Harris Refuses To Answer If Americans Are Better Off Now Or Under Trump

[Ubiquitous]

Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.

The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Harris responded by talking about her childhood and how she is for the middle
class and how she believes in “the ambition, the aspirations, [and] the
dreams of the American people.”

She made misleading remarks about Trump’s economic agenda and at no point
answered Muir’s questions.

WATCH:

Vice President Kamala Harris is asked if Americans are better off
now than they were under former President Donald Trump.

She did NOT answer the question and lied about Trump’s economic plan.

David Muir failed to note that Harris did not answer the question.
pic.twitter.com/UvL7dJljT9

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) September 11, 2024

[She didn't answer because we know the answer is "yes".]

--
Let's go Brandon!

[BTR1701]

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.

Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.

He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with these
debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they can protect
the Democrat candidate

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with these
debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they can protect
the Democrat candidate

The moderators didn't protect anyone but they did at least try to keep
both candidates answering the question. It's the job of the candidates
to avoid giving specific answers that might be used against them. I
wish candidates would give specific answers on what they intend to do
but I understand why they avoid it. Hell, part of the problem is no
matter what they want to do they may or may not be able to do it
depending upon the makeup of Congress.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
comment:


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience. So as a candidate for the
party they will take more extreme positions that work for the party
faithful, and then tack towards the center when they become the
nominee and have to address people who are moderates/independents and,
at least this year, some of the other party.

Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield. It would
likely never have come up but he brought it up. Then was fact checked
by the moderator and then Trump said he saw it on TV so it must be
true. That was a completely unforced error on his part.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the debate...
and the moderators said nothing.

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

But hey, you want some more fact-checking that the media failed to perform on
Kammie? Here you go.


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833824066274283520/pu/vid/avc1/1298x720/P8ZzHA9gU651xxg0.mp4?tag=12

Top 5 lies that the ABC News moderators refused to fact-check or falsely
fact-checked during the debate:

1. Mandatory Firearm Buybacks:

Kamala Harris told Trump to "stop lying" about her wanting to confiscate
firearms. Harris has previously stated multiple times that she wants to launch
a mandatory buyback program.

The ABC moderators said nothing.

2. "Fine People" Hoax:

Kamala Harris claimed Trump called neo-Nazi's "very fine people". This hoax
was even debunked by Snopes but the ABC moderators let it slide.

3. Post-Birth Abortion:

Trump claimed babies were killed outside the womb in failed abortions. Under
Tim Walz, babies born alive in botched abortions are allowed to be left to
die. Eight babies who survived abortions in Minnesota were abandoned and sadly
perished under Walz.

The ABC moderators simply said Trump was lying and moved on without adding
context.

4. Defund the Police:

Kamala Harris laughed when Trump said she wanted to defund the police. During
a previous interview, Harris said having more cops on the street is "wrong."

She also supported taking police officers out of schools. And she shilled for
a group raising money to spring rioters and looters out of jail.

The ABC moderators said nothing.

5. Bloodbath Hoax:

Kamala Harris claimed Trump said there would be a bloodbath if he is not
elected, insinuating that his supporters would start killing people.

This is completely false. The comment was made during a rally where Trump was
talking about the migration of auto-manufacturing industry from the U.S. to
Mexico and said there would be a bloodbath for the American auto industry if
he is not elected.

The ABC moderators said nothing.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Post by BTR1701
Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the debate...
and the moderators said nothing.

The moderators were never going to dig into all of the those sorts of
issues. It would take too much time and bore the hell out of the
viewers. The only way that sort of detailed debate would work is to
film and then edit it.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Even we grant that for the sake of argument, it wasn't a lie for Trump to call
her out on her sudden sea change in policy and the ABC moderators-- if they
were fair and not in the tank for her-- should have made that clear.

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the debate...
and the moderators said nothing.

The moderators were never going to dig into all of the those sorts of
issues.

No, of course not. They only had time to dig into the ones that make Trump
look bad.

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

No, this one involves ducks taken from a pond in the city park.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Even we grant that for the sake of argument, it wasn't a lie for Trump to call
her out on her sudden sea change in policy and the ABC moderators-- if they
were fair and not in the tank for her-- should have made that clear.

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the debate...
and the moderators said nothing.

The moderators were never going to dig into all of the those sorts of
issues.

No, of course not. They only had time to dig into the ones that make Trump
look bad.

Yep, that's why he had five more minutes of time than Harris. Though
the actual case is Trump's lies are much easier to bring up because
they were so obvious and plentiful.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

No, this one involves ducks taken from a pond in the city park.

Ah the guy taking a duck and walking down the street. Other than him
being a black man I have no idea of his nationality. Also as others
pointed out eating ducks isn't an unusual thing even in this country.
It's not like he would have been eating someone's pet which is what
got everyone in an uproar over the initial Facebook post.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

On Sep 11, 2024 at 1:30:46 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
he question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he
said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Even we grant that for the sake of argument, it wasn't a lie for Trump to call
her out on her sudden sea change in policy and the ABC moderators-- if they
were fair and not in the tank for her-- should have made that clear.

