VP Harris mocked for being 'too scared' to do interview without Walz: 'She simply cannot be left unattended'

[jmotivator]

Ahhh....let's remember when a certain someone wanted to ban TikTok during their 2017-2020 tenure.

The plan wasn't to ban tiktok, but separate US tiktok from CCP controlled TikTok. Blocking the speech of the CCP is still questionable and I don't support it, but it is still quite different than wanting to block and regulate the speech of American citizens in America, which Kamala supports.

 

[Perotista]

Maybe, but if you look at your last link, Harris is still under polling compared to both Clinton and Biden on the same day during their campaigns.
This Day In History: September 3, 2020: Biden +7.2 | September 3, 2016: Clinton +3.9 Harris +1.8

Which is fine. But what we have today is a 50-50 race vs. one when it was Biden vs. Trump, Trump was ahead outside of the MOE threatening to lock it up early. Clinton was barely outside the MOE, she did however win the popular vote by 2.1 points. Not that it mattered. But the polls are all about the popular vote nationwide, not the electoral college.

What’s interesting about 2016 is the third-party vote back on 21 July was at 12%, the same as it was this year on the day Biden withdrew. Only in 2016 there were no replacements, the third party voted ended at 6.0% as a bit over 8 million voters voted against both Trump and Clinton. I was one of them. The third-party vote in 2020 was miniscule, it really didn’t apply ending up at a more normal 1.7% of the vote.

This year, if I were a democrat, I’d be extremely happy with Harris. The democratic share of the vote was at 39% with Biden, today it’s up to 48%. Third party vote is down from 12% to 2%, which simply means Harris garnered most of the double hater vote, those who disliked and didn’t want Trump nor Biden as the next president. It also means Biden was more disliked than Trump, but today, Harris is the less disliked candidate. Trump has improved from 44% vs. Biden to 46% vs. Harris rounding off.

Now that is all in the past. If I were a democrat, I’d be most happy with has taken place since 21 July. But at the same time, I would be very cautious, perhaps leery about the future. It’s no time to gloat, it’s still a 50-50 race. By the way, there was no convention bounce for Harris, no bounce for Trump once Kennedy withdrew either. His endorsement didn’t mean a thing. Endorsements rarely do.

I think the bottom line is we’re now down to 5-7% of voters who are in flux or haven’t made up their minds yet. That how they’ll vote will be based on their personal view of the candidates. Whether they like or dislike one or the other or which one they dislike the least. It’s getting down to that time. Perhaps the winner will be the candidate these last 5-7% decide which one they want to lose the least. We’ll see.

 

[trixare4kids]

Which is fine. But what we have today is a 50-50 race vs. one when it was Biden vs. Trump, Trump was ahead outside of the MOE threatening to lock it up early. Clinton was barely outside the MOE, she did however win the popular vote by 2.1 points. Not that it mattered. But the polls are all about the popular vote nationwide, not the electoral college.

What’s interesting about 2016 is the third-party vote back on 21 July was at 12%, the same as it was this year on the day Biden withdrew. Only in 2016 there were no replacements, the third party voted ended at 6.0% as a bit over 8 million voters voted against both Trump and Clinton. I was one of them. The third-party vote in 2020 was miniscule, it really didn’t apply ending up at a more normal 1.7% of the vote.

This year, if I were a democrat, I’d be extremely happy with Harris. The democratic share of the vote was at 39% with Biden, today it’s up to 48%. Third party vote is down from 12% to 2%, which simply means Harris garnered most of the double hater vote, those who disliked and didn’t want Trump nor Biden as the next president. It also means Biden was more disliked than Trump, but today, Harris is the less disliked candidate. Trump has improved from 44% vs. Biden to 46% vs. Harris rounding off.

Now that is all in the past. If I were a democrat, I’d be most happy with has taken place since 21 July. But at the same time, I would be very cautious, perhaps leery about the future. It’s no time to gloat, it’s still a 50-50 race. By the way, there was no convention bounce for Harris, no bounce for Trump once Kennedy withdrew either. His endorsement didn’t mean a thing. Endorsements rarely do.

I think the bottom line is we’re now down to 5-7% of voters who are in flux or haven’t made up their minds yet. That how they’ll vote will be based on their personal view of the candidates. Whether they like or dislike one or the other or which one they dislike the least. It’s getting down to that time. Perhaps the winner will be the candidate these last 5-7% decide which one they want to lose the least. We’ll see.

My point was to say that Kamala is under polling other presidential Democrats on this day in history. As you said, popular means nothing when the EC mean everything. Trump is leading in that direction according to Nate Silver as of a day or so ago. I don't know that much has changed as of today. Haven't looked yet.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The plan wasn't to ban tiktok, but separate US tiktok from CCP controlled TikTok. Blocking the speech of the CCP is still questionable and I don't support it, but it is still quite different than wanting to block and regulate the speech of American citizens in America, which Kamala supports.

