The state of the Presidential race: Kamala slightly ahead in North Carolina

[Patented Phil 1,106]

 

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes. And the problem is that both of those ideas are nowhere near the anathema to free market capitalism that tariffs are or controls on free migration. Compared to these two ideas which have taken over the Republican Party, what you’re talking about is minor. 

You act like Kameltoe is far Tight on free trade and tariffs.  She’s not.  Good article in The NY Times:
 

With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”

But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.

William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”

In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”

Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.

While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”

Her skepticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was also partially related to its impact on the environment. She expressed concerns in an interview that it might undermine California’s environmental laws. As a senator, Ms. Harris also sponsored the Green New Deal, an expansive set of policies aimed at addressing climate change.

That has given rise to speculation among trade experts that, if elected, Ms. Harris might lean more on trade as a tool to fight climate change — for example, by striking more limited deals that encourage trade in cleaner products and raise barriers for trade in dirtier ones.

“A Harris presidency would continue and build upon Biden’s trade policy,” said Todd Tucker, the director of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy and research organization. “Where I would expect to see Harris go even further than Biden is on integrating trade and climate policy.”

Politicians have only recently turned to trade policy as a tool to fight climate change, and not much has yet been accomplished in the area. But it is an approach that is gathering support.

In negotiations with the European Union, the Biden administration pushed for trade measures that would encourage makers of steel and aluminum in Europe and the United States to cut carbon emissions. While those talks have faltered, they could be a model for more actions under a Harris administration, trade analysts said.

Greta Peisch, a former trade official with the Biden administration who is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, said that the Biden administration had been on the cusp of pushing the United States to use trade tools to address climate change. “With the Harris administration, that would be a trajectory that she would be on as well,” she said.

Ms. Peisch added that Ms. Harris could also potentially push forward nascent policies addressing how the United States should work with foreign countries to regulate digital trade. Ms. Harris is familiar with the tech industry from her time in office in California, she said, and could help to set the agenda for how tech issues like artificial intelligence and privacy regulation factor into trade negotiations.

Both Republicans and Democrats have adopted more protectionist stances on trade in recent years, moving away from a time when “free trade” was often an unquestioned pursuit for many politicians. While the Trump administration imposed large tariffs on foreign products in an effort to gain leverage and renegotiate trade deals, the Biden administration has declined to pursue traditional free-trade agreements, instead focusing on domestic investments and other kinds of international partnerships.

Many Democrats now view free trade deals as a reason that American companies have shipped jobs overseas — a view that seems likely to carry into another Democratic administration. Ms. Harris has emphasized reorienting U.S. trade policy to prioritize the impact on American workers, rather than big companies that would prefer to cut costs by outsourcing jobs.

She has also taken a more critical stance against China in her appearances as vice president and her voting record as a senator. And she has denounced the Trump administration’s more aggressive and broad-brush approach to dealing with trade partners, describing the tariffs on China as a tax for American consumers.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Ms. Harris described Mr. Trump’s trade policy toward China as erratic and full of bluster. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” she said. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.”

Mr. Biden was also critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs during that campaign. Once in office, however, the Biden administration ultimately chose to maintain Mr. Trump’s China tariffs and recently added some new ones, saying they were necessary to prevent cheap foreign products from flooding the United States and protect new factories that have received federal funding.

Mr. Trump has upped the ante in his current campaign for president, proposing tariffs on most foreign goods and floating a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China. The Biden administration has said that level of tariffs could damage the U.S. economy, widen the gap between the rich and poor and spark global trade wars that would hurt U.S. exporters.

In her role as vice president, Ms. Harris took part in the administration’s push to lessen the dependence of supply chains on China, including by promoting new partnerships for apparel manufacturing in Central America. In speeches, she often took a hard line on China, rebuking the country during two trips to Asia for its maritime clashes with countries like Japan and the Philippines.

As a senator, she condemned the persecution of Uyghur and minority women in western China and sponsored a bill by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses in the region. She was also a sponsor of Mr. Rubio’s Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which was a response to China’s increasing control over the former British territory.

“They steal our products, including our intellectual property,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 debate. “They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents."

[squistion 1,396]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

By the way only yesterday your guy Trump called Kamala a liar for suggesting that tariffs are a tax on the a American consumer- he stated his belief that tariffs are paid by other countries and make us richer and lowers inflation. 
 

