Kansas Crimson

This is based on Biden's policy.
What is hers?
Is it exactly what Biden intended to do? No one knows really.

Can she come out and lay this all out for us? If this is what she stands for, give us a good 2 hour interview deal where you state all this.

Why is a lighter version ( or hell, i'd prefer bulkier! ) of this not on your website?
Mark what you intend to do at least in pencil if not in ink.

You can make excuses all you want - I'm just telling you that I won't vote for them until they make it known, with some detail other than MOVE FORWARD etc, what they intend to do in their four years.

I expect they will and this will be moot ( and I have no issues at all voting that ticket - in fact, I want to - but let's be front and forward for what you stand for descriptively - not just big sweeping words that mean so little ). I just haven't seen it yet. The election is just over 2 months away so better sooner than latter.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:52 pm This is based on Biden's policy.
What is hers?
Is it exactly what Biden intended to do? No one knows really.

Can she come out and lay this all out for us? If this is what she stands for, give us a good 2 hour interview deal where you state all this.

Why is a lighter version ( or hell, i'd prefer bulkier! ) of this not on your website?
Mark what you intend to do at least in pencil if not in ink.

You can make excuses all you want - I'm just telling you that I won't vote for them until they make it known, with some detail other than MOVE FORWARD etc, what they intend to do in their four years.

I expect they will and this will be moot ( and I have no issues at all voting that ticket - in fact, I want to - but let's be front and forward for what you stand for descriptively - not just big sweeping words that mean so little ). I just haven't seen it yet. The election is just over 2 months away so better sooner than latter.

Your vote is yours alone.

For me, if Kamala came out and said that ALL restrooms are going to be forced to have tampons, I will still enthusiastically vote for her.

If for no other reason, I would like the ability to vote in 2028.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:52 pm This is based on Biden's policy.
What is hers?
Is it exactly what Biden intended to do? No one knows really.

Can she come out and lay this all out for us? If this is what she stands for, give us a good 2 hour interview deal where you state all this.

Why is a lighter version ( or hell, i'd prefer bulkier! ) of this not on your website?
Mark what you intend to do at least in pencil if not in ink.

You can make excuses all you want - I'm just telling you that I won't vote for them until they make it known, with some detail other than MOVE FORWARD etc, what they intend to do in their four years.

I expect they will and this will be moot ( and I have no issues at all voting that ticket - in fact, I want to - but let's be front and forward for what you stand for descriptively - not just big sweeping words that mean so little ). I just haven't seen it yet. The election is just over 2 months away so better sooner than latter.

This is the platform the party adopted. Kamala is the party's nominee for President. Because of the procedural steps that go into the platform being adopted, it was necessarily drafted prior to Biden stepping out after the platform was submitted for adoption, but prior to Kamala's nomination. It would have been improper for the platform to have been changed after its submission for adoption.

While I cannot tell you what standards you must hold a candidate to in order to win your vote, I can tell you for sure that willingly subjecting herself to a standard that NOBODY holds her opponent to, to scrutiny that NOBODY applies to her opponent, is losing politics.

If that means she needs to do it without votes like yours - I think what you can infer is that her campaign (and the party) has concluded that more votes would be lost than won by trying to win gotcha games that are, by their nature in our current media environment and given the essential bad faith of her opponent (and his party), fundamentally unwinnable.

Gotcha games equals telling the people who are thinking of voting for her what she intends to do in the 4 years ( or more ) she is in office.

Gotcha.

Her platform is that she is not Donald Trump.

That's good enough for me, I guess.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:02 pm Her platform is that she is not Donald Trump.

That's good enough for me, I guess.

"If for no other reason, I would like the ability to vote in 2028."

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:26 pm OK i'm waiting for a clear laid out policy plan - in depth platform with specifics on issues - and still nothing from Harris and Walz.

They are going to do this eventually right?
Otherwise they will not get my vote -- the anything but Trump won't cut it.

Policy?
Like I alluded to a couple of weeks ago, who needs policy when you have "light" and "hope" and "joy"?
Come on pdub! WHEN WE FIGHT, WE WIN!

Being more serious, I agree with you 100% that her website is weak - at best.
Dare I say I feel it's shameful?
Shit, now let that come back to haunt me when I learn it's someone I know who is running it. I sure hope not.
Hey, if all of these jobs are really available this close to the election, I have to figure something is really fucked up. If they have been filled, then why enable people to still apply for them?

https://kamalaharris.com/work-with-us/

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 2:44 pm Gotcha games equals telling the people who are thinking of voting for her what she intends to do in the 4 years ( or more ) she is in office.

Gotcha.

Yes, those are, in practical reality, gotcha games. You need look no further than the CNN interview last week - I believe that all but four questions were essentially Trump-side attack ads repurposed as questions?

Which of course is fair game, in a vacuum.

But it is not a game that the media makes Trump play in order to treat him seriously.

And so, I agree with you in a vacuum.

But not in this year's practical reality, where the networks hold the candidates to entirely different standards.

Overlander wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 2:13 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:52 pm This is based on Biden's policy.
What is hers?
Is it exactly what Biden intended to do? No one knows really.

Can she come out and lay this all out for us? If this is what she stands for, give us a good 2 hour interview deal where you state all this.

Why is a lighter version ( or hell, i'd prefer bulkier! ) of this not on your website?
Mark what you intend to do at least in pencil if not in ink.

You can make excuses all you want - I'm just telling you that I won't vote for them until they make it known, with some detail other than MOVE FORWARD etc, what they intend to do in their four years.

I expect they will and this will be moot ( and I have no issues at all voting that ticket - in fact, I want to - but let's be front and forward for what you stand for descriptively - not just big sweeping words that mean so little ). I just haven't seen it yet. The election is just over 2 months away so better sooner than latter.

