Would you vote for somebody who refused to talk about important issues?

[exitseven]

Kamala Harris has just said that she does not have enough time to submit her position on key issues. She is hoping that the public is okay with her saying that you will have to vote for her to find out what her policies are.

[MisterWack]

Major Issues:
You know what is? Tax breaks (taxes decreased under Tim Walz), Child Tax Credit (increased under Tim Walz), 15 week Paid Parental leave for Amazon Warehouse Workers, Hospital & Nursing Home Staff, and School Faculty, Increasing Minimum Wage, etc.(all Under Tim Walz)

Now let’s talk about Kamala Harris’ record: Chips And Science Act for Technology Based Manufacturing Jobs (Microchips To Out Compete China), Pact Act for Millions of Veterans to receive the benefits they deserve for putting their life on the line every day for our freedoms, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Helps rebuild our Infrastructure), and so much more.

In 2026 drug costs for Diabetics & millions of Americans struggling to get by are getting a huge price reduction. The deal reached with prescription drug companies to save Americans a total of $6 billion in drug costs alone thanks to the Democratic Party.

We talk about big major issues, they deliver on big major issues… Trump however is only using personal attacks & name calling & bully tactics because that is all that he has. He promised if Biden elected, there would be Stock Market Crash worse than the “Great Depression” & Suicide Rate increases… I’m a FORMER Trump Supporter and I didn’t listen to fear mongering, got biggest boost in economy in 20+ years / ever before / record low unemployment and record new jobs added. America is recovering and healing.

[MisterWack]

Reminders:
Trump Administration appealed a May 8th 2015 rule to “electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system by January 1st, 2021” in 2018.
The Ohio Train crash happened on February 3rd, 2023 at 8:55 PM EST meaning Trump could’ve prevented it by not appealing safety regulations but, he did all for his billionaire buddies.

I want Environmental protection & Green Policies, that is a major issue since billionaires will put the planet in jeopardy for extra cash in their pockets. The billionaires put workers in harms way to not waste costs on safety. Will cut wages, parental leave, and increase working hours at the worker’s expense for profits. We need regulations, wage increases, and better standard of life.

[goaded]

I'd forgotten that Trump forced the release of 5000 Taliban fighters before the pull-out from Afghanistan (and left the Afghan government out of negotiations).

[MisterWack]

@goaded Yeah I totally forgot about that too,
He has so much garbage in the trash can before & during & after his terrible Presidency I forgot.

[NaultD]

Her only opponent is don and he talks too much. Thr strategy is selling don all the rope to ultimately hang himself with. He's already hanging himself with roe vs wade when kentucky as a state right wants legal abortion. If half of kentucky think they will lose any rights to don it's not looking good for don.

The more the don is talking out his ass the tighter the noose. Then picking jd Vance and then walz calling him out as weird is already paying divideds and the leafs haven't even fallen yet to call it fall time.

While the Republicans are scrambled being called weirdos and trying to regroup without any meaningful policies. Kamal is probably going double down just before the election while actively tripping up dons weirdo parade till then. Actively humiliation. If I had it my way daily balloon popping. He wants to be reagan but will always be short.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CNbSidcPxx4

[monorprise]

@naultd Talking is the job of a president, not sitting back and letting everyone else direct you as Harris does

[Guacamole409]

Of course she doesn't want to talk about her plan. She wants free healthcare, free college and now interest free mortgages for illegals. Is Kamala the root cause of all the illegals coming here? Between the low IQ of Dems, and their childish hatred for Trump, Kamala might just win in the general, even though no one wanted her in either primary.

As if prices aren't high enough, Kamala wants to raise the taxes on everyone. Taxing corporations will just make the prices of goods and services go up.

The two dumbest Dem taxes is:

1. The death tax. "Even though you're dead, you still owe us money.'

2. Unrealized Capital Gains. "Even though you didn't gain jack shit, we're still going to tax you on your non-gain.

[Dongie]

No, leave us the #@$% alone and do your stinking job like you were picked to do. Don't ride no high horses as tho you have been adopted into a royal family. And, try not to steal our money.

[Guacamole409]

Why is she refusing interviews?

[goaded]

She's not, and why should she go to a media where they mislead with headlines saying a Biden ad was "painting" convicted felon Trump as a felon. The only thing they're interested in is making the race close, for clicks and eyeballs, not reality.

