Conservatives Roast Kamala Harris for Three-Plus Minute ‘Filibuster’ Answer on Lowering Prices
Conservatives Roast Kamala Harris for Three-Plus Minute ‘Filibuster’ Answer on Lowering Prices
Vice President Kamala Harris's first solo interview since becoming the Democratic Party's presidential nominee provided new material for her critics.
You're viewing a single thread.
And this is why Kamala would have never won a primary and has given exactly one unscripted interview since being handed the nomination without the public's say
The question was asking for specific ways she would lower prices 🙃
She has no platform, other than vague "read into what you want" platitudes and serving corporate donors
Make sure to vote for Harris though because Trump.
A person can find legit criticisms, but a 50k tax credit for small businesses is not serving corporations. Neither really is expanding the child tax credit or down payment assistance for first time homebuyers.
If you're going to criticize someone, make it factual, eh?
As a candidate, she can't just come out and say it's already being worked on. It's already in the news anyway. Any answer here would have been attacked in the same way.
"The FTC already has cases against some of the largest corporate monopolies in this country"
"We're investigating collusion of the largest conglomerate companies producing our food staples."
"The companies who are raising these prices are using anti-competitive measures to ensure prices stay inflated, and we're already working to ensure this stops."
All of these answers are exactly things that have been said before, and nobody cares. It does move the needle. She is giving answers that will hopefully move the needle. This is politicking on a national level, not a town hall.
Did you watch the clip of her answer? https://x.com/PatTheSocialist/status/1834812242937643081
Yes, but my response still explains whatever untoward thing you think is happening.
I'm going to say something that I don't mean to be dismissive or insulting to you, because you and I exchanged words plenty around here, and I like that you bring some non-echoey content around. I appreciate you for that...but...
You can't expect any real candidates who want to win to be an open book. This is US politics. Even the people you may find to be a moral center on some issues will still have to fudge the facts or give non-answers that ramble on in order to appeal to an absolutely monumental widening gap of groups of people who are becoming more and more siloed off in their beliefs and stances. Just because Harris is better than Trump, you can't expect to get all the other bullshit out of the way and get an open book candidate. Any person running who claims to be totally truthful is lying, and anyone who thinks they are the best of the best is an idiot. The appeal needs to be for the widest audience you can muster, or it's over.
Not every meal you eat is going to the best, or even better than the last, but you'll deal. At this point in time in the election arena, Harris is what we have against a terrible, terrible alternative.
And when the next "Trump" runs in 2028 and we get told again "stop demanding things from politicians, just vote to stop the Republicans again"...? And on and on and on
Same situation in the future. Unless there are norms put into place by law, apparently they will not be followed. Dems have been trying to do so, and consistently shut down by the far-right influence. If the polls are correct, then maybe Dems sweep this election and can actually do something about the future.
If anything, the US is moving towards a need for more representation in their groups, so maybe that makes other parties more viable for the future.
life is like a hotdog
you could eat it as it comes plain and dry
or you could eat a hot dog that is full of toppings and substance
we don't have to choose between two plain hotdogs if we do not want to and that is what the US citizens have chosen to do every election since forever
plain dry propaganda hotdog is not all there is even if the Democrats and Republicans keep telling us otherwise
When one hot dog is poisoned and there is a gun to your head, I'd say you do have to make a choice.
then that is not democracy but fascism both ways
No. I think your understanding of what fascism is may be misunderstood or completely off. I'd love to hear in what ways you think this is fascism though. Perhaps you mean favoritism.
This poster uses an interesting analogy, but still misses the point. Let me spell it out clearly for you, dear reader.
Let's start off with the scenario. No. You're not picking which hotdog you're going to eat. You're at a picnic dinner, and the organisers have suggested that everyone has a voice in what's to eat. But they have made a rule! For economies of scale, you aren't going to get your own personal choice of food. They're not going to let you request a gourmet hotdog with all the fixings while everyone else orders regular hotdogs. Everyone's going to get the same food to eat, but a majority vote will decide what is eaten by everyone! So, let's start with a variation of my favourite example, but use the above scenario. There are 100 people and they are deciding what the main meal for the picnic will be.
You, of course, have the power to say "I want a gourmet hotdog with all the toppings," but they note that your writein is different than "hotdogs on buns." So, imagine your picnic has 51 people who want some variation on hotdogs, and 49 people who want some variations on Hamburgers. And a dude dressed up as a green banana starts screaming "we should order exactly what we want!" and convinces you and one other person to vote for your speciality hotdog dish. Meanwhile, a dude with a really badly combed over orange toupee tells the other side "hey, the hotdog lovers are gonna split their vote. I know you all want different types of hamburgers, but if we all vote for one type of hamburger, we got this!"
Result? You vote for gourmet hotdog, the green banana guy votes for hotdog with sliced bananas, and a third guy votes for just the hotdog itself, no bun, and 48 other people vote hotdogs with mayo and mustard. All 49 of the hamburger guys, led by orange toupee man, vote for hamburgers. The final vote is 49 Hamburgers, 48 Hotdogs, and one each of three different hotdog variations. And because Green Banana Man convinced you to stand up for your rights to order exactly what you want rather than voting strategically, the 51 people who were the majority are forced to eat hamburgers because thems the rules.
We're doing the exact same thing when we vote in the USA (unless you live in Maine or Alaska -- more on them later). Your vote for Jill Stein or Cornel West or whoever can result in your 100 person picnic getting Donald Trump, and won't move the needle if any more than 1 person wants something else (yes, you'd literally have to get 50 people to vote gourmet hotdog if you want to beat the 49 hamburger voters, just like you'd have to convince literally the entire Democratic caucus to unite behind you to beat Trump with Stein). Thus, if you want to actually avoid Donald Trump and the Republican Party making policy the next 4 years, you either have to convince us Stein is better than Trump (they're doing a lousy job of an uphill task given Stein's embracing of conspiracy theories and her pro-Russian stances, btw), or you have to vote tactically in the election, just like you have to swallow your desire for gourmet hotdogs and just pick the hotdog option like the 48 other voters, and convince at least the other person besides Green Banana Man in your 'hotdogs but' coalition to join in to avoid hamburgers.
Now, there ARE exceptions to this rule. If your picnic decides that you can rank the choices, you can write in 'Gourmet Hotdog with all the trimmings' as your first choice, then pick hotdog as your second choice, and your pick for gourmet hotdog won't get you hamburger. But remember, voting for President is not so simple. For local and State races, please do exactly that. We need more alternatives, for sure. But POTUS requires 270 EVs -- should you get Maine to throw in an EV for Green or West or whoever for POTUS, you might be the person who gets a 269/268/1 split thrown to the House where Trump gets picked.
Oh yeah, and I agree with just_another_person, too. It's not a big deal if you get hamburgers instead of hotdogs at the picnic as most of us will eat either or, but...what would knowing that the hamburgers are poisoned would do to your choice? Especially if the hamburger eaters were so pro-hamburger they'd still vote for eating it knowing it would kill them? Suddenly, voting 'whatever is most likely to prevent us from eating hamburger at the picnic' becomes far more important than getting exactly what you want. Even if you get diarrhea off the hotdogs!
return2russia