Sorry, but I'm not going to trust a person who is completely against her to sum up her policies. Best to read them myself.
Even Liberal rags are bashing it.
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust a person who is completely against her to sum up her policies. Best to read them myself.
Well, for the typical VP, you are right and they are merely the insurance policy. But, I'll be kind and ask, for the last say 24 months, has Joe's presidency been anything close to typical? Someone besides Joe has been doing their best Nancy Reagan impersonation. Our VP has been positioning for all that time claiming she was the last one there, in the room, when Joe was "deciding". That's not the typical VP waiting for the random heart attack, stroke, or bullet.How does any of that give her the power of the president? The only time a VP has any real power is when they are the tiebreaker in a Senate vote. Otherwise they are just there in case the president dies.
no, I typed it with my fingers. While you're amazed at our lack of self-awareness, 'we people' are completely aware of what a clueless moron you are.Of course you do. lol I am amazed at how little self-awareness you people have. Did you really type that with a straight face?
But she's the one who claimed she was in on all these things when the power was being exercised. It's just plain dumb to not hold her accountable accordingly. Either she's full of it when making the claim or she's full of it with the actual decisions. Either way, she's full of it and it's just team D cheerleading to believe she's gonna be somehow different if she moves from the bench to the oval office.Right, so attack her on that. Saying she should have done things she has no power to do is just dumb.
Correct, they have very little power but can do you a lot of harm.How does any of that give her the power of the president? The only time a VP has any real power is when they are the tiebreaker in a Senate vote. Otherwise they are just there in case the president dies.
Check your teleprompter Joe.Correct, they have very little power but can do you a lot of harm.
again, price controls or anti price gouging and enforcing antitrust? States already have price-gouging laws, so it isn't like this some foreign concept. Antitrust too. Why not make sure price gouging is limited?I'm trying to give her a little credit. It's pretty obvious that no one is home in Joe's head. You like her price control proposals and raising taxes?
It's been almost two yrs. If he's guilty of something why haven't they asked for impeachment? In plenty of opportunity why haven't they shown actual evidence behind their innuendo?You act like he's been exonerated and that this was all a big hoax that the system portrayed against him. Seems you're living in opposite world or something. You'll probably even will tell us that Joe wasn't charged for the secret document stuff because he didn't actually do anything wrong there either.
It's been almost two yrs. If he's guilty of something why haven't they asked for impeachment? In plenty of opportunity why haven't they shown actual evidence behind their innuendo?
When I see a lie I just point it out and when I see the truth I point that out as well.
Of course you do. lol I am amazed at how little self-awareness you people have. Did you really type that with a straight face?
I'm telling you his teleprompter is malfunctioning.pro tip; when you quote only a single line, there is no point in bolding it. We get which line you are responding to.
Exactly, they aren't recommending impeachment after all this time. They say "he's committed bad things", but couldn't show actual evidence in hearings. They got destroyed in hearings, cuz they have loose conspiracy instead of evidence. If they had evidence his head would be on a bloody pike.![]()
Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees Release Report on Impeachment Inquiry Finding Joe Biden Has Committed Impeachable Conduct - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountabilityoversight.house.gov
again, price controls or anti price gouging and enforcing antitrust? States already have price-gouging laws, so it isn't like this some foreign concept. Antitrust too. Why not make sure price gouging is limited?
Price gouging is an attempt to legislate some morality or ethics, so it isn't an easy thing, but when someone is exploiting crisis (also subjective, but we all know what flooding looks, for example) then the matter is no longer a simple supply/demand matter for capitalism, it's more akin to stealing (ya know, one of those 10 thingies you want on the walls of classrooms).
Legislation can be scary, but it's better than mayhem that allows monopolistic greed and exploitative greed to run amok.
Right, so attack her on that. Saying she should have done things she has no power to do is just dumb.
All the Dims are telling us that things are really going great and our economy is doing great. My question is, Why does Kameltoe say she is going to fix things on day one? What's there to fix?
Correct, they have very little power but can do you a lot of harm.
Check your teleprompter Joe.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.Isn't there some sort of cognitive disconnect there? I thought maybe it was just me.
either that or they have evidence (and they have), but know that without bombshell, hand-in-the-cookie-jar evidence, the dems would kill any attempt to impeach. That's closer to reality.Exactly, they aren't recommending impeachment after all this time. They say "he's committed bad things", but couldn't show actual evidence in hearings. They got destroyed in hearings, cuz they have loose conspiracy instead of evidence. If they had evidence his head would be on a bloody pike.
Exactly, they aren't recommending impeachment after all this time. They say "he's committed bad things", but couldn't show actual evidence in hearings. They got destroyed in hearings, cuz they have loose conspiracy instead of evidence. If they had evidence his head would be on a bloody pike.
You're confusing being in the room/giving advice with the power to make a decision. That would be like saying a man has power to plan a wedding because he was in the room with the bride. The bride isn't going to care just like a president doesn't care. There's legit things you can attack her own. No need to try to reach for one.Well, for the typical VP, you are right and they are merely the insurance policy. But, I'll be kind and ask, for the last say 24 months, has Joe's presidency been anything close to typical? Someone besides Joe has been doing their best Nancy Reagan impersonation. Our VP has been positioning for all that time claiming she was the last one there, in the room, when Joe was "deciding". That's not the typical VP waiting for the random heart attack, stroke, or bullet.