If one side says it's raining and the other side says it's not, a real journalist doesn't just report both sides, they go to the window and check!

They don't even bother reporting "Trump lies about..." because "Trump lies" is old news.

[Guacamole409]

@goaded

You seem butt-heart about Trump. What did he do to you?

[goaded]

Why are you refusing to address any points I bring up? Oh, and apparently deleting my posts. Although it does make @Dongie's post funnier, now it looks like it's aimed at you.

[Guacamole409]

When was the last time she did an interview?

[goaded]

Why did you delete my post? Why would I talk to anyone who does that?

[Smashingdoozy]

She does talk about important issues. Just hasn't submitted any official promises.

• She's released her Economic plan which includes mortgage assistance for first time homebuyers, a tax credit for parents of newborns and bans on price gouging at the grocery store to help with inflation.
• She plans to bring back the bipartisan border security bill and sign it into law.
• Wants congress to restore reproductive freedom nationwide and sign it into law.
• Wants to give middle class a tax cut.

She's also briefly touched on wars, gun laws, climate change, crime, and healthcare whilst being VP

[Laciejordan]

Lol..."mortgage assistance for first time home buyers", means, "We'll just raise the price by $25,000". Band on "Price gouging at the grocery store" means, "As a producer, we just won't produce anymore"... which will only increase inflation! The "security border bill", was never meant to "secure" the border. It was intended to make the process of citizenship easier for illegals. Congress restoring "reproductive freedom nationwide", isn't even an issue! Didn't you hear yet? lol "Give middle class a "tax cut"? Who's gonna pay for all her "buying votes" wish list?🙄

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan so the president should do nothing to help ease inflation because "prices will just be put up anyway"?

The rest of what you've said is just idiotic.

[Laciejordan]

Short answer, is YES! That's what a free market is or at least a capitalist market. If you start fixing prices of goods, half the market will leave. There is no money to be made! Now, please enlighten me, what did I say that was "idiotic"?

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan yeah that's not how it works. Government assistance for first home buyers has shown to help. Controlling price gouging will also help especially when it comes to corporations that are all run by the same people so they have no competition.

"Process for citizenship easier for illegals" do you even process what you say before you say it?
Reproductive freedom isn't an issue?
The last thing, tf are you even quoting? 🥴

[Smashingdoozy]

Also saying reproductive freedom isn't an issue along with the grainy ass profile picture that's been poorly cropped just proves you're a man pretending to be a woman ☺️

[Laciejordan]

When has "government assistance" to buy a new home ever worked? Don't you remember the 2008 housing bubble? Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac... learn your history! Companies don't "price gouge" in a capitalist system, because there's too much competition! I love how you gaslight yourself and accuse ME of being a MAN because I actually think for myself! Sad.
.

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan don't worry I already reverse image searched your picture and found the girl who's pictures you're using. Not very smart are we ☺️

[Laciejordan]

Show us! lol Expose me to the GAG world! Obviously, you can't argue my facts to your fiction!

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan lmfao and give you access to the high quality pictures you were too lazy to find? If anyone wants proof they can dm me 🙃

[Laciejordan]

Yep, can't argue fact's. Maybe you should hang out in "How Do I Look" or "Beauty and Fashion"? Probably more your speed.

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan I'm unsure how you think funds towards first home buyers (who have a stable job and have shown to be responsible paying their rent on time for 2 years) is a bad thing. After housing supply issues are addressed.

Companies absolutely price gouge. Many companies made record profits but still kept putting up their prices. Companies like pepsi and coca-cola will only continue to increase their prices with inflation not decrease.

Meat prices have gone up 30% since 2020. Only four companies control the processing of 80% beef 70% pork and 60% poultry.

Amazon, Apple, Kroger, Albertsons, JetBlue and spirit airlines have all been /are being sued in anti-monopoly lawsuits.

[Laciejordan]

'Funds" towards first time home buyer's? Where are those funds coming from? Again, Freddie Mc and Fannie Mae. Your ilk always seem to forget that it's been tried before! With disastrous results! Also, meat is a "commodity" lol it's price literally changes on a daily basis! As far as Amazon, Apple, Albertsons, JetBlue and Spirit airlines, who's suing them?