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the
debate... and the moderators said nothing.

The moderators were never going to dig into all of the those sorts of
issues.

No, of course not. They only had time to dig into the ones that make Trump
look bad.

Yep, that's why he had five more minutes of time than Harris. Though
the actual case is Trump's lies are much easier to bring up because
they were so obvious and plentiful.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And
the media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going
there
to find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding
out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

No, this one involves ducks taken from a pond in the city park.

Ah the guy taking a duck and walking down the street. Other than him
being a black man I have no idea of his nationality.

The police report said the witness described the suspect as speaking Haitian
Creole. That's what we in the law enforcement bidness call a clew.

And the video of the witness said he didn't just walk around with it, he
twisted its neck off.

Post by shawn
Also as others pointed out eating ducks isn't an unusual thing even in this
country.

Stealing them from the public park and decaptitating them in public most
certainly is.

Post by shawn
It's not like he would have been eating someone's pet which is what
got everyone in an uproar over the initial Facebook post.

Nah, he's just gobbling up the ducks the legitimate residents of the city let
their kids have fun with feeding breadcrumbs to. You know, like neighborhood
pets. Now PapaDuck Duvalier comes along and rips its head off in front of
everyone so he can cook it for dinner.

But we should just ignore that sort of thing because diversity!

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

On Sep 11, 2024 at 1:30:46 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
he question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he
said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Even we grant that for the sake of argument, it wasn't a lie for Trump to call
her out on her sudden sea change in policy and the ABC moderators-- if they
were fair and not in the tank for her-- should have made that clear.

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701
Give that, we can logically conclude that her true passion-- her words-- is
for gun confiscation and that she was lying for advantage during the
debate... and the moderators said nothing.

The moderators were never going to dig into all of the those sorts of
issues.

No, of course not. They only had time to dig into the ones that make Trump
look bad.

Yep, that's why he had five more minutes of time than Harris. Though
the actual case is Trump's lies are much easier to bring up because
they were so obvious and plentiful.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And
the media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going
there
to find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding
out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

No, this one involves ducks taken from a pond in the city park.

Ah the guy taking a duck and walking down the street. Other than him
being a black man I have no idea of his nationality.

The police report said the witness described the suspect as speaking Haitian
Creole. That's what we in the law enforcement bidness call a clew.

And it was a pet duck that just happened to be in a park or did Trump
lie, of course, about pets being eaten. And did he do the same thing as
you and look like a fucking asshole making a plural out of a single
incident? If you could answer both questions that would be great.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And
the media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going
there
to find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding
out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

No, this one involves ducks taken from a pond in the city park.

Ah the guy taking a duck and walking down the street. Other than him
being a black man I have no idea of his nationality. Also as others
pointed out eating ducks isn't an unusual thing even in this country.
It's not like he would have been eating someone's pet which is what
got everyone in an uproar over the initial Facebook post.

Cats in Ohio:


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833604217455443968/pu/vid/avc1/720x720/HPUxt0pgJfAMZd_t.mp4?tag=12

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

There's the possibility that while she might prefer to confiscate
guns, she knows that won't fly with much of the country so she will
accept having a gun buyback program that is voluntary. So it helps get
some guns off the "street" but leaves a lot of guns out that of which
some will get used in crimes including the mass shooting that seems to
be a weekly occurrence.

Even we grant that for the sake of argument,

What?

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

It's starting to sound more and more like it's rebunked to me.


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1834091546255278080/vid/avc1/576x1024/UhapTL9xevvVFuNR.mp4?tag=16

And regardless of all the pet stuff, it's absolutely ridiculous that a small
town of 60,000 should have 20,000 immigrants just dumped on them as part of a
political agenda. A city like Los Angeles, with 8 million people, would have a
tough time absorbing 20,000 immigrants all at once. What the fuck was the
Harris administration thinking?

Dump them in Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket instead. What? You mean the
super-rich Democrats wouldn't stand for that? You don't say...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

It's starting to sound more and more like it's rebunked to me.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1834091546255278080/vid/avc1/576x1024/UhapTL9xevvVFuNR.mp4?tag=16
And regardless of all the pet stuff, it's absolutely ridiculous that a small
town of 60,000 should have 20,000 immigrants just dumped on them as part of a
political agenda. A city like Los Angeles, with 8 million people, would have a
tough time absorbing 20,000 immigrants all at once. What the fuck was the
Harris administration thinking?
Dump them in Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket instead. What? You mean the
super-rich Democrats wouldn't stand for that? You don't say...

20,000 is from the mayor.