She was put in charge of the border, that worked out great...You're confusing being in the room/giving advice with the power to make a decision. That would be like saying a man has power to plan a wedding because he was in the room with the bride. The bride isn't going to care just like a president doesn't care. There's legit things you can attack her own. No need to try to reach for one.
you're forgetting that this isn't a normal case. This is like saying a man has the power to plan a wedding because he was in the wedding planning room with the bride, but the bride wasn't exactly in the room.You're confusing being in the room/giving advice with the power to make a decision. That would be like saying a man has power to plan a wedding because he was in the room with the bride. The bride isn't going to care just like a president doesn't care. There's legit things you can attack her own. No need to try to reach for one.
That's behind a paywall for me, but it appears to be an opinion piece. When it comes to deciding if I like someone's policy, other people's opinions don't matter to me. But I think you might be under the impression that I want to learn about them right now. I don't. I'm waiting for the debate before I decide if I want to take the time to read about her policies. If she can't impress me during the debate, then I doubt I'll waste my time reading her policies.
Even Liberal rags are bashing it.
And what power did she have at the border besides being able to make speeches? She literally has a legit record to attack, but it's being ignored. I'm sure she's ok with that, but Trump would be better off making legit arguments instead of talking points for his base.She was put in charge of the border, that worked out great...
She's running away from her record and the liberal media is slurping it up therefore the sheep slurp it up.And what power did she have at the border besides being able to make speeches? She literally has a legit record to attack, but it's being ignored. I'm sure she's ok with that, but Trump would be better off making legit arguments instead of talking points for his base.
Same types of people, mostly elected officials, who made the pre-existing price-gouging laws.Secondly, who determines how close something is to stealing? There's stealing and there's NOT stealing, but 'close to' stealing is just liberal gibberish. In terms of wisdom, It's akin to the liberal notion that if I'm not contributing to you, then I'm stealing from you.
"Legislation can be scary, but it's better than mayhem that allows monopolistic greed and exploitative greed to run amok."
That's crap. Legislation to combat 'monopolistic greed and exploitative greed' is just leftist attempts to control our lives and nudge us toward socialism and away from capitalism..
I might be shocked at what the drug I'm prescribed costs, but more so than that, I'm pretty damn happy that the drug company was able to research and develop it and make it available so my life is better. The leftists say don't charge such an outrageous price for the drug I need and demand to have, a drug that I have some ethereal right to although it didn't even exist ten years ago.
She was put in charge of the border, that worked out great...
Thanks. I just want an explanation of the logic/thinking behind dumping a bear in Central Park. That cracks me up every time I think about it.@pooponduke i think you've had lots of interest in RFK jr. He's it is - he's more pro-Trump than pro-DemTicket.
According to polls they've clearly been drawing from Trump more than the Dem ticket, and this confirms it, some might say explains it.
kinda sounds like you might have a fishy way of deciding what's a monopoly and what isn't..Same types of people, mostly elected officials, who made the pre-existing price-gouging laws.
Kinda sounds like you are saying you are pro-monopoly. Are you?
Greatest political era of all time.Thanks. I just want an explanation of the logic/thinking behind dumping a bear in Central Park. That cracks me up every time I think about it.
She had ZERO power at the border and was never “put in charge”. Total bullshit. She was told to help with the diplomatic relations with the Central American countries involved in their citizens migrating. She boosted aid to the top three countries involved and traveled there to discourage people making the trip. She failed in that respect annd deserves criticism in that regard. Obviously anyways it was way too little way too late to do anything but that blame falls on biden and dept of homeland security.And what power did she have at the border besides being able to make speeches? She literally has a legit record to attack, but it's being ignored. I'm sure she's ok with that, but Trump would be better off making legit arguments instead of talking points for his base.
Here's her actual webpage for the campaign. If you can find ANY POLICY or plans on it, let everyone know. Under the Meet her tab, there is a bunch of stuff claiming all the successes of the current administration, so, she still wants it both ways. She asserts she's not just been sitting there behind a door that says "In case of fire, break glass" on it.That's behind a paywall for me, but it appears to be an opinion piece. When it comes to deciding if I like someone's policy, other people's opinions don't matter to me. But I think you might be under the impression that I want to learn about them right now. I don't. I'm waiting for the debate before I decide if I want to take the time to read about her policies. If she can't impress me during the debate, then I doubt I'll waste my time reading her policies.
paying women to have babies...what could go wrong?
Even Liberal rags are bashing it.
Well, this is just false, revisionist history. She was the Border Czar and plenty of liberal news outlets referred to her as such - back then. Now, even with the rewriting of actual events, in her redefined role, she still was charged with being the administration's person for tackling the issue of the "root causes." That's simply not gone well because the truth of the matter is that they didn't want to limit immigration. Too much has come out about the pathway to citizenship, which means voting rights, and even being allowed to vote merely based on residence status versus citizenship.She had ZERO power at the border and was never “put in charge”. Total bullshit. She was told to help with the diplomatic relations with the Central American countries involved in their citizens migrating. She boosted aid to the top three countries involved and traveled there to discourage people making the trip. She failed in that respect annd deserves criticism in that regard. Obviously anyways it was way too little way too late to do anything but that blame falls on biden and dept of homeland security.
1000% agree. He needs to focus solely on those couple of % points of people still on the fence. Everyone already voting for him ain't moving because of the shining new coin. They are almost all staying home at this point. The only thing that matters are those few undecided, swing voters left in those few swing states.Trump would be better off making legit arguments instead of talking points for his base.
They're killing them for free this week. In a van...paying women to have babies...what could go wrong?