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan the government... You can't seriously be this blind to the prices of everything 🥴 but then again you are catfish so 🤷🏻‍♀️

[Laciejordan]

Of COURSE! The government is suing them! Why? Because the government is the only entity that can have a monopoly. Who's blind? lol

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan explain to me how sueing apple for throttling other apps to make theirs appear better gives the government a monopoly?

[Laciejordan]

What you're whining about has nothing to do with Apple or the government monopolizing anything. I think you're partially retarded.

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan so you can't tell me why the government sueing apple would benefit them. Cool cool. So is your name actually Jordan and you felt like leaving a little bit of you in this persona you've created? Do you enjoy being called pretty? Is it a kink or something for you? 🙃

[exitseven]

@Smashingdoozy Are you still living in Great Britain?

[Juxtapose]

I bet she supports the free speech restrictions imposed on her country right now.

[ManInChains]

Women like her support their own oppression

[exitseven]

@Smashingdoozy. Printing more money to give each homebuyer 25K will add to inflation. Enabling domestic energy production will cause fuel prices to go down and eventually bring the cost of everything down. Just do everything Biden did only in reverse

[Smashingdoozy]

The money isn't being printed 😂

[exitseven]

@Smashingdoozy It either is printed out of thin air or else the taxpayers have to pony up. Either way is bad for Americans. The tooth fairy is not real.

[Smashingdoozy]

Funds can be moved around ☺️

[exitseven]

@Smashingdoozy Yes, moved out of taxpayers bank accounts and into the government coffers. Sorry kid but you are reciting the AOC version of ECON 101

[Smashingdoozy]

Well we will see if it even happens I suppose

[ManInChains]

Probably a good thing you’re not reproducing

[Smashingdoozy]

@ManInChains don't worry I'll adopt and foster the kids who's mothers were forced to bring into this world 😊

[Laciejordan]

"Funds can be moved around"? That's actually Joe Biden economics 101!

[Laciejordan]

The US government hates any entity, company or person that holds or can hold more power over them! That's why they hate X, Facebook, among others. Notice how certain entities, conform and actually ADMIT to towing the "government" line.

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan god the catfish is still here trying to catch some prey?

[Laciejordan]

Still can't argue truth? You do realize, by calling me a "catfish", only makes you look weak? Are you a strong woman or not? 🙄

[Smashingdoozy]

@Laciejordan why would I bother arguing with someone who's stupid enough to use an easily reverse searchable image 🙃

[Laciejordan]

You can't argue, because you're out of your league! Also, get a tongue scraper! That is nasty!

[OlderAndWiser]

Does anyone remember "you have to vote for the bill before you read it?" They were talking about the fiasco known as Obamacare.

[lightbulb27]

no way.

imagine if trump did that. why does the left tolerate this? the answer is... it's their strategy to be quiet because they know she will be torn to shreds when she talks. thus, what she says has to be scripted.

what she has said has already been attacked... it should be. it's better for her to not commit to anything but make generalities and talk in big picture, deflect, and grandstand... lie.

many will buy that, hopefully some in those critical battleground states... who are more center, see through it.

[goaded]

Pick a policy. Any one you like. What's Trump's policy to deal with it?

[lightbulb27]

@goaded End the Ukraine war, quickly. Open discussions, apply pressure. He isn't going to play his hand up front. Maybe it won't even work at this point... but they should be trying.
Increase oil output to lower price - we don't control oil prices, but opening up the pipeline project, setting direction may change price, which brings down costs of everything. We know the tradeoffs, nothing is perfect.
If you listened to RFK Jr speech, it summarizes a lot of what I think as well. I'm not the only one.

I'm sure Kamala and team will come out and start talking. They are formulating what to say. You woldn't hire anyone in a job interview that refused to show up and answer questions.

[goaded]

LMAO. He'd give most of Ukraine to Russia, who would wait a couple of years and then take some more. Oil output is higher than it was under Trump, unfortunately. www.eia.gov/.../LeafHandler.ashx

[lightbulb27]

@goaded agree with 2nd part. irrelevant though, you'll see when Trump is President. There's lot of factors in oil and it's been 4 years, you've forgotten how screwed up Joe has screwed it. And I like the guy, but he's made some bad and costly moves... as did Obama admin... igniting the Ukraine tinder box.
Russia had control prior to 2014... so maybe restore that order. It was less violent. possible, but it become Russia... doubt it.