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-mayor-investigation-into-businesses-immigration-continues/W4OJQYSNUBF7JCMSD72VVQGNQI/

If Trump had presented the facts only, without rumors, he'd have won the
point.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

It's starting to sound more and more like it's rebunked to me.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1834091546255278080/vid/avc1/576x1024/UhapTL9xevvVFuNR.mp4?tag=16
And regardless of all the pet stuff, it's absolutely ridiculous that a small
town of 60,000 should have 20,000 immigrants just dumped on them as part of a
political agenda. A city like Los Angeles, with 8 million people, would have a
tough time absorbing 20,000 immigrants all at once. What the fuck was the
Harris administration thinking?
Dump them in Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket instead. What? You mean the
super-rich Democrats wouldn't stand for that? You don't say...

20,000 is from the mayor.

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-mayor-investigation-into-businesses-immigration-continues/W4OJQYSNUBF7JCMSD72VVQGNQI/

If Trump had presented the facts only, without rumors, he'd have won the
point.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield.

It's not debunked. The city officials said they had no reports of it. Of
course there *is* at least one police report of it-- see the link below. But
if even there weren't any reports, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the
media is curiously uninterested in doing their job and actually going there to
find out the truth, because, one suspects, they're afraid of finding out it's
true. That would be real bad for the Agenda.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1833737789495513286

You mean the one woman who is black and an American who was apparently
going through some sort of mental crisis where she was eating her own
cat when the police responded?

It's starting to sound more and more like it's rebunked to me.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1834091546255278080/vid/avc1/576x1024/UhapTL9xevvVFuNR.mp4?tag=16

It's starting to look more and more like a representative sampling of
one still isn't statistically significant. Oh and is the young woman,
who is at least of half Haitian descent, who is estranged from her
father, aware of what the current state of Haitian society is? No info
on that either. More horseshit.

Post by BTR1701
And regardless of all the pet stuff, it's absolutely ridiculous that a small
town of 60,000 should have 20,000 immigrants just dumped on them as part of a
political agenda. A city like Los Angeles, with 8 million people, would have a
tough time absorbing 20,000 immigrants all at once. What the fuck was the
Harris administration thinking?
Dump them in Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket instead. What? You mean the
super-rich Democrats wouldn't stand for that? You don't say...

[Ubiquitous]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for confiscating guns.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for
confiscating guns.

So she flipped *back* to her original position again? Right after the debate?

I'm popping some popcorn in anticipation of watching how shawn is going to
explain this one away.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for
confiscating guns.

So she flipped *back* to her original position again? Right after the debate?
I'm popping some popcorn in anticipation of watching how shawn is going to
explain this one away.

I'm not bothering since I don't watch Fallon. She's not my choice of
President but there's no doubt I much prefer her to Trump. I just wish
you held Trump to the same standards that you hold the Democrats.


As for her changing positions over time it's something I see every
candidate do when they realize an existing position does not work with
the general populace. Now if she's changing positions on a daily basis
that would be a bad thing. It is something I know Trump is doing
because he's gone back and forth on his positions on abortion. All
because he's afraid of upsetting his evangelical followers.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:48:46 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for
confiscating guns.

So she flipped *back* to her original position again? Right after the debate?
I'm popping some popcorn in anticipation of watching how shawn is going to
explain this one away.

I'm not bothering since I don't watch Fallon. She's not my choice of
President but there's no doubt I much prefer her to Trump. I just wish
you held Trump to the same standards that you hold the Democrats.
As for her changing positions over time it's something I see every
candidate do when they realize an existing position does not work with
the general populace. Now if she's changing positions on a daily basis
that would be a bad thing. It is something I know Trump is doing
because he's gone back and forth on his positions on abortion. All
because he's afraid of upsetting his evangelical followers.

Tap a tap a tap dance. Trump has solidly stated his position on a
national abortion ban but that's you changing the topic.

Kindly address Kamela's dishonesty.

[trotsky]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:48:46 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for
confiscating guns.

So she flipped *back* to her original position again? Right after the debate?
I'm popping some popcorn in anticipation of watching how shawn is going to
explain this one away.

I'm not bothering since I don't watch Fallon. She's not my choice of
President but there's no doubt I much prefer her to Trump. I just wish
you held Trump to the same standards that you hold the Democrats.
As for her changing positions over time it's something I see every
candidate do when they realize an existing position does not work with
the general populace. Now if she's changing positions on a daily basis
that would be a bad thing. It is something I know Trump is doing
because he's gone back and forth on his positions on abortion. All
because he's afraid of upsetting his evangelical followers.

Tap a tap a tap dance. Trump has solidly stated his position on a
national abortion ban but that's you changing the topic.
Kindly address Kamela's dishonesty.

It seems the dishonesty is conflating "dishonesty" with changing positions.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience.

That's a slippery way of saying they lie for advantage.

It also exposes his selective outrage.

Post by BTR1701
Regardless, she's spent a shit-ton more time in her career advocating for
confiscating guns than she has in the eight weeks since she was coronated,
where she suddenly has no plans to confiscate guns.

She appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show that night and stated that she was for confiscating guns.

Unbelievably stupid dickhead alert.

[super70s]

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield. It would
likely never have come up but he brought it up.

According to Trump insiders the plan was not to bring it up but if the
moderators or Harris did just say the city manager had debunked it and
attack Harris on something else. Of course he didn't listen to them.

[trotsky]

Post by super70s

Post by shawn
Trump walked into the fact checking quite often by bringing up things
himself like the already debunked story of Springfield. It would
likely never have come up but he brought it up.

According to Trump insiders the plan was not to bring it up but if the
moderators or Harris did just say the city manager had debunked it and
attack Harris on something else. Of course he didn't listen to them.

It's a good thing, too because when he said "they're eating the dogs" I
thought he was talking about sex parties at Mar-a-Lago.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:53:26 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

I don't know when that video was taken. Politicians change positions
all the time to adjust to the audience. So as a candidate for the
party they will take more extreme positions that work for the party
faithful, and then tack towards the center when they become the
nominee and have to address people who are moderates/independents and,
at least this year, some of the other party.

Your response has nothing to do with what he asked you.
Why wasn't Kamela "fact-checked" on her answer?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by NoBody
Your response has nothing to do with what he asked you.
Why wasn't Kamela "fact-checked" on her answer?

As soon as the announcer they had so called fact checkers there I
instantly knew something similar to what happened would happen.

There's no question ABC is currently the most leftist of the 3
networks.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris. Still, I did think there'd been
agreement to forgo fact-checking, though I was pleased to be reassured
that Pedro and Maria weren't, in fact, chowing down on Lassie...

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.

And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to me
how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the first
place.

The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'. The
5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they want to
take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just tell
you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department (or the FBI
and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with their scheme) or
face prosecution.

Post by moviePig
If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to me
how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the first
place.

First you need to grow a pair of balls and tell us what the context of
the statement was. What year was it? Has she changed her opinion since
then? When? You don't know the answer to any of these nor do you care
because, since you have no balls, you only want to engage in milquetoast
discussions with pig where you constantly get him to gloss over the
gaping holes in your "argument." Calling you dumber than dog shit is
starting to feel redundant.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.

Are you saying an Orwellian thought crime has been committed then?

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to me
how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the first
place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'. The
5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they want to
take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just tell
you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department (or the FBI
and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with their scheme) or
face prosecution.

Post by moviePig
If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported “a mandatory gun buyback program,” but only for assault weapons.

-
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/despite-lies-spread-by-trump-and-the-nra-harris-and-walz-do-not-want-to-take-everyones-guns-away/

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question
of the presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans
were better off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris
administration, or under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things
he said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to
me how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the
first place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'.
The 5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they
want to take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just
tell you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department
(or the FBI and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with
their scheme) or face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.

Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question
of the presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans
were better off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris
administration, or under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things
he said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to
me how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the
first place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'.
The 5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they
want to take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just
tell you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department
(or the FBI and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with
their scheme) or face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

- Harris to Trump, in the debate

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.

Trump wasn't lying. She was.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.

Trump wasn't lying, she was.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Maybe we need a delineation between "lying" and "talking out of one's
ass." Was Trump lying when he said Mexico would pay for the border
wall, or was he talking out of his prodigious ass?

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.

Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

[moviePig]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

You forgot assaults with harsh words or a stern expression.

[BTR1701]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

You forgot assaults with harsh words or a stern expression.

GORMAN: Apone, we can't having any firing in there. I need you to
collect magazines from everyone.

FROST: What are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?

[moviePig]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

You forgot assaults with harsh words or a stern expression.

(Hey, is 'stern expression' the same as 'talking out of your ass'?)

[trotsky]

Post by moviePig

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent some.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

You forgot assaults with harsh words or a stern expression.

(Hey, is 'stern expression' the same as 'talking out of your ass'?)

It certainly is at Verman's house.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent *some*.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

I can't see that I mis-wrote. Perhaps you misread...

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent *some*.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

I can't see that I mis-wrote. Perhaps you misread...

You said outlawing assault weapons. Every weapon is an assault weapon.
It's in the definition.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by anim8rfsk
Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Presumably she's not promising to prevent *all* children from being
shot; no one can. But outlawing assault weapons should prevent *some*.

So no pistols, knives, clubs, baseball bats, sharp sticks, etc. allowed?
Wow, her confiscation plan is even more draconian than I thought.

I can't see that I mis-wrote. Perhaps you misread...

You said outlawing assault weapons. Every weapon is an assault weapon.
It's in the definition.

You're right. It should be 'assault over-amplification weapons'...

[suzeeq]

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a complete
reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a politician. Then
she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and flipped back to endorsing
mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

[BTR1701]

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.