No, the Trump administration initially stated it was considering a ban because TikTok was deemed it a national security threat. It was ByteDance who came up with the idea of selling some of TikTok to prevent the ban.

 

[quip]

What discussion. Refusing to respond to someone question is a "discussion"? I am seriously interested in how the minds of the extreme left operate when they assert that we should trust government.

Spare me your disingenuous claim for "understanding". With the false dichotomies you present, you're only here to parrot right-leaning politics.

Obama said this in his crappy speech at the convention. Kamal is saying this now that Twitter needs to monitor speech and didn't say what that meant. Other than hate speech and threats and calls for violence, what speech would you like the GOVERNMENT to ban?

In short, Irresponsible speech. Social media outlets cannot continued to be shielded by the current standards of section 230 and must be held to the same standards that print media and advertisers are currently held to.

 

[SuperDS77]

Spare me your disingenuous claim for "understanding". With the false dichotomies you present, you're only here to parrot right-leaning politics.

In short, Irresponsible speech. Social media outlets cannot continued to be shielded by the current standards of section 230 and must be held to the same standards that print media and advertisers are currently held to.

Who defines "irresponsible"?

 

[Paradoxical]

Spare me your disingenuous claim for "understanding". With the false dichotomies you present, you're only here to parrot right-leaning politics.

In short, Irresponsible speech. Social media outlets cannot continued to be shielded by the current standards of section 230 and must be held to the same standards that print media and advertisers are currently held to.

What is irresponsible speech?

 

[Perotista]

My point was to say that Kamala is under polling other presidential Democrats on this day in history. As you said, popular means nothing when the EC mean everything. Trump is leading in that direction according to Nate Silver as of a day or so ago. I don't know that much has changed as of today. Haven't looked yet.

Here’s Larry Sabato’s, 270 to win consensus electoral map which I agree with.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/consensus-2024-presidential-election-forecast

Here’s RCP’s which I think is at least for now a bit wrong. I’d have Virginia and New Hampshire going to Harris where RCP has them listed as tossups.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/toss-up/electoral-college

Here’s 538 map which I have Wisconsin and Michigan as tossups instead of going to Harris.

https://www.270towin.com/news/2024/...nches-harris-trump-general-election_1664.html

And 538 favored to win which I’d place as of today at 50-50.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[quip]

What is irresponsible speech?

Lies, untruths, cyber bullying, fake news....you get the picture

 

[quip]

Who defines "irresponsible"?

The respective social media outlets.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Did Joe Rogan ever get a degree? Or go to law school? Or get elected?

Nope, his is just an ignorant actor turned podcaster who is a conspiracy theorist and a really stupid person.

But you love him, dontcha?

And boy howdy does he ever love conspiracy theories....
And boy howdy do an awful lot of idiots on DP subscribe to his theories as if they are gospel truth.

 

[Paradoxical]

Lies, untruths, cyber bullying, fake news....you get the picture

No, I don't at all. who determines what are lies and bullying? A Truth Commission? The FBI? CISA?

 

[jmotivator]

No, the Trump administration initially stated it was considering a ban because TikTok was deemed it a national security threat. It was ByteDance who came up with the idea of selling some of TikTok to prevent the ban.

False. Trump's plan was to force a sale of TikTok US to a US investor and split it off of CCP controlled ByteDance.

It's the same thing that Biden just did a few months ago.

Reducing access for hostile foreign governments isn't the same as blocking Americans from access to Social Media because you don't like their politics or you want the government to control the message, which is what Kamala is suggesting when she says that we need to regulate speech.

 

[ElChupacabra]

False. Trump's plan was to force a sale of TikTok US to a US investor and split it off of CCP controlled ByteDance.

That's where they ended up.

It's the same thing that Biden just did a few months ago.

Yep, which is what came out of the initial threat to just ban TikTok.

Reducing access for hostile foreign governments isn't the same as blocking Americans from access to Social Media because you don't like their politics or you want the government to control the message, which is what Kamala is suggesting when she says that we need to regulate speech.

What if those foreign governments are trying to do exactly that through social media, which we know they're doing and investing in?

 

[quip]

No, I don't at all. who determines what are lies and bullying? A Truth Commission? The FBI? CISA?

Not who, but what.
Transparency

 

[jmotivator]

That's where they ended up.

LOL! It was the whole point of the exercise was to separate US TokTok from ByteDance.

I'm sorry the reality ****ed up you dumb analogy you were trying to build.

Yep, which is what came out of the initial threat to just ban TikTok.

Nope! The threat was always sell US TikTok or ban TikTok which is exactly the threat that carried over to the bill that Biden signed.

What if those foreign governments are trying to do exactly that through social media, which we know they're doing and investing in?

You seem to be having a problem with differentiating the speech of a foreign government and the speech of a US citizen.

 

[ElChupacabra]

LOL! It was the whole point of the exercise was to separate US TokTok from ByteDance.

I'm sorry the reality ****ed up you dumb analogy you were trying to build.