Your vote is yours alone.

For me, if Kamala came out and said that ALL restrooms are going to be forced to have tampons, I will still enthusiastically vote for her.

If for no other reason, I would like the ability to vote in 2028.

Maybe you should change your vote then. Nobody voted for kamala as their presidential nominee in 2024

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:55 pm Maybe you should change your vote then. Nobody voted for kamala as their presidential nominee in 2024

Incorrect. About 81 million people did, in 2020.

randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 3:55 pm

Overlander wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 2:13 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:52 pm This is based on Biden's policy.
What is hers?
Is it exactly what Biden intended to do? No one knows really.

Can she come out and lay this all out for us? If this is what she stands for, give us a good 2 hour interview deal where you state all this.

Why is a lighter version ( or hell, i'd prefer bulkier! ) of this not on your website?
Mark what you intend to do at least in pencil if not in ink.

You can make excuses all you want - I'm just telling you that I won't vote for them until they make it known, with some detail other than MOVE FORWARD etc, what they intend to do in their four years.

I expect they will and this will be moot ( and I have no issues at all voting that ticket - in fact, I want to - but let's be front and forward for what you stand for descriptively - not just big sweeping words that mean so little ). I just haven't seen it yet. The election is just over 2 months away so better sooner than latter.

Your vote is yours alone.

For me, if Kamala came out and said that ALL restrooms are going to be forced to have tampons, I will still enthusiastically vote for her.

If for no other reason, I would like the ability to vote in 2028.

Maybe you should change your vote then. Nobody voted for kamala as their presidential nominee in 2024

Even in a sample size limited to you, this is a bad take. But it sounds clever, so.

Gutter at his worst there. Moving on, Harris has proposed to build an additional 3 million homes, end the Tax breaks for the richest one percent including the last Trump debacle. They are moving forward with reproductive and climate protections. The other policies like not implementing Project 2025 are especially important. All of the policy distraction is inexcusable coming from thinking people. Keeping healthcare depends on Harris winning. A functioning government.

Sparko wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:01 pm Gutter at his worst there. Moving on, Harris has proposed to build an additional 3 million homes, end the Tax breaks for the richest one percent including the last Trump debacle. They are moving forward with reproductive and climate protections. The other policies like not implementing Project 2025 are especially important. All of the policy distraction is inexcusable coming from thinking people. Keeping healthcare depends on Harris winning. A functioning government.

Hardly MY worse. I could be much worse.
Here is the thing, what I posted is hardly just me. There are Dems who are a whole lot smarter than I am that have similar sentiment.

As far as her website, do you really disagree with what I said? It's all right there - and not there.
Heck, at least Trump's website specifically lists his "platform/s". Sorry, I'm giving a +1 to Trump in that regard.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

PLEASE refer to the vice president as "Harris." It is generally considered demeaning to refer to women in still-typically-male jobs by their first names, while the men are referred to by their last names. I know her own party is messing this up too (or maybe they are trying to capitalize on her personable, relatable character).

This is a PSA. You can do what you want. I just wanted to point out that female-firstname, male-lastname was a thing.

• Picasso, Monet vs Georgia O'Keeffe, Frida Kahlo

• Lincoln, Churchhill vs Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel

• Shakespeare, Dickens vs Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf

• Darwin, Einstein vs Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin

You can have the men's names with the first names, but you very rarely hear the women's names without them being both first and last listed together.
In summary, calling her "Harris" gives her more stature.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:40 pm PLEASE refer to the vice president as "Harris." It is generally considered demeaning to refer to women in still-typically-male jobs by their first names, while the men are referred to by their last names. I know her own party is messing this up too (or maybe they are trying to capitalize on her personable, relatable character).

This is a PSA. You can do what you want. I just wanted to point out that female-firstname, male-lastname was a thing.

• Picasso, Monet vs Georgia O'Keeffe, Frida Kahlo

• Lincoln, Churchhill vs Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel

• Shakespeare, Dickens vs Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf

• Darwin, Einstein vs Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin

You can have the men's names with the first names, but you very rarely hear the women's names without them being both first and last listed together.
In summary, calling her "Harris" gives her more stature.

The campaign and her surrogates frequently refer to her as Kamala. I do think, as you note, it is quite intentional.

I agree with you 100% in principle - but it is clear that the campaign wants people to, as you allude to, be on a first name basis with the candidate.

comma’la is on the very short list for “worst presidential candidates in history.”

and it’s not really her fault. if you would have told her 60 days ago that she would be running for president, she would have laughed in your face.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 4:40 pm PLEASE refer to the vice president as "Harris." It is generally considered demeaning to refer to women in still-typically-male jobs by their first names, while the men are referred to by their last names. I know her own party is messing this up too (or maybe they are trying to capitalize on her personable, relatable character).

This is a PSA. You can do what you want. I just wanted to point out that female-firstname, male-lastname was a thing.

• Picasso, Monet vs Georgia O'Keeffe, Frida Kahlo

• Lincoln, Churchhill vs Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel

• Shakespeare, Dickens vs Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf

• Darwin, Einstein vs Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin

You can have the men's names with the first names, but you very rarely hear the women's names without them being both first and last listed together.
In summary, calling her "Harris" gives her more stature.

Interesting. I had no idea, and have been doing it (calling her by her first name) inadvertently.

Eh.
I call Pete Pete.
I call Klobuchar Klobuchar.
I call Bernie Bernie.

I’ll call Kamala Kamala.
( not comma’la )

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 5:51 pm I call Pete Pete.
I call Klobuchar Klobuchar.
I call Bernie Bernie.

Same