(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

Also what are the main weapons used in school shootings. I know for
shootings that occur outside a building a rifle is the desired weapon
because of the distance involved between the shooter and his targets,
but in a school that isn't an issue. So a pistol can be just as deadly
as any rifle. Plus pistols are apparently readily modified with bump
stocks to make it effectively an automatic in terms of speed for
anyone.* So a shooter could walk into a class room and do a 'spray and
pray' and hit multiple people in a few seconds with a pistol.

Which brings it back to how do you keep the kids in a school safe?
Confiscating every weapon is a choice. So is making sure every kid
that is seen as a potential threat gets immediate and long term
treatment. I have to imagine that some of these shootings could have
been stopped if the kids got some therapy before they decided to shoot
up their school.

Which is another point. Often times the politicians act like it's
adults deciding to break into a school and shoot it up. It's the kids
who are supposed to be at the school deciding to do the shooting.
Other having metal scanners and locking down every entrance with an
officer at each entrance I don't know how you prevent a kid from
bringing in a weapon.

*(Yes, I know some people can fire off a pistol as fast as many
automatics, but bump stocks make so that anyone that can pull and hold
the trigger can do the same.)

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on and agrees that an assault rifle is one made for
killing a large number of targets usually made for the military. As I
said in my post just look at any dictionary at the definition for an
assault rifle/weapon.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and
a complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on

"You can insist on reality as much as you want but the world has moved
on and agrees that fantasy is what's real and what's real is fantasy."

That's pretty much the mantra of the Democrat Party these days. They're
doing it with guns just like they're doing it with dudes in dresses.

Post by shawn
and agrees that an assault rifle is one made for
killing a large number of targets usually made for the military.

ARs are not 'usually made for the military'-- they're literally made
only for civilians because no military that actually wanted to win a
battle would use them-- and my pistol can kill just as efficiently as an
AR can. More so, because it's much more easily concealable.

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and
a complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault*
weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being
shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on

"You can insist on reality as much as you want but the world has moved
on and agrees that fantasy is what's real and what's real is fantasy."
That's pretty much the mantra of the Democrat Party these days. They're
doing it with guns just like they're doing it with dudes in dresses.

Or the Republican Party or maybe I should say the Trump party with
their definition of Truth.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
and agrees that an assault rifle is one made for
killing a large number of targets usually made for the military.

ARs are not 'usually made for the military'-- they're literally made
only for civilians because no military that actually wanted to win a
battle would use them-- and my pistol can kill just as efficiently as an
AR can. More so, because it's much more easily concealable.

Hey, I'm telling you what the dictionaries say.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and
a complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault*
weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being
shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on

"You can insist on reality as much as you want but the world has moved
on and agrees that fantasy is what's real and what's real is fantasy."
That's pretty much the mantra of the Democrat Party these days. They're
doing it with guns just like they're doing it with dudes in dresses.

Or the Republican Party or maybe I should say the Trump party with
their definition of Truth.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
and agrees that an assault rifle is one made for
killing a large number of targets usually made for the military.

ARs are not 'usually made for the military'-- they're literally made
only for civilians because no military that actually wanted to win a
battle would use them-- and my pistol can kill just as efficiently as an
AR can. More so, because it's much more easily concealable.

Hey, I'm telling you what the dictionaries say.

Dictionaries have been been pandering to the PC and the woke for years.
They're not the reliable reference material they once were.

Dictionaries now literally say that literally means figuratively now.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and
a complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on

"You can insist on reality as much as you want but the world has moved
on and agrees that fantasy is what's real and what's real is fantasy."
That's pretty much the mantra of the Democrat Party these days. They're
doing it with guns just like they're doing it with dudes in dresses.

Or the Republican Party or maybe I should say the Trump party with
their definition of Truth.

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn
and agrees that an assault rifle is one made for
killing a large number of targets usually made for the military.

ARs are not 'usually made for the military'-- they're literally made
only for civilians because no military that actually wanted to win a
battle would use them-- and my pistol can kill just as efficiently as an
AR can. More so, because it's much more easily concealable.

Hey, I'm telling you what the dictionaries say.

Dictionaries have been been pandering to the PC and the woke for years.
They're not the reliable reference material they once were.
Dictionaries now literally say that literally means figuratively now.

Thereby decimating the meaning.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and
a complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

You can insist on that as much as you want but the majority of the
world has moved on

"You can insist on reality as much as you want but the world has moved
on and agrees that fantasy is what's real and what's real is fantasy."
That's pretty much the mantra of the Democrat Party these days. They're
doing it with guns just like they're doing it with dudes in dresses.

An utter lack of self awareness per usual. And it's always when you're
addressing the weakest minds on the newsgroup.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by anim8rfsk

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been
not only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory
gun 'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as
a politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate
and flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying, she was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Her ads say she will enact laws that will prevent children from being shot.
Exactly how do you do that other than confiscate all the guns?

Only the AR15s.

