In a 10 minute softball interview with ABC local TV reporter Kamala said:
.
How she'll bring prices down: Small biz $59k tax deduction, unspecified tax credit for home builders, $25k down payment for home buyers.
.
Child care tax credit $6000
.
Assault weapon ban.
The $50k tax deduction for small biz startup isn't really useful until the small biz is making money, which often isn't in the first two years of starting. So that isn't going to affect prices any time soon, if ever.
.
$25k down payment is just going to drive home prices up. She didn't specify what the builder tax credit was going to be, exactly.
.
Child care tax credit is essentially the same as Trump, 6k instead of 5k.
.
Assault weapon ban. So yeah, she's going to take our guns. Approximately a quarter of all gun owners own an AR-15 style rifle. That's about 20 million people. She is going to take guns away from 20 million people.
Unless the Democrats stack the supreme court quickly, bans of guns in common use are going to be declared unconstitutional. This was decided in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen SCOTUS cases that weapons in common use cannot be banned.
with his unconscionable blocking of Obama's Garland nomination followed by his blatant ramming of Barrett's nomination through. So I'm in favor of increasing the size of the SCOTUS to 13 justices. Because that's the number of Circuit Courts of Appeal, which is how the size of the court was determined in the 19th century. The logic then was that each Justice should be in charge of one Appeals court and there were nine at the time. So expanding the number of justices to 13 is historically consistent with that.
And, yep, I'm in favor of banning assault weapons. They were banned for ten years and that was never overturned. Once the court has 13 justices it won't happen either. Back then there were far fewer mass shootings.
I'll be perfectly well defended at home from righty loons with my M1911 and a shotgun.
with his unconscionable blocking of Obama's Garland nomination followed by his blatant ramming of Barrett's nomination through. So I'm in favor of increasing the size of the SCOTUS to 13 justices. Because that's the number of Circuit Courts of Appeal, which is how the size of the court was determined in the 19th century. The logic then was that each Justice should be in charge of one Appeals court and there were nine at the time. So expanding the number of justices to 13 is historically consistent with that.
And, yep, I'm in favor of banning assault weapons. They were banned for ten years and that was never overturned. Once the court has 13 justices it won't happen either. Back then there were far fewer mass shootings.
I'll be perfectly well defended at home from righty loons with my M1911 and a shotgun.
The blue staining of your brain is complete. What’s next? No more free speech?
PS the 1994 assualt weapons ban is the reason there are sooooo many AR15s on the market today. In 1994 there were only 3 manufacturers of AR15 rifles and 2 manufacturers of lowers. During the ban many new manufacturers sprang up and went into production on AR15s that didn’t have evil features Becuse of the ban. You idiot Dems are the reason they are so prolific. Thank you Hillary!
As for defending against righty loons” your completely fucking delusional icky! Again the blue brain staining, now appears to be terminal 🙄🙄🙄
Talk about stained. You have red goo running out of your ears. RED GOO!!!!! RED GOO!!!!! (sound familiar, toolbag?)
Must you buy every NRA talking point? I guess so, since you buy every lie Trump spews.
Semper Lie.
Are you saying that it was a secret Dem plan to increase the number of AR15s and get them into the hands of thousands of people and enrich the gun lobby?
"I'll be perfectly well defended at home from righty loons with my M1911...".
.
This is ironic. The Heller case was out of DC where the law specifically banned HANDGUNs until the SCOTUS declared that handguns were arms under the meaning of the 2nd amendment and couldn't be banned.
And it has nothing to do with ARs. It is well known I live in NY, which has tough gun laws but allows ownership of semi-automatic pistols like the M1911.
Fester should stick to polling, though he's dimwitted about that, too.
of the justice department over the past three and half years, aren't we ALL glad this piece of shit didn't get a chance to infect the Supreme Court. Sometimes, we don't realize how lucky we were on something until years later.
The kicker here is defining "assault weapon". There is no actual definition.
Should a bill banning them be drawn up, legislators will have to agree on what the definition will be going forward. But here's a long list of current definitions and most of them largely agree.
I guess no one is saying this would be easy. It is complicated. Definitions are important. My point though is that the right seems willing to do absolutely nothing. Red flag laws, assault weapon bans, holding the parents more responsible, closing gun show loopholes, etc are all part of a multi-faceted plan to reduce the outrageous gun violence in this country.
There are 333 million people in the US.
There are 398 million guns in the US.
That's enough so that every man, woman, child and fetus in America can have a gun. With a few million left over.