Now I don’t think he is lying about this. I think he truly believes this nonsense. I think his economic knowledge is just about zero and without the guardrails he had last time he will do for our economy what he did for his various businesses over the years: namely drive us into bankruptcy. Those new tariffs will be catastrophic and you as a capitalist should know that. 

Which is why he failed miserabley at every business venture he has tried. 

[Patented Phil 1,106]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

By the way @Patented Phil only yesterday your guy Trump called Kamala a liar for suggesting that tariffs are a tax on the a American consumer- he stated his belief that tariffs are paid by other countries and make us richer and lowers inflation. 
 

Now I don’t think he is lying about this. I think he truly believes this nonsense. I think his economic knowledge is just about zero and without the guardrails he had last time he will do for our economy what he did for his various businesses over the years: namely drive us into bankruptcy. Those new tariffs will be catastrophic and you as a capitalist should know that. 

He knows economics Tim.  He went to Wharton for crying out loud.  And he spent his entire life running companies.  He has played in tariffs a little too much for my liking, but he knows what they are and how they work.  Technically they are not a tax.  Kamala has equally lied by calling them that.  The net effect on consumers?  Probably $1,400 per family per year - not the $3,900 that Kameltoe projects.

Look - there’s a time and a place for tariffs.  Adam Smith even said so.  But they shouldn’t be longterm policy.  I am hoping that Trump will course correct on this front if elected.  Right now I think he’s just speaking to his base on the issue.

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

 

You act like Kameltoe is far Tight on free trade and tariffs.  She’s not.  Good article in The NY Times:
 

With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”

But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.

William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”

In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”

Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.

While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”

Her skepticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was also partially related to its impact on the environment. She expressed concerns in an interview that it might undermine California’s environmental laws. As a senator, Ms. Harris also sponsored the Green New Deal, an expansive set of policies aimed at addressing climate change.

That has given rise to speculation among trade experts that, if elected, Ms. Harris might lean more on trade as a tool to fight climate change — for example, by striking more limited deals that encourage trade in cleaner products and raise barriers for trade in dirtier ones.

“A Harris presidency would continue and build upon Biden’s trade policy,” said Todd Tucker, the director of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy and research organization. “Where I would expect to see Harris go even further than Biden is on integrating trade and climate policy.”

Politicians have only recently turned to trade policy as a tool to fight climate change, and not much has yet been accomplished in the area. But it is an approach that is gathering support.

In negotiations with the European Union, the Biden administration pushed for trade measures that would encourage makers of steel and aluminum in Europe and the United States to cut carbon emissions. While those talks have faltered, they could be a model for more actions under a Harris administration, trade analysts said.

Greta Peisch, a former trade official with the Biden administration who is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, said that the Biden administration had been on the cusp of pushing the United States to use trade tools to address climate change. “With the Harris administration, that would be a trajectory that she would be on as well,” she said.

Ms. Peisch added that Ms. Harris could also potentially push forward nascent policies addressing how the United States should work with foreign countries to regulate digital trade. Ms. Harris is familiar with the tech industry from her time in office in California, she said, and could help to set the agenda for how tech issues like artificial intelligence and privacy regulation factor into trade negotiations.

Both Republicans and Democrats have adopted more protectionist stances on trade in recent years, moving away from a time when “free trade” was often an unquestioned pursuit for many politicians. While the Trump administration imposed large tariffs on foreign products in an effort to gain leverage and renegotiate trade deals, the Biden administration has declined to pursue traditional free-trade agreements, instead focusing on domestic investments and other kinds of international partnerships.

Many Democrats now view free trade deals as a reason that American companies have shipped jobs overseas — a view that seems likely to carry into another Democratic administration. Ms. Harris has emphasized reorienting U.S. trade policy to prioritize the impact on American workers, rather than big companies that would prefer to cut costs by outsourcing jobs.

She has also taken a more critical stance against China in her appearances as vice president and her voting record as a senator. And she has denounced the Trump administration’s more aggressive and broad-brush approach to dealing with trade partners, describing the tariffs on China as a tax for American consumers.

In a 2019 presidential debate, Ms. Harris described Mr. Trump’s trade policy toward China as erratic and full of bluster. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” she said. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.”