(1) The AR isn't the only platform that qualifies as one of those scary
black rifles. There's the M4, the AI-AX, Remington 700, Knight SR-16,
etc. So if she's only taking the AR-15s, that won't do the trick.
(2) And again, even she takes all of those, that still won't prevent
kids from being shot, so how does she plan to fulfill her promise
without complete gun confiscation of all types?

Isn't any rifle with a .308 effectively an assault rifle?

No, because there's no such thing as an assault rifle. There's just
semi-auto rifles and bolt action rifles.

Yep, lying is all you have left at this point. You can say "assault
weapon" is an ad hoc description, but that's all you can say and still
be in the realm of fact. You've been so badly indoctrinated and groomed
by white supremacists that you are no longer able to stay in the realm
of fact. I'm concerned that you've had gender reassignment too, which
has made you even more militant and a whiny bitch.

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x72
0/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.

(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.

(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.

Trump wasn't lying. She was.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x72
0/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault
weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault
weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

They are if 'guns' is understood not to include 'asssault weapons'.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault
weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/128
0x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

They are if 'guns' is understood not to include 'asssault weapons'.

Which they aren't among anyone with an IQ above room temperature. (You
may have ensnared Hutt with that, but no one else.)

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault
weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/128
0x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

They are if 'guns' is understood not to include 'assault weapons'.

Which they aren't among anyone with an IQ above room temperature. (You
may have ensnared Hutt with that, but no one else.)

She says she's not taking away 'guns', but is taking away 'assault
weapons'. Only one dedicated to the purpose could misconstrue that.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

They are if 'guns' is understood not to include 'assault weapons'.

Which they aren't among anyone with an IQ above room temperature. (You
may have ensnared Hutt with that, but no one else.)

She says she's not taking away 'guns', but is taking away 'assault
weapons'.

That's like saying "I'm not banning cars, just Teslas."

Teslas *are* cars, therefore a Tesla ban would make that person a liar.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault
weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/128
0x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.
(2) Any weapon-- all guns, knives, clubs, etc.-- are assault weapons as
they are designed to assault people, animals, or objects. That's what
the word 'weapon' means. Adding the word 'assault' to it is practically
redundant.
(2) Kammie said 'guns' during the debate. "We're not taking anyone's
guns." Whatever their definition du jour is of 'assault weapon' it's
unquestionably a gun, so if she's in favor of forcing people to give up
'assault weapons', she's gonna be taking people's guns, which means she
lied.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Trump looks into the camera and says, conversationally, "She's gonna
take away your guns." He doesn't limit his definition of 'guns' (or
'your', or 'take away') to express anything short of a blanket threat.
She responds equally conversationally, "I'm not gonna take away
anybody's gun, I even own one." Now, if she had stressed 'anybody's',
then you might have a valid point. But she didn't, and you don't.

Bullshit spin. Mandatory confiscation and "we're not taking your guns"
are two mutually exclusive statements.

They are if 'guns' is understood not to include 'asssault weapons'.

Which they aren't among anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

When will your poll results be made available? Or are you talking out
your ass per usual?

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x72
0/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.

That may be technically correct but it isn't how people perceive it.
As I understand it when people use the term "Assault weapon" they are
thinking in terms of weapons that would be used or are like those used
by the military to kill large numbers of people. Even looking at the
dictionary we get the following definition:

Dictionary.com defines "assault weapon" as "any of various automatic
and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power
cartridge, designed for individual use". The Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary's definition is "any of various automatic or semiautomatic
firearms; especially: assault rifle".

So you can argue about what is meant by "assault weapon" but that ship
has sailed and the general usage is going to be the military style
rifle is an assault weapon while a pistol/knife/club isn't. Even
though said pistol/knife/club could be used to conduct an assault.

[BTR1701]

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.

That may be technically correct but it isn't how people perceive it.

Which is the problem. We're being regulated by people who don't have a
clue what they're talking about.

Post by shawn
As I understand it when people use the term "Assault weapon" they are
thinking in terms of weapons that would be used or are like those used
by the military to kill large numbers of people.

If you're a soldier and your unit issues you an AR and sends you off to
battle, you're fucked. This whole trope that ARs are 'weapons of war' is
idiotic. Any army that used the mass market AR would be at an extreme
disadvantage against an OpFor whose infantry are using full-auto rifles
and Ma Deuces-- the *actual* weapons of war.

And then there's the reality that *every* weapon is a 'weapon of war',
which and if used as a standard for what is and is not allowed, can
result in *any* weapon being prohibited.

The SIG pistol I carry is also carried by soldiers in war. So is the
famous Marine K-bar combat knife. So is, in some specialized instances,
a compound bow/arrow kit.

That makes them all 'weapons of war' and bannable under that standard.

Post by shawn
So you can argue about what is meant by "assault weapon" but that ship
has sailed and the general usage is going to be the military style
rifle

So basically we're banning guns based on whether they look scary or not.