No matter what laws are passed no one is getting rid of them. No one is getting rid of enough of them to make a meaningful difference gun violence.
Remember, Biden actually got a minimalist gun law passed. It resulted in "a new rule that will save lives by reducing the number of firearms sold without background checks. This final rule implements the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’s expansion of firearm background checks—the only significant expansion of the background check requirement since then-Senator Biden helped shepherd the Brady Bill over the finish line in 1993. This action is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s strategy to stem the flow of illegally acquired firearms into our communities and hold accountable those who supply the firearms used in crime."
And yet we still have people shooting up schools and taking pot-shots at Trump.
So pardon me if I refuse to get too excited by this issue.
That she was lyin her ass off!!!! But you lefties will be just fine with any confiscation.
he'd have a lot less to say.
As it is, he can't tell lies from truth
The assault weapons ban was shown to be very effective. Do I need to remind you that Ronald Reagan was in favor? Both Harris and Walz are gun owners as well so claiming they are some kind of rabid anti-second amendment types wont fly here.
.
The $50,000 small business deduction can be used in a year they are profitable so your logic fails again. That idea will be VERY popular with small business owners which Trump claims he loves so much. Oh wait...he filed bankruptcy 4 times putting thousands of people out of work! Yeah, I'll side with Kamala in who cares more.
.
The larger child care tax credit will ease the plight of working people more than Trump would, so again, it's a win for Team Harris and the American people.
.
We have a lack of affordable housing Lester and one way to help with that is by giving both builders and buyers an incentive to do so. Work both sides of the equation, if you will.
.
All this might be bad news for Trump Lester, I'll grant you that, but it will be good for the peeps.
thread, so I will move the link to your thread and report my post for deletion. I noticed you didn't have the link to the video.
trainwreck of a solo interview.
you will see that she gave the exact same word for word non-answer to the question about how she is going to bring prices down that her handlers wrote and she memorized for the debate. I/m embarrassed for all Dems they are stuck with Kamala for their nominee and had no say in the matter.
Wouldn't you consider that having the party elite pick your nominee and thwarting the will of the people a threat to democracy? She didn't get a single delegate. If a few other prominent Dems were allowed to enter a primary against her, she would have already been eliminated due to her past positions on issues. Wouldn't you agree? There are several Dem governors of large states who actually have executive experience from being the CEO of a whole state. Kamala has none.
Oh sure, she didn't talk about eating cats or dogs, and she doesn't snuggle with Laura Loomer so maybe that is what threw you off? Even Lester acknowledged she offered up policies in her answer. Why cant you?
.
And once again your facts are wrong. Any Dem could have thrown their hat in the ring to run against her. None chose to. I guess you would force someone to run? Stop now, you just sound silly.
Well how it it she was nominated with the votes of 4,567 delegates, which is 99% of all delegates voting.
This raises the question: are you on crack?
It's add more competition in the market place and will help bring down inflation. The price gougers will be forced to lower their prices once they have competition. Plus she'll make it less regulatory for start ups.
If I was starting a new business, the first thing I'd look at would be is setting up a competing restaurant against the Chipolte chain. There's a easy target to get.
Its a win win situation
-- Modified on 9/14/2024 1:37:01 PM
Doesn't seem like she answered that question.
.
Anyone? Anyone?
Your team is favored by 28pts. Biden is the head coach and Harris is the offensive coordinator.
Biden's game plan is to run,run run. Harris's sees that a passing game will beat this team and cover.
But Biden wants to run, run and run..Biden's team win but doesn't cover. Reporters ask Harris why the team struggles to win. She's not going to throw Biden under the bus and question his game plan, even if you would have done something different...Make sense?
I think those kind of question and the ones where, "You were VP for the past 3.5 years, why didn't do this or that".
For all we know she may have been against the student loan forgiveness program.
On the corporate tax, they do differ. She wants a 28 percent Biden wanted a 38 percent.
Remember, she's still the VP and at the report or behest to the president.
That's the way I see it.
More likely she is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She literally says she is the change candidate. Change from what, though? She has to avoid admitting Biden was a failure as it reflects on her, specifically her claims to "being the last one to leave the meetings" as well as her tie breaking votes in the Senate.
.
So we're going to get this Schrödinger's cat like dilemma, an indeterminate state of being for or against the Biden legacy -- until the election.
The interviewer asked her to tell us something about herself that we don't know, and her answer was, "I love my family." What kind of narcissistic moron would thing this is the piece of information everyone is waiting for before they decide to vote for her. He asked her five questions and she deflected on every one of them. Like I said originally, a total trainwreck.