Mr. Biden was also critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs during that campaign. Once in office, however, the Biden administration ultimately chose to maintain Mr. Trump’s China tariffs and recently added some new ones, saying they were necessary to prevent cheap foreign products from flooding the United States and protect new factories that have received federal funding.

Mr. Trump has upped the ante in his current campaign for president, proposing tariffs on most foreign goods and floating a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China. The Biden administration has said that level of tariffs could damage the U.S. economy, widen the gap between the rich and poor and spark global trade wars that would hurt U.S. exporters.

In her role as vice president, Ms. Harris took part in the administration’s push to lessen the dependence of supply chains on China, including by promoting new partnerships for apparel manufacturing in Central America. In speeches, she often took a hard line on China, rebuking the country during two trips to Asia for its maritime clashes with countries like Japan and the Philippines.

As a senator, she condemned the persecution of Uyghur and minority women in western China and sponsored a bill by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses in the region. She was also a sponsor of Mr. Rubio’s Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which was a response to China’s increasing control over the former British territory.

“They steal our products, including our intellectual property,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 debate. “They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents."

You’re absolutely right. She’s skeptical of free trade, she will continue Biden’s policies. Too bad. 
 

I would prefer a free trader. There isn’t one. But Kamala won’t put a 20% tariff on all imports and 60-% on China. Trump will. That makes Kamala far preferable- in fact it isn’t close. 

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

He knows economics Tim.  He went to Wharton for crying out loud.  And he spent his entire life running companies.  He has played in tariffs a little too much for my liking, but he knows what they are and how they work.  Technically they are not a tax.  Kamala has equally lied by calling them that.  The net effect on consumers?  Probably $1,400 per family per year - not the $3,900 that Kameltoe projects.

Look - there’s a time and a place for tariffs.  Adam Smith even said so.  But they shouldn’t be longterm policy.  I am hoping that Trump will course correct on this front if elected.  Right now I think he’s just speaking to his base on the issue.

They are absolutely a tax. And you still don’t get that Trump is going to take them to catastrophic levels. He’s going to crash the plane. 

[Patented Phil 1,106]

8 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

They are absolutely a tax. And you still don’t get that Trump is going to take them to catastrophic levels. He’s going to crash the plane. 

Wrong.  They are technically NOT a tax.  They may be analogous to a tax in their downstream effect on consumers, but they are most definitely NOT a tax.  Not in the accounting, and not in the statutes, regulations, or codes.

[seafoam1 2,358]

54 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

They are absolutely a tax. And you still don’t get that Trump is going to take them to catastrophic levels. He’s going to crash the plane. 

Troll. 

[MDC 6,421]

2 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

Troll. 

Good lord  

[seafoam1 2,358]

36 minutes ago, MDC said:

Good lord  

Good lord. 

[RLLD 3,775]

3 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

Wrong.  They are technically NOT a tax.  They may be analogous to a tax in their downstream effect on consumers, but they are most definitely NOT a tax.  Not in the accounting, and not in the statutes, regulations, or codes.

Correct! Someone took Econ.....

[Hardcore troubadour 13,624]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Good lord  

Good lord

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,874]

5 hours ago, squistion said:

Which is why he failed miserabley at every business venture he has tried. 

5 bks in 500 companies and a billionaire.  Every businessman would be ecstatic to fail so miserably 

you are a complete tool

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Correct! Someone took Econ.....

Not any good kind of Econ: 

https://www.trade.gov/import-tariffs-fees-overview-and-resources#:~:text=A tariff or duty (the,different products by different countries.

A tariff is a tax. Not technically otherwise. It’s a tax period. 

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

5 bks in 500 companies and a billionaire.  Every businessman would be ecstatic to fail so miserably 

you are a complete tool

PT Barnum told us that people like you are born every minute….

[squistion 1,396]

From the Twitters:

The @realDonaldTrump team are saying that every candidate gets a post convention polling bump averaging 2 to 5 points & that @KamalaHarris' bump will be small & temporary.

Interesting fact, Trump didn't get a polling bump at all after his convention.

[seafoam1 2,358]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Not any good kind of Econ: 

https://www.trade.gov/import-tariffs-fees-overview-and-resources#:~:text=A tariff or duty (the,different products by different countries.

A tariff is a tax. Not technically otherwise. It’s a tax period. 

Dude, you lost. Give it up. 