If your rifle looks like grandpa's old hunting rifle, it's cool; if it's
an evol, evol black color and looks like something on SEAL TEAM, then
it's banned. Even though underneath all the aesthetics, they're the
exact same firearm.

Personally, it doesn't matter, though. If Kammie gets in and suddenly
forgets that she was telling everyone that she wasn't going to come for
their guns during the campaign (and what do you want to bet that's
exactly what will happen?), she's going to be disappointed not to find
mine:

"Damn, Big Daddy Government, I wish I could sell you my scary-looking
rifle, but it fell overboard when I was out on a fishing trip a few
months ago..."

[shawn]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.

That may be technically correct but it isn't how people perceive it.

Which is the problem. We're being regulated by people who don't have a
clue what they're talking about.

Post by shawn
As I understand it when people use the term "Assault weapon" they are
thinking in terms of weapons that would be used or are like those used
by the military to kill large numbers of people.

If you're a soldier and your unit issues you an AR and sends you off to
battle, you're fucked. This whole trope that ARs are 'weapons of war' is
idiotic. Any army that used the mass market AR would be at an extreme
disadvantage against an OpFor whose infantry are using full-auto rifles
and Ma Deuces-- the *actual* weapons of war.
And then there's the reality that *every* weapon is a 'weapon of war',
which and if used as a standard for what is and is not allowed, can
result in *any* weapon being prohibited.
The SIG pistol I carry is also carried by soldiers in war. So is the
famous Marine K-bar combat knife. So is, in some specialized instances,
a compound bow/arrow kit.
That makes them all 'weapons of war' and bannable under that standard.

Post by shawn
So you can argue about what is meant by "assault weapon" but that ship
has sailed and the general usage is going to be the military style
rifle

So basically we're banning guns based on whether they look scary or not.

Which is why I raised the .308 issue as it seems to me that all the
weapons that people are calling an assault weapon are using .308, but
some rifles using a .308 load are considered assault weapon while
others aren't. Based on either the look or the use of a magazine or
the number of bullets it carries. Though a rifle that has a large
magazine but requires you to cycle the bullet each time might not
qualify as an assault rifle under these terms.

Post by BTR1701
If your rifle looks like grandpa's old hunting rifle, it's cool; if it's
an evol, evol black color and looks like something on SEAL TEAM, then
it's banned. Even though underneath all the aesthetics, they're the
exact same firearm.
Personally, it doesn't matter, though. If Kammie gets in and suddenly
forgets that she was telling everyone that she wasn't going to come for
their guns during the campaign (and what do you want to bet that's
exactly what will happen?), she's going to be disappointed not to find
"Damn, Big Daddy Government, I wish I could sell you my scary-looking
rifle, but it fell overboard when I was out on a fishing trip a few
months ago..."

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. That's just something
the anti-gun crowd made up to scare people into agreeing to
confiscation. What they call an assault weapon is functionally no
different than the standard hunting rifle that has been in use
throughout America since the frontiers of the Old West. It just looks
different because the burled walnut stock has been removed and replaced
with black plastic and rails added for the attachment of things like
scopes and other accessories. None of which makes the rifle able to kill
more people at once or changes the functionality of the firearm in any
way.

That may be technically correct but it isn't how people perceive it.

Which is the problem. We're being regulated by people who don't have a
clue what they're talking about.

Well anonyshitted and shitposted. Is the fact that they have actual
identities the real issue?

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away-- Tim Walz and I
are both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and
told Trump to stop lying about it.

I provided a direct quote. Do likewise.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x72
0/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Are we doing this again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

He says she'll do it, and she says he's lying because she won't.

But her claim that she won't is brand new since her coronation and a
complete reversal of everything she's said for the last 15 years as a
politician. Then she went on the Fallon show *after* the debate and
flipped back to endorsing mandatory buybacks again.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are we doing this again, again? Mandatory buyback of *assault* weapons.

(1) There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'.

Excellent display of shitposting.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

Are they eating the dogs too?

[NoBody]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

How did the "fact-checkers" miss that?

Laugh.

[trotsky]

Post by NoBody

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."

And then she said they weren't going to take anyone's guns away and told
Trump to stop lying about it.
But she's the liar because her entire political career she's been not
only in favor of but passionate about (her words) mandatory gun
'buybacks'.
Trump wasn't lying. She was.

How did the "fact-checkers" miss that?

Horseshit. Twat's cognitive decline has caused him to think what's done
at the state level is the equivalent of what's done at the federal level
which is patently false. In your anonyshit case, of course, you're just
stupid as fuck.

[NoBody]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question
of the presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans
were better off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris
administration, or under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things
he said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to
me how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the
first place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'.
The 5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they
want to take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just
tell you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department
(or the FBI and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with
their scheme) or face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.
Turns out she's the liar and Trump was speaking true.