[Anonymous]

She thinks we are dumb enough to believe she can't take 5 minutes to either retrieve & update her prior platform or update Joe Biden. It really does tell you her opinion about the rest of us as well as what she thinks we will think of her actual policy platform.

[goaded]

What's Trump's replacement for Obamacare? He's had a decade to explain it.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Simply repealing Obamacare is the most ideal replacement. Ideally repealing all federal law on healthcare would be the most constitutional and best healthcare policy any federal politician can adopt.

This is a state area of jurisdiction, and the states will figure it out if they don't have the wisdom to leave it to the people.

I have no idea why anyone but a despot should want any kind of replacement for obamacare? Replacing one bad federal mandate with anther is hardly an improvement.

[goaded]

And yet, that's what Trump promised in 2016. No details.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded That plan was rejected by big goverment republicans who insisted they maintain some kind of goverment control, and ultimately rejected all together by RINO's like John McCain.

[goaded]

No it wasn't. There was no plan. There was never any plan. Trump just said he could and would replace Obamacare with something better that was affordable by everybody.

[exitseven]

@goaded he had one UT it was John McCain that cast the vote that sunk it. McCain was jealous of Trump and a sore loser. He was also RINO.

[goaded]

@exitseven No, that was only the "repeal" part, "replace" would have needed a plan.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded We don't need or want a real a "replace" at all, the healthcare system is far better when it is left to we the people to control with our votes

[goaded]

Your hubris, thinking you speak for the whole country! "We don't need or want..."

We the People want affordable health care, and they'll vote for it, given half a chance. Which is why Biden/Harris are allowing the bargaining power of Medicare to reduce prices for drugs.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I speak for myself and many if not most republicans who elected that congress. Most Americans don't even know who their congressman is much less can quote the constitution or any thing beyond what is relevant to their own life.

This is why I don't want their input in how my healthcare choices or money is managed. They like the politicians they elect are too incompetent in that area. I want my constitution back which strictly bans them from any such policy at the federal level.

[goaded]

It's still hubris to claim you speak for "many if not most republicans", not to mention your claim that more people would vote for your ideas if they knew what they were.

"I don't want their input..." is shameful. You should be able to win their approval and acceptance by educating people, not trying to eliminate their say in society.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word many which can include any significant number of people of which we know must exist among republicans because more limited original constitutional goverment is a party plank for much of our history.

As for consenting to random people 1000 miles away who can't manage their own healthcare or its finances having a say in mine.
That is not only an insane policy we never consented to any such common power among our common goverment to permit any policy on the subject at all.

So no I do not consent not would any sane person desire their input in my local or personal issue. The only ones who do either judge themselfs incomplete seeking a involuntary master or are really just thieves seeking to enslave other people to their service via the state.

In either case they deserve the despotism and destruction they CHOOSE to bring upon themselfs and those foolish enough to call them their countrymen in their lawless effort.

I and many others are not such a fool and intend to insist upon the limited terms of our consent to be governed.

[goaded]

OK, you probably speak for at least a dozen Republicans. The "random people 1000 miles away" are trying to make everyone's lives easier. Your government already spends more per person than many countries with universal health care, but it leaves out millions of people.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Our Federal goverment is designed to only to a few things accountability. Add anything more to that mix and it becomes less and less accountable and effective.

So yes it spends insane amounts of money doing basic things in crazy expensive ways.
That is what you get when you try to use a jack hammer to drive in a nail. You will never have the refined local control to avoid regularly punishing holes in the wall that need to be patched.
Just as Washington D. C. political will never have the local knowledge or accountability to avoid running up huge tabs for simple problems.

Everything with Washington requires several different majorities to approve with very different interest and almost no knowledge or understanding. In the rare event anyone cares, every one of which can point to the others for any problem.

The more such problems you ask them to be responsible for the less they are accountable for anyone one of them to their voters.

As such while in Europe you might blame the party for spending a thousand dollars on a nail for Miss Ann's house because you can see the house and know what happened.