[Patented Phil 1,106]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Not any good kind of Econ: 

https://www.trade.gov/import-tariffs-fees-overview-and-resources#:~:text=A tariff or duty (the,different products by different countries.

A tariff is a tax. Not technically otherwise. It’s a tax period. 

Intellectual laziness… if tariffs and taxes were the same thing there wouldn’t be a need for different words.  As previously stated, they appear in entirely different sections of the US Code.  Even conceptually they are entirely different animals:

Key Differences Between Tax and Tariff

• Purpose: Taxes primarily fund government expenditure, while tariffs regulate international trade.

• Scope: Taxes apply to domestic transactions and income, whereas tariffs affect imports and exports.

• Revenue Generation: Taxes generate revenue for the government, while tariffs may generate revenue or protect domestic industries.

• Impact: Taxes redistribute wealth and influence economic behavior, while tariffs impact the cost and availability of imported goods.

• Administration: Taxes are administered by government agencies, while tariffs involve customs authorities and international trade organizations.

 

[seafoam1 2,358]

Timmy is getting his ass kicked. Again. 

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

17 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Intellectual laziness… if tariffs and taxes were the same thing there wouldn’t be a need for different words.  As previously stated, they appear in entirely different sections of the US Code.  Even conceptually they are entirely different animals:

Key Differences Between Tax and Tariff

• Purpose: Taxes primarily fund government expenditure, while tariffs regulate international trade.

• Scope: Taxes apply to domestic transactions and income, whereas tariffs affect imports and exports.

• Revenue Generation: Taxes generate revenue for the government, while tariffs may generate revenue or protect domestic industries.

• Impact: Taxes redistribute wealth and influence economic behavior, while tariffs impact the cost and availability of imported goods.

• Administration: Taxes are administered by government agencies, while tariffs involve customs authorities and international trade organizations.

 

Did you actually read these differences and absorb them? Truly? And do you think they’re going to make any difference to the consumer who goes to a store and discovers, thanks to Donald Trump, a 20% markup on half the goods he purchases? “Don’t worry about it Mrs Suburban Mom, @Patented Phil says it’s not a tax!” 
 

 

[Mike Hunt 157]

Saw last night that Cornel West might be on the Michigan ballot for POTUS and trying to get on other states.   That will upset the apple cart. 

The DNC is trying to kibosh West from running or being on ballots.

[Maximum Overkill 1,134]

 

 

[Patented Phil 1,106]

12 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Did you actually read these differences and absorb them? Truly? And do you think they’re going to make any difference to the consumer who goes to a store and discovers, thanks to Donald Trump, a 20% markup on half the goods he purchases? “Don’t worry about it Mrs Suburban Mom, @Patented Phil says it’s not a tax!” 
 

 

I think she’d be more concerned that everything is locked up because of all the decriminalized shoplifting.  But I digress.

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

Latest national poll: Harris by 7 (and its prior to her speech). 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4846433-harris-leading-trump-by-7-points-poll/amp/

There’s a number hidden in this poll that cracks me up: among voters that identify as “MAGA” (perhaps around 20 million people in this country, possibly more), they prefer Trump to Harris 95% to 5%. Which makes sense, obviously. Except: who are the million MAGA folks who are planning to vote for Kamala Harris???

[Fireballer 2,543]

48 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

I think she’d be more concerned that everything is locked up because of all the decriminalized shoplifting.  But I digress.

How can anyone believe that a society will prosper by doing shat like this?  There not a single positive to letting people steal shat.  And now all the racist stores are closing in their neighborhoods.  

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

9 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

How can anyone believe that a society will prosper by doing shat like this?  There not a single positive to letting people steal shat.  And now all the racist stores are closing in their neighborhoods.  

Why do you believe lies? Sam Francisco has never decriminalized shoplifting. What they did is make shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor rather than a felony. That’s basically for processing, a way to move the courts along and save the taxpayer money. It’s not like someone who shoplifts that amount is going to prison anyhow so why should it be a felony subject to the three strikes law, forcing trials, etc. The whole thing makes sense and Trump over again simply lied about it. You were suckered. Again. 
 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-misleads-about-a-2014-california-crim/

 

ETA he also lied about Kamala’s role which was minimal in this case. 

[seafoam1 2,358]

30 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Why do you believe lies?

No one believes the kameltoe's and creepy joe's lies except you libtards. 

