uncle bernard

If Kamala Harris had come out and said non-citizens should be able to vote, it would be headline news 24/7. She didn't. This looks like lazy AI work from isidewith.

She literally went to HOWARD. It’s amazing how well trained you guys are to repeat the latest bird-brained propaganda from the right wing media machine.

conservatives are completely incapable of being normal about race lol. nobody is more obsessed with identity politics.

they weren’t laughing with him lol keep flailing. the campaign’s new thing that “she’s not really black” is one of the most brain dead things he’s ever said. so called adults pretending they don’t understand how someone can have mixed ethnicity. just like with obama, they can’t control themselves. they see someone with brown skin and lose their minds.

Right, but the funny thing is that government support for the poor will never go away, even if the Republicans sweep to power in all three branches. They wouldn't dare do what they say they want to do because they know it would be a disaster. These programs exist for a reason. The purpose of the debate is to trick people like you into thinking you're overtaxed because the single mother down the street gets 6 cents of your paycheck every month to buy groceries and not the multi-billion dollar corporations who get huge tax cuts, subsidies, and evade taxes through loopholes that aren't available to us.

Right and then they piss and moan when the government does the same thing as those charities except they do it way better and don't skim 80% off the top. Ultimately, you are fine with a deserving person who need support not getting it to make sure that nobody who doesn't deserve support gets it. I'm fine with a few undeserving people getting support if it means that everybody who does deserve it gets it.

Because when you live in public you consent to paying taxes to the government, elected by the people, who then decides what to do with the money. You don't get individual veto power over your tax dollars.

Okay, then move out to the woods and stop using public infrastructure. Nobody is forcing you to be here or live in society.

It's amazing how much of Conservatism boils down to "If people are suffering, who cares? That's their problem."

Yes, because they are still human beings and the best chance they have to turn their lives around is if they get support. This is 21st century America. We are not wolves. We don't leave the weakest in the pack to die.

Okay, so what policy is she supporting that would make sure everybody in this country makes the same amount of money? The "place" she's referring to is the starting line she refers to in the previous sentence.

There are diminishing returns. At some point you get to an effective number of police and you don't need to keep adding. If not, then the best way to make us all safe is for everybody to be a police officer mandatorily. Do you think that makes us more safe? And we're also not just talking about total number of cops. We're talking about equipment, exploitation of overtime, etc....You could drastically cut the police budget without firing a single cop.

The goal isn't for everybody to make the exact same amount of money. It's for people to make *enough* money to live a decent life in the richest country in the world. It's a METAPHOR. The government support is supposed to supply a floor. Your basic needs are met, which means you can, if you work hard and have talent, rise far above that floor. But if you don't, at least you won't starve. And it's a lot easier to climb the ladder when you're not starving.

Why is it important? Maybe they got laid off because an immigrant took their job. Maybe their spouse got sick and died. Maybe they're addicted to drugs. Maybe they're lazy. Who cares? What is the goal? For them to improve their life and feed their children. If your accusation is we want to help people live better lives, guilty. This is why humans formed societies in the first place. Pack survival.

She's 100% right. But this is caricatured as "she wants to take away all the police money." That's not true at all. Some of it can be redirected to more useful things. Our police budgets, especially in cities, are incredibly bloated. If nobody told you it happened, you wouldn't even notice a 10% police budget cut.

Do sprinters start at the same starting line so that they have equal outcomes?

No, she said some people need more (this means not the same) amount of support than others. Look at the example I posted above. Person A doesn't get support because they make $75k Person B does because they're a single parent making poverty wages. However, with their basic needs met, they now have the opportunity to work their way out of poverty. Final result: Person A still has far more resources than Person B even though Person B got more government support. What they share is that their basic needs are met, allowing them to compete effectively on the open market.

"we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities." all she said was that police budgets should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other public budget. she didn't say she supports "defunding" the police, whatever that means.

Right, and Kamala is okay with that. What matters is doing our best to put everybody as close to the same starting line as possible. We're the richest country in the history of the world. We should not have hungry children. You keep confusing the starting line with the finish line.

No, she is literally saying the ***EXACT OPPOSITE*** Poor people need more support than rich people for reasons that are extremely obvious.

Take 2 seconds and think about how this works in practice. Person A: makes $75k/year with no dependents Person B: makes $25k/year with 2 kids Equality: both person A and B must receive food stamps even though person A doesn't need it. It wouldn't be "equal" if only person B gets it. Equity: Person B gets food stamps because they need foodstamps. It helps them compete fairly in the market by having their basic needs met. Person B does not get food stamps because they don't need them. It's not equal, but it's equitable. Both people have their needs met.

First video: "It's about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then ***COMPETE*** on equal footing." Second video: "...our commitment to equity and to make sure all people have ***access to opportunity***" Putting people at the same starting line is not "equality of outcome." If you believe that, then you should be able to name her proposed policies that would ensure we all get the same outcome. Good luck with that.

This is about assault weapons, not "guns." That's why I asked which guns. Ronald Reagan supported banning assault weapons too. It used to be the sane opinion of most Americans.

Did you even watch the video? "It's about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then ***COMPETE*** on equal footing." It's about putting everybody at the same starting line for the race.