It wasn't at the beginning, and it's comical that you paint the outcome as the origin.

Nope! The threat was always sell US TikTok or ban TikTok which is exactly the threat that carried over to the bill that Biden signed.



You seem to be having a problem with differentiating the speech of a foreign government and the speech of a US citizen.

 

[Tangmo]

The plan wasn't to ban tiktok, but separate US tiktok from CCP controlled TikTok. Blocking the speech of the CCP is still questionable and I don't support it, but it is still quite different than wanting to block and regulate the speech of American citizens in America, which Kamala supports.

The massive, long term and daily lies of Trump and MAGA present a clear and present danger to The American Experiment in Democracy. They also amount to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. This includes false and malicious election denials and patently false accusations of fraud that are the permanent component of the wannabe dictatorship of Putin-MAGA-Trump and their self projected tyranny.

It's a long time and often used Trump-MAGA strategy to exploit democracy to destroy democracy. The J6 failed scheme to exploit the electoral vote in Congress is to date the ultimate of the Trump-MAGA central tenet to destroy democracy without firing a shot. The Supreme MAGA Court is yet another among many Trump-MAGA means to exploit democracy to destroy democracy.

Indeed, the First Amendment is not a suicide pact in the face of the relentless, numerous, prolific, domestic enemy who are statedly anti Constitution. People in the United States who have abandoned and rejected the Constitution have no claim to its faux defense when their central purpose and goal is to exploit democracy to destroy democracy.

You are not free to do this. Indeed, democracy has the inherent right to defend itself -- against all enemies foreign and domestic.

 

[Tangmo]

You seem to be having a problem with differentiating the speech of a foreign government and the speech of a US citizen.

US citizens are faithful supporters and defenders of the Constitution.

Trump-MAGAs are not.

Trump-MAGAs are announced and self proclaimed wannabe dictator tyrants. The Trump Supreme MAGA Court is enabling this to occur.

MAGAs luvit. They want lots more of it.

 

[Tangmo]

In short, Irresponsible speech. Social media outlets cannot continued to be shielded by the current standards of section 230 and must be held to the same standards that print media and advertisers are currently held to.

Amen.

 

[Tangmo]

Who defines "irresponsible"?

Who defines "responsible" vs "irresponsible" are not Putin-MAGA-Trump who hate the Constitution and have long rejected it in favor of their wanabe and self proclaimed dictatorship of unrelenting tyranny. MAGAs have self forfeit their citizenship since years past.

 

[Tangmo]

The respective social media outlets.

Self governance by private corporations and conglomerates doesn't work with eccentric and wackjob multi billionaires walking around throwing their rightwing and MAGA money into ownership and control. We need always to remember that it's the MAGAs to include the armband nutcakes who are restless, can't sit still and who are power mad driven.

 

[jmotivator]

US citizens are faithful supporters and defenders of the Constitution.

Trump-MAGAs are not.

Trump-MAGAs are announced and self proclaimed wannabe dictator tyrants. The Trump Supreme MAGA Court is enabling this to occur.

MAGAs luvit. They want lots more of it.

Well, if you want to prove your are a defender of the US Constitution, the way you DON'T do it is post idiotic rants like the one above.

 

[jmotivator]

The massive, long term and daily lies of Trump and MAGA present a clear and present danger to The American Experiment in Democracy. They also amount to shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. This includes false and malicious election denials and patently false accusations of fraud that are the permanent component of the wannabe dictatorship of Putin-MAGA-Trump and their self projected tyranny.

It's a long time and often used Trump-MAGA strategy to exploit democracy to destroy democracy. The J6 failed scheme to exploit the electoral vote in Congress is to date the ultimate of the Trump-MAGA central tenet to destroy democracy without firing a shot. The Supreme MAGA Court is yet another among many Trump-MAGA means to exploit democracy to destroy democracy.

Indeed, the First Amendment is not a suicide pact in the face of the relentless, numerous, prolific, domestic enemy who are statedly anti Constitution. People in the United States who have abandoned and rejected the Constitution have no claim to its faux defense when their central purpose and goal is to exploit democracy to destroy democracy.

You are not free to do this. Indeed, democracy has the inherent right to defend itself -- against all enemies foreign and domestic.

There is no "fire in a crowded theater" exception to the first Amendment, it's a tired claim made by people who want to undermine the first amendment.

America’s Favorite Flimsy Pretext for Limiting Free Speech

Accusing people of “shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater” isn’t sufficient grounds for regulating what they say.

www.theatlantic.com

Your argument doesn't get any more intelligent from there.

Trump isn't a dictator. The claim is hilarious given that it all started when idiots were up in arms over Trump's efforts to deregulate through Executive Orders. Removing the power of the government to regulate isn't the actions of a dictator. It's literally relinquishing the power of the state over the individual.

 

[Tangmo]

Well, if you want to prove your are a defender of the US Constitution, the way you DON'T do it is post idiotic rants like the one above.

Putin said.