[squistion 1,396]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Why do you believe lies? San Francisco has never decriminalized shoplifting. What they did is make shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor rather than a felony. That’s basically for processing, a way to move the courts along and save the taxpayer money. It’s not like someone who shoplifts that amount is going to prison anyhow so why should it be a felony subject to the three strikes law, forcing trials, etc. The whole thing makes sense and Trump over again simply lied about it. You were suckered. Again. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-misleads-about-a-2014-california-crim/

ETA he also lied about Kamala’s role which was minimal in this case. 

They keep repeating this lie no matter how many times it has been debunked with the facts. 

[seafoam1 2,358]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

They keep repeating this lie no matter how many times it has been debunked with the facts. 

Liberals are really stupid. 

[HellToupee 1,048]

23 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006

Nice guy that came down with a severe case of TDS . A very severe case. 

[HellToupee 1,048]

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

They keep repeating this lie no matter how many times it has been debunked with the facts. 

I guess it’s like fine person both sides and losers & suckers

[HellToupee 1,048]

54 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sam Francisco has never decriminalized shoplifting. What they did is make shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor rather than a felony. That’s basically for processing,

It’s a great example of the law of unintended consequences 

[squistion 1,396]

Trump was "sort of nice" to Obama? 

Yeah, really nice, outside of accusing him of being a Kenyan Muslim interloper with a forged US birth certificate.

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1827135454979747903 (video clip from Glendale AZ rally)

Trump: Barack Hussein Obama. He was nasty to me. Michelle was nasty. They are all nasty. I was surprised, I was sort of nice to him.. it didn’t matter

[seafoam1 2,358]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:51 PM, BeachGuy23 said:

You're a coward.  You made a claim.  Are you too dumb or scared to provide support for that claim. 

This deflection of yours is tiresome but I get that I called you out on your ridiculous hyperbole and now you're embarrassed.  I embarrass you quite a bit boyo.

You're just not smart but you were a salesman...LOLOLOLOLOL

pimpledoosh #49 has entered the room. 

[squistion 1,396]

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1827650919497961870

BREAKING:

According to a new memo, the Harris-Walz campaign has raised $540 million just since Harris took over — a record for any campaign in history.

Since the start of the DNC, volunteers have signed up for nearly 200,000 shifts — including 90,000 shift sign-ups just from Thursday and Friday alone. 

Immediately after the Vice President's DNC speech, the campaign says it had its best fundraising hour since launch day.

 

[seafoam1 2,358]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1827650919497961870

BREAKING:

According to a new memo, the Harris-Walz campaign has raised $540 million just since Harris took over — a record for any campaign in history.

Since the start of the DNC, volunteers have signed up for nearly 200,000 shifts — including 90,000 shift sign-ups just from Thursday and Friday alone. 

Immediately after the Vice President's DNC speech, the campaign says it had its best fundraising hour since launch day.

 

Liberals wasting their money gives squiddy the happy dance. Next up he'll donate again to the BLM scammer fund. 

[Fireballer 2,543]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Why do you believe lies? Sam Francisco has never decriminalized shoplifting. What they did is make shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor rather than a felony. That’s basically for processing, a way to move the courts along and save the taxpayer money. It’s not like someone who shoplifts that amount is going to prison anyhow so why should it be a felony subject to the three strikes law, forcing trials, etc. The whole thing makes sense and Trump over again simply lied about it. You were suckered. Again. 
 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-misleads-about-a-2014-california-crim/

 

ETA he also lied about Kamala’s role which was minimal in this case. 

Worthless post from someone who doesn’t understand the justice system.  

[Patented Phil 1,106]

3 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Worthless post from someone who doesn’t understand the justice system.  

One of the most despicable posts he’s ever made in here.  Imagine defending that policy.  Shameful.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,624]

Oh, so shoplifting/ looting stores hasn’t increased in California after that law was passed? 

[The Real timschochet 4,624]

1 hour ago, Patented Phil said:

One of the most despicable posts he’s ever made in here.  Imagine defending that policy.  Shameful.

Really? What exactly did I get factually wrong? And did Trump lie? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,874]

19 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

PT Barnum told us that people like you are born every minute….

So you really think there isn’t a businessman alive who would take 5 bks in 500 companies ad be a billionaire?? Cool story. What fantasy world do you live in