In Washington D. C. they will never hear about 1 of 300 million houses , and if they ever do they will blame the 434 members of the house that were led to believe it was in an inaccessible mountain, the president who was never told about it, or the 98 senators many of whom cared only about the factory making and selling the nail, if they knew anything at all.

[goaded]

No, it was designed like that in the 18th century. "We the People" voted repeatedly to make changes over time. It's not 1790 any more. We even think slavery is bad!

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded It might be hard for a German to understand this point the point of having a Constitution so that "we the people" can't simply change the terms our consent to be governed except by the broad consent of an amendment process.

It was also the point of the Federal constitution as not to require such a difficult national agreement on almost anything. Granted the 'federalist' wanted something weaker than the Articles of confederation but most everyone else really only agreed to a little more direct taxing powers.

History has since proven the 'federalist' were wrong on both its need and its real world effect over time. That however does not change the fact that what they sold to us is the contract we agreed to, even if it was not subsequently honored as correctly predicted by the anti-federalist.

Nonetheless lots of the founders in the late18th century thought slavery was terrible, including many of the ones that held saves like Thomas Jefferson. Although he was financially unable to free is slaves.

They prove this opposition almost immediately along with the fact that a federal constitutional amendment was not required to end slavery for among the first time in history with ending it in state after state successfully.

[goaded]

Oh, God, not the "you don't live here" argument, again!

The federal government is allowed to pass laws without making constitutional amendments, federal courts and SCOTUS decide if they're constitutional or not.

You and your friends deciding that that's not the case have a chance to convince others and vote for changes to laws. Your only problem is that the things you want are really unpopular and fly in the face of facts and history.

The US didn't ban slavery until a generation or two after the British Empire had, and it didn't "[end] it in state after state successfully", it took a civil war.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
Slavery started and ended legally at different times in different states.

Slavery started first legally in Massachusetts in 1641 only for the same state to end the institution in 1783. Pennsylvania ended slavery 3 years earlier in 1780 While it was ended by federal ordinance in 1787 in the territories of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
New York didn't entirely end slavery until 1827.

Kentucky and New Jersey were the only 2 places where slavery actuary ended via the 13th amendment in 1865/.

https://brilliantmaps.com/slavery-abolished-usa/

The idea that SCOTUS gets to dictate the meaning of the constitution is itself anti-constitutional and ion contradiction with the court's own edict in Marbury v. Madison. SCOTUS gets to impose their interpretation of the Constitution in the limits of their own power to decide a man innocent or guilty.

This does not entitled SCOTUS or the court the power to command the other 2 branches or levels of goverment with said interpenetration or we would have no constitution only 5 oligarch in Black Robes and Marbury would have gotten his writ in 1803.

[goaded]

Yes, you had a few states voluntarily give up slavery, but most were forced to after 1860 (and, earlier, some weren't allowed slavery by Mexico or Britain). That's a far cry from ending "slavery for among the first time in history with ending it in state after state successfully". Your own link says Delaware and Kentucky had slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, not New Jersey, which started "gradual emancipation" in 1804.

SCOTUS decides whether laws are constitutional or not. That process involves someone being affected by the law, but that's not the end of it. Precedent is important.

[Opinion Owner]

These untied States numbered 36 in 1865 @goaded If you count the states not in the union by way of secession as still states. Of them only 13 were forced to end slavery 2 by the 13th amendment 11 by military thief. That leaves 23 States that ended slavery of their own vocation or never had it.

[Opinion Owner]

On the subject of Constitutional law @goaded Precedent is indeed important both in the juridical and executive form in understanding the meaning of the Text. That however does not give SCOTUS the power to command the other 2 branches or levels of goverment. Only the out come of the cases before SCOTUS.

[goaded]

My previous comment covered both of those two points.

The southern states weren't about to voluntarily give up slavery, as the British Empire had a generation or two before the civil war.

SCOTUS rules on cases brought by people who are affected by a law, and rule if they're constitutional or not. That's why the current corrupt lot are being spoon-fed cases to overturn precedent based on bugger all.

McConnell and Trump have stacked the court against the advice and consent of nearly half the Senate with political actors. There's a quote somewhere to the effect that the republic can survive bad presidents and bad congresses, but can't survive a supreme court filled with bad actors. We'll see.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The southern states would have eventually abandoned the institution of slavery for the same reason as the northern States. Economically the institution was prohibitively costly requiring a vast police state to maintain.

