. I think any of the leading candidates to replace Biden (Newsom, Whitmer, etc) would have done just as well fundraising after Biden's dropout. It seems to me that was driven by enthusiasm around an alternative to Biden, not because the alternative was Kamala. Non-Harris replacements may have taken longer to get spun up as they built name recognition. Biden's campaign staff had him losing badly to Trump and polling as one of the most unpopular first term presidents since the start of publicly polling. Keeping that leadership in place was a massive mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 23, 2024 11:06:49 GMT -5
Oops, I didn't mean to post that cuz it wasn't done. A cofefe post. #2 is confirmation she was a good choice. It did not negate the need for the jump start. What the OP forgets is that the nomination WAS opened up, and that she galvanized the support of enough delegates to claim the nomination within a day or two. The fact she could do that she could pull that off surprised and impressed a lot of powerful people. The moment she was announced, the floodgates opened and the response by small, first time donors was overwhelming. That showed a very strong and broad level of support, so if she wasn't the very best choice, she was certainly a very good one, while being realistically the only one that could have hit the ground running. Again for the OP, I like Mayor Pete a lot and am not saying he could not out debate her, because he is really good. I'm glad he is still using that skill in support of her. He has issues with minority support and his orientation may have been harder to sell to the middle right. We won't know his national appeal for at least 4 years and the landscape could be much different by then. I'm not sure exactly your complaint of her campaign staff. It hasn't been perfect, but it has been pretty good and it's hard to imagine any new campaign staff coming together nearly in time for this short window. Some people think she waited too long to d o a bunch of interviews, but she was still introducing herself and solidifying her base and gaining a level of comfort. She now seems very capable and comfortable going anywhere and she is, at the same time Trump is being hidden away from all but the most friendly Fox appearances, and he is still blowing those. At this point she is ahead with, with that trend holding, but it is super close. That fact will keep the Hillary complacency at bay. I agree with the sentiment I read that she is ahead and trending well, but it is super close, and that with their ground game in place and with a lot of money left, compared to a poorly run GOP ground game with less money and a tired candidate that they don't trust to answer a question, that I would prefer the Dem position to the GOP position over the final two weeks. In no way does that mean it is a slam dunk. It could be way too close and end up in the courts. Certain signs say that the GOP agrees with that and plans to sow confusion and anarchy when they lose, to once again try to steal the election in the courts. I think any of the leading candidates to replace Biden (Newsom, Whitmer, etc) would have done just as well fundraising after Biden's dropout. It seems to me that was driven by enthusiasm around an alternative to Biden, not because the alternative was Kamala. Non-Harris replacements may have taken longer to get spun up as they built name recognition. Biden's campaign staff had him losing badly to Trump and polling as one of the most unpopular first term presidents since the start of publicly polling. Keeping that leadership in place was a massive mistake. I don't have much knowledge one way or another about the inner workings of Biden's campaign team, but their biggest failure was not convincing him to exit earlier. As long as he was the candidate, their was only so much they could do. I believe he probably did get sick to blow the debate, but with his age and health he would have run down at some point. It's not like the campaign hasn't changed at all. She made a big point of not bringing in an entirely new team. That doesn't mean she didn't make big changes or that she didn't bring in anybody. Its obviously a very different campaign for a very different candidate. Why do you think keeping that campaign team was "a massive mistake"? What do you think they should have done differently? There is a lot of speculation on who would have motivated which groups of voters. The fact the Trump has not figured out how to attack Harris and seems afraid of her is telling. He won't debate her again, only thing he seems capable of is calling her "low IQ", which is an odd thing to call someone who bested him in the debate so that he won't debate again. I think Trump would be a lot more comfortable attacking Newsome, Shapiro or Mayor Pete. Not sure about Whitmer. |
|
|
|
Post by Burly Ives on Oct 23, 2024 12:02:55 GMT -5
Biden's campaign staff had him losing badly to Trump and polling as one of the most unpopular first term presidents since the start of publicly polling.
Wrong Merve. Not a mistake. Stepping down as President would have made it MUCH harder for Kamala to run a campaign and simultaneously serve as President. Unless you meant something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 23, 2024 12:08:24 GMT -5
Biden's campaign staff had him losing badly to Trump and polling as one of the most unpopular first term presidents since the start of publicly polling. Wrong Merve. Not a mistake. Stepping down as President would have made it MUCH harder for Kamala to run a campaign and simultaneously serve as President. Unless you meant something else.
I'm talking about the campaign leadership. What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 23, 2024 12:30:40 GMT -5
Seems like a different bar for Harris
|
|
|
|
Post by VT Five-0 on Oct 23, 2024 13:57:57 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences. This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose.  |
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Oct 23, 2024 14:14:26 GMT -5
Who cares? If people want to vote for a lying criminal, who was impeached twice during his turbulent presidency, and who has the mental capacity of a gnat, let them. They'll have to live with the consequences. This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose. Don't break the law and you'll stay out of jail. Trumps biggest supporter owns Twitter. He also uses censorship. We're you being intentionally ironic? |
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Oct 23, 2024 14:20:55 GMT -5
This is exactly why you should not be the moderator. You’ve banned me twice now. Oh wait three times because you don’t have the guts to have a discussion about this election. I didn’t think in 1 million years thst the great BIK, who helped build Volley Talk on differences of opinion ,..,would be such a coward about it. Go ahead and ban me again. That’s the only answer you Democrats have for everything. Silence them, lock them up, use censorship, whatever it takes. And that’s why you’re going to lose. Don't break the law and you'll stay out of jail. Trumps biggest supporter owns Twitter. He also uses censorship. We're you being intentionally ironic? Not nearly as bad as the original Twitter when they silenced the Hunter Biden story….oddly you were not critical of that.Or did you? Can you find me somewhere where you said that was very concerning? I will wait. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 23, 2024 14:25:32 GMT -5
In retrospect, it's quite clear that the Democrats should have convinced Biden not to run for a second term. In 2023, not 2024. An open primary campaign might well have ended up with Harris as the candidate, or it might have ended up with someone else.
But convincing a first-term President not to run for a second term is, historically, almost impossible. And no party is going to encourage a primary campaign against their own sitting President. Also, when you are in your 80s, things can happen quickly. Somebody can seem strong one year and seem 10 years older the next year.
Anyway, I don't think the issue is that Harris isn't a good choice. I think the issue is that the campaign has repeated the error of 2016 of running against Trump more than running for Harris.
The war in Gaza doesn't help at all, either. I would think Arab-Americans would realize Trump sure AF isn't the answer they are looking for, but I can understand why they might be really pissed at Harris and/or anyone associated with the current administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 23, 2024 14:27:46 GMT -5
Don't break the law and you'll stay out of jail. Trumps biggest supporter owns Twitter. He also uses censorship. We're you being intentionally ironic? Not nearly as bad as the original Twitter when they silenced the Hunter Biden story….oddly you were not critical of that.Or did you? Can you find me somewhere where you said that was very concerning? I will wait. That wasn't concerning. That was irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Oct 23, 2024 16:31:01 GMT -5
Don't break the law and you'll stay out of jail. Trumps biggest supporter owns Twitter. He also uses censorship. We're you being intentionally ironic? Not nearly as bad as the original Twitter when they silenced the Hunter Biden story….oddly you were not critical of that.Or did you? Can you find me somewhere where you said that was very concerning? I will wait. Hunter Biden was never a government official. He was never a candidate for one, either. |
|
