Kamala Harris considering taking down Trump for 2020 election

[MonkParticipant 17047]

Knights Templar Rising wrote:

No woman is getting elected president. Even women know that other women are overly emotional.

That is exactly why the globalists want a woman as a front monkey.

– insanely ambitious, will do whatever is required of her. No moral compass at all.
– ignores facts and runs purely on feelz.

[Anonymous 14]

Faust For Science wrote:

THX 1138 wrote:

Trump appointed all the same old swamp keepers as had been there before.

Which ones? Come on. Name names.

Bannon, Mnuchin, Cohn, Clayton, Powell, Donovan, basically Goldman Sachs, after he said if Clinton wins Wall Street Bankers would still be running the show as did with Obama.

List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration

Bolton #1 biggest joke appointment of Trump’s administration when considering Trump’s stance while campaigning. Trump is just going to be a failed, even more pro-Israel version of Obama. The only reason why he get’s more pushback is because the powers that be want all of the West, except Israel, to move Left/Open Borders.

Same guys who gave us Obama.

People who have even the slightest clue just call it Government Sachs now, clearly you are one void of such clue Faust.

[anonymousyamParticipant 4605]

TPSTroy wrote:

What’s your take on this.

That if she gets through the Democratic primary that Trump would be getting another 4 years in office as she is basically a worse version of Obama picked solely for Identity especially with her announcement video which ignores all Politics and sticks to the usual cliches (freedom democracy etc).

No woman is getting elected president. Even women know that other women are overly emotional.

No i would not state that has the future could easily prove you wrong (even thou i personally would not care for a Woman to be President). This is akin to stating back in 1948 that no Black Man would ever be elected President as we all know their nature and then 60 years later Obama get’s elected President.

Hey Blade, yea the Marxist Ocasio-Cortez and extremists like her in both parties are on the rise

For you i have agree with some general points and disagree on the others this is where i find you full of s~~~ as Social Democrats are not Marxists nor really even Extremists. Their Policies have been in place in many European Nations and have worked aside from Immigration and Feminism and they are not akin to the Soviet Union even if you disagree on the Policies (it is akin to if i tied all somewhat right wingers to Mussolini or Pinochet).

narwhal wrote:

So far, he’s reduced taxes, reduced regulations, appointed conservative judges, and removed the mandate for Obamacare, off the top of my head

Which is typical Conservative party line Policies since Ronald Reagan and nothing new but these Policies are not even all that great, reducing taxes means Socialism for the rich to enable CEO’s (not the Working class) to have more stock buybacks or to increase CEO salary while increasing the deficit while cutting revenue. Reducing Regulations hurts the Climate and the Working class especially with Conservatives doing so (it is not like a Social Democrat who would cut unneeded Regulations but keep or improve on the rest). Appointed a Judge who was fine with spying and committing Pejury alongside his accusations despite Trump of accusing People without evidence of being Rapists.

And Trump did not replace Obamacare with a Single payer Healthcare system like he stated he wanted the Government to cover everyone.

Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.

[TwistParticipant]

Faust For Science wrote:

Except the promises he did keep that you ignore.

He’s doing pretty good on the judiciary promises. That alone makes it a success from my viewpoint.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

As a California resident, I feel like I must apologize to the nation on behalf of those of us who believe the federal government should be fiscally responsible. I’m sorry that Nancy Pelosi in is back in power and Kamala Harris—with two years of work experience in Congress—is one of the leading presidential candidates for the Democratic party.

California has recently gone “blue.” VERY blue! That’s how a former mayor of the s~~~ty streets of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, got to be our governor—and he’s hell bent on bankrupting our state with a universal health care program that would be available to both residents and illegal aliens. And Kamala Harris, who claims she wants to cut taxes for middle-class Americans, is proposing to do what President Obama couldn’t do: create a Medicare for all program. Do the math: you can’t possibly lower income taxes for any American if you introduce a trillion dollar universal health care program for over 300,000,000 citizens!