This is only economically justifiable if the value of the slave's manual labor outweighs the cost of keeping them in-enslaved. That ceased to the case with evermore industrial jobs, which is why the north abandoned it before the war.

For context currently it cost between $30k-$60k to keep someone a prisoner that is with confining them in cages so you only need a few guards and limiting their access to dangerous tools.

Yet that is already around what you pay someone to work freely for you!

If you wanted to force someone to do any meaningful job you can't keep them in a cage nor deny them access to dangerous tools, nor can you trust them not simply to break it or drag their feet to avoid having to work that day as they have no motivation not do otherwise.

So tell me how does the economics of slavery in an industrialize economy work? It doesn't which is why the South would have abandoned the institution by the 1920's when their farms all had to be industrialized just to compete. Put simply the South would not be able to afford to maintain said institution.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The Federal Court has indeed with the conspiracy of the other 2 branches of the federal Government conspired to overthrow their limits.
The key to fixing it is of course obviously breaking that.

[goaded]

"The southern states would have eventually abandoned the institution of slavery for the same reason as the northern States." Yeah, sure. Just another four or five generations.

"they have no motivation"?
There are still underpaid migrants working the fields, harvesting crops. Tell me nobody would want to have them work for nothing more than a roof over their heads and meagre food rations. Millions were kept in line by people with muskets and whips; how many more could you manage with AR-15s and electric collars?

[goaded]

The conspiracy to achieve the current Supreme Court is 100% Republican in nature. With time and luck it can be fixed.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded For a successful slave escape, you generally need to get away without the master knowing your gone until your far beyond the range of the people who know your a slave. Otherwise they just go after you. Them tracking devices only help until they take them off or go somewhere you can't get them back like Mexico.

If either of those methods worked and were cost effective we would use them for keeping prisoners. rather than spending $30k-$60k on them. But they are not that effective. Instead we are better off paying that money to free people who willingly show up and work hard for it.

As for the supreme court, your right Republicans have worked hard to get a majority on the court precisely because the lawless courts of the 40s-70s has striped us of soo many essence rights to govern ourselfs.

Its not asking a lot that you leave us alone and respect the limits of the constitution. Except among those imperialist who think they got to tell everyone else how to live and what to do.

Well we didn't do that with Roe V. wade even thou we had a far better argument for banning abortion all together under the 14th was ever even attempted by leftist who really did pack and threaten the court under FDR leading to the tyranny of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and even the 1970s.

[goaded]

You have to treat prisoners as if they're humans, slaves, not so much. Only the (finally admitted) loser and the current SCOTUS think a president should be immune for crimes committed while president - that's a lawless court.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Actually you have to treat slaves better than prisoners because prisoners earned their position are nothing but as net drain on your resources, and would have in other era's simply been killed. A slave however can be safely set free, is doing work for you and thus you have an interest in keeping them healthy, relatively happy, and alive. Unlike a prisoner.
Both are human that doesn't really mean anything to most people in history thou.

[goaded]

Do you know nothing at all about slavery and the real history of the US? Slaves can't escape if they're chained to each other. Most won't even try if every one that tries is flogged to death in front of the others. All entirely legal! What is wrong with you?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Chain ganging is only possible if the slaves need not move around, don't have access to tool that can break the chain, none of which is true in most slave occupations.

It's not even true of the few occupations using prison labor which is why you have to invest a lot in guards, and still it doesn't work.

In all cases there is a threat of retaliation but that doesn't work as well as you think, as it only matters to the man who has something to lose and thinks they might get caught. For a prisoner with a limited sentience he might lose his chance at freedom garrenteed. But a slave has nothing to lose at all.

I'm not sure you ever even seen a plantation, or a Chain gang. if you had you might realize that is not how it works.

[goaded]

Oh, ffs, let them loose with machineguns covering them to work, chain them up afterwards. I'm sure a lot of assholes would take the job on the chance of shooting a n! gger or two, once in a while. Slaves have their lives to lose. Is that nothing to you? Of course it isn't.

You've never seen a 19th century plantation, either.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded You really are stuck in an imaginary propaganda bubble where everyone is a racist..