And here’s the icing on the cake: our Hollywood celebrities and tech CEOs will gleefully spend millions of dollars to promote Senator Harris and anyone who will promote Democratic/progressive/liberal ideas to the nation. THEY LOVE INCOME & CORPORATE TAXES! They self-flagellate with their tax whips daily. I really don’t understand why rich people would want 50% to 70% of their income to be spent by irresponsible politicians who can’t balance a budget. They could do more good for the poor with higher wages for their employees and donations to charities.

In California, an illegal alien can send their kids to public schools (education is our biggest expense—even the California lottery only pays for a small fraction of it!), get on the WIC program (free food & healthcare for their children), and hide from ICE officials with the help of politicians like Libby Schaaf (Oakland mayor). Many California politicians will go out of their way to provide “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens. They seem to delight in thwarting the mission of federal immigration agents. They are aware that illegal immigration is a federal crime, and so is hiring an illegal alien, but they don’t care! California has earned a nickname from many Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians that live here: The People’s Republic of California. We are the state of “the people.” And our well-intentioned government policies will lead to unbridled spending that will surely bankrupt the state and cause massive starvation—just like the People’s Republic of China in the 20th Century. Just look at our homeless population as a sign of things to come.

I find it ironic that my state, which wants to act independently from the authority of Washington D.C., is sending a presidential candidate to that territory. Senator Harris will need a lot of luck, and a lot of donations, if she hopes to beat President Trump—who has kept many of his campaign promises (unlike most politicians) and is presiding over a period of economic prosperity. Can she offer a better deal than the one we already have?

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[TaxGuyParticipant]

FunInTheSun wrote:

And Kamala Harris, who claims she wants to cut taxes for middle-class Americans, is proposing to do what President Obama couldn’t do: create a Medicare for all program. Do the math: you can’t possibly lower income taxes for any American if you introduce a trillion dollar universal health care program for over 300,000,000 citizens!

I have a question about Medicare for all. Why couldn’t you just give employers the option of buying into Medicare vs. a for profit plan from an insurance company, and there were say 3 options of varying degrees of coverage? Let the for profits compete with the Medicare plan? I would think that eventually the Medicare system would win out if the government could be smart about their pricing. Hell they could even make some money and still undercut them, because the government doesn’t pay taxes to itself. The insurance companies would be reduced to providing supplemental insurance policies.

Order the good wine

[narwhalParticipant]

TaxGuy wrote:

I have a question about Medicare for all. Why couldn’t you just give employers the option of buying into Medicare vs. a for profit plan from an insurance company, and there were say 3 options of varying degrees of coverage? Let the for profits compete with the Medicare plan? I would think that eventually the Medicare system would win out if the government could be smart about their pricing. Hell they could even make some money and still undercut them, because the government doesn’t pay taxes to itself. The insurance companies would be reduced to providing supplemental insurance policies.

I could be getting this completely wrong, confusing medicare with medicad and all that, but my understand that seniors on medicare will usually get secondary coverage to cover everything the government won’t.

Really the best way to resolve medical expense issues is to make it illegal for corporations to provide medical insurance for employees. This practice is what started the destruction of a free market med insurance system. Take that away and customers start looking for good deals that fit their needs again, and insurance companies have to compete for business instead of buying them in blocks. And of course, you have to remove regulations that interfere with the free market but don’t provide life saving protections to consumers (such as pre-existing conditions). This huge mess of capitalism and socialism clearly isn’t working.

Ok. Then do it.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

I could be getting this completely wrong, confusing medicare with medicad and all that, but my understand that seniors on medicare will usually get secondary coverage to cover everything the government won’t.

Yup. My parents are on Medicare insurance and pay a couple hundred a month for the secondary coverage to an insurance company. With that combination they seem to get pretty darn good care. My dad had a heart issue a couple of years ago. Lifeflight to a bigger city and about a week of hospital stay. About $500k in bills and they paid less than $1,000 of it.

narwhal wrote:

Really the best way to resolve medical expense issues is to make it illegal for corporations to provide medical insurance for employees. This practice is what started the destruction of a free market med insurance system. Take that away and customers start looking for good deals that fit their needs again, and insurance companies have to compete for business instead of buying them in blocks.

Yeah, I know my company looks more at the cost of the insurance and not what is best for me personally. And the insurance companies make them buy from only one of them, so they “compete” but its’ a joke.

Order the good wine

[Author]

Posts