I don't think you've even met the people your imagining, nor examined the economics of what your proposing.
Slaves unlike a prisoner were property not a liability, you needed them to be healthy and able to work or they were a liability.

You would Never want to shoot them unless there was no other choice, because that represent an enormous loss of money and resources. Not unlikely trashing your high end car without insurance.

I lived in the south I've seen the actual plantations where this happened. I've seen the history documenting how it worked and what was done. I've even seen the markets where they were sold.

While nobody is old enough o remember the events itself, you would be a fool to believe yourself in Germany knows more about the reality of the institution and lay of the land than I who lived there and seen it first hand does.

Slaves were expensive, most southerns couldn't even afford them. Most masters actually liked their slaves treating them as family.

[goaded]

We're discussing what might have happened if the civil war hadn't been won by the North, remember? Now you're going to pretend I don't know how wonderful it would have been if the South could have just spent another century brutally oppressing black people? And I'm "stuck in an imaginary propaganda bubble"? Get lost.

I mean, ffs "I don't think you've even met the people your imagining" 19th century slaves? Well, SURPRISE!

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I wasn't talking about how things would be different if the South's inalienable right to self-determination was respected. I was talking about why the institution of slavery would have inevitably ended by the 1920s. Due to mere economics.
it is a lot less expensive and safer just to pay them the same amount to work that we would otherwise have to pay to feed, house, care for, and secure them ourselfs.

Slavery only makes sense in a relatively primitive economy that values non-technical work, today we give most all of those jobs to machines who don't require wages at all and instead require someone to do complex technical work to maintain the machines.

[goaded]

So, like I said, even more generations of slaves without the civil war to abolish slavery.

The first commercially successful commercial cotton picker didn't arise until 1944.

You'd have had slavery until my father came of age, probably much longer.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Slavery ends with or without a "civil war" which was really just a war of imperial conquest, the south having no interest in the government of the north there is nothing "civil" about it.

Alternate history is not worth debating the exact decade but the technology would have been available by around the 1920s if not before. The exact time it was deployed is only a question of the availability of resources, and market.

[goaded]

What's two more generations of slavery among friends?

[ManInChains]

If she don’t have time to talk about important issues while running for president of the US, she shouldn’t be running in the first place. It’s part of the president’s job to partake in important issues and make difficult decisions for the good of the country and its citizens.

[AviatorTom]

I vote for the candidate whose policies are closest to my beliefs and wants. If a candidate doesn't tell me what their policies are, there's no way I would vote for them.

[StyngRay]

Hmm that is not true. Even if it were… the other guy is #KGBAgentOrange who can barely match a 3rd grader in having a coherent thought, yet takes the gold in career criminality and criminal cunning. Guilty of felonies, rape (s), treasonous traitor, stealing truckloads of top secret files, selling secrets to the KGB from Day 1 … to name a few! This is beyond sad and laughable!

[MicahRaine]

If the economy/country is better during their "reign" then yes. But that's never the case with people who are ashamed to speak and yet want power.

[onedarkcloud]

Just like Pe;losi said when she spoke to reporters about people not being able to read the ten thousand pages overnight before voting for Obamacare the next day. HER ANSWER WAS JUST VOTE FOR IT AND READ IT LATER. Does Kamala sound familiar?

[7Phoenix7]

She is a piece of shit.. and she said it herself. She does NOT have my vote...

[slatyb]

It depends on the alternative. In this case there is no alternative.

[goaded]

What, like Trump, who never answers questions?

[goaded]

What's Trump's plan to replace Obamacare while making it affordable to everybody, like he promised in 2016? 8 years to explain the plan, and it would pick up a lot of votes.

[Dongie]

Nope.
I must say you and a couple others are doing a fine job on this subject.

[gatixek710]

Wonder why she’s so silent

x. com/defiantls/status/1828102915267187135? s=46

[msc545]

Because you the OP thinkj something is important - that does not automatically make it important.

[Lliam]

No. That's shady as fuck.

[Wiredone]

That's just a bunch of bull. She really has no clue what she's going to do.

[strateguy632]

More of the same disaster as until now.

[Wiredone]

@strateguy632 you're right

[FunkyMonkee]

No, I'm NOT voting for Scamala!!

[strateguy632]

More reason to oppose her.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Likely not, but if she had 40-inch spuds...