"This business about taking everybody's guns away — Tim Walz and I are
both gun owners."
- Harris to Trump, in the debate

That doesn't answer the question because libs alway have one set of
rules for themselves and another for what they impose upon us.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question
of the presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans
were better off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris
administration, or under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things
he said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to
me how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the
first place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'.
The 5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they
want to take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just
tell you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department
(or the FBI and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with
their scheme) or face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.

How is a buyback program "confiscating?" Be as specific as possible
please. If English isn't your first language just say so.

[BTR1701]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question
of the presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans
were better off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris
administration, or under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at
the start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things
he said to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x
720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to
me how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the
first place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for 'confiscation'.
The 5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they
want to take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just
tell you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department
(or the FBI and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with
their scheme) or face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported "a mandatory gun buyback program", but only for assault weapons.

And during the 2024 presidential debate she said neither she nor Walz
has any intention of confiscating anyone's guns and accused Trump of
lying about it for claiming otherwise.

How is a buyback program "confiscating?"

Do you know what the word "mandatory" means? If I don't have a choice to
give up my gun in exchange for a $50 Walmart gift card, it's confiscation,
Hutt, you retarded shitgibbon.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

  On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

  On Sep 11, 2024 at 1:30:46 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous"

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

  Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her
biography.
  Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back
and said,
  "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
  He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

  You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
  something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
  debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
  wasn't forced to answer a question.

  Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past
things he
said
  to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by
without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear?  Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)

When it's mandatory, yes, it certainly is.
And neither Kammie nor any other leftist has ever been able to explain to me
how the government is going to buy back something it never owned in the first
place.
The reality is 'buyback' is their soft-pedal code word for
'confiscation'. The
5th Amendment prohibits them from just taking them outright. If they want to
take private property, they have to pay for it. Without that pesky
Constitution, there would be none of this talk of buybacks. They'd just tell
you to turn your guns in to the local sheriff or police department (or the FBI
and ATF if the local cops aren't willing to cooperate with their scheme) or
face prosecution.

If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

One does not preclude the other.

   During her presidential primary campaign in 2019, Harris said she
supported “a mandatory gun buyback program,” but only for assault weapons.
   -
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/despite-lies-spread-by-trump-and-the-nra-harris-and-walz-do-not-want-to-take-everyones-guns-away/

Oh nuts, you're going to confuse the issue with facts! Twat's pea brain
and lack of nuts won't be able to handle this! And the weirdest thing is
if you asked him to admit he's a propagandistic asshole he'd just ignore
you.

[super70s]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear? Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)
If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.

Because he spoke out of turn many times when he wasn't supposed to, and
his mic became magically unmuted for some reason. But as one pundit put
it Harris shouldn't begrudge those extra 5 minutes he used to hang
himself.

[trotsky]

On Sep 11, 2024 at 10:00:28 AM PDT, "shawn"

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

  Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening
question of the
  presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were
better
off
  now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration,
or under
  former President Donald Trump.
  The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir
at the
  start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

(Did I mishear?  Is a "gun buyback" the same as taking a gun away?)
If they had "constantly fact-checked" Trump, I don't see how he got to
speak 5 minutes longer than Harris.  Still, I did think there'd been
agreement to forgo fact-checking, though I was pleased to be reassured
that Pedro and Maria weren't, in fact, chowing down on Lassie...

If Trump actually told the truth would fact checking any number of times
have been an issue?

[The Horny Goat]

Well, there goes your selective memory again!
She said "mandatory gun buyback". What do you _thinik_ that means?

Definitely "Make him an offer he can't refuse..."

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

Nonsense. They constantly fact-checked Trump, bringing up past things he said
to counter his answers but let whoppers like this sail right by without
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1833889957074681856/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/OLa0zRAXe6a7Jfbb.mp4?tag=12

Wow, that is damning, yet another piece of crap with no context. Let me
guess, in the video on the left which has no context or date, she's
talking about the state of California and on the right she's talking
about nationally. Any other apples vs. oranges you need to discuss you
disingenuous piece of dog shit?

[shawn]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:00:28 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

You mention one point when he held Trump to answer a question about
something that Trump has lied about over and over again before the
debate. Not to mention that there were many other cases where Trump
wasn't forced to answer a question.

I knew he lied a lot, but I didn't realize it was this many times.
Here is a good article pointing out the times Trump lied as well as
when Harris did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/11/fact-check-presidential-debate-harris-trump/

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:00:28 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn
The moderators didn't protect anyone but they did at least try to keep
both candidates answering the question. It's the job of the candidates
to avoid giving specific answers that might be used against them. I
wish candidates would give specific answers on what they intend to do
but I understand why they avoid it. Hell, part of the problem is no
matter what they want to do they may or may not be able to do it
depending upon the makeup of Congress.

I strongly disagree - there were 2 or 3 occasions where Harris was
clearly fumbling and was rescued by follow up (and easier) questions
from the moderator.

At no point did the moderators let her "swing in the breeze"

[Ubiquitous]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.

And a fake one at that.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Amy98]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with these
debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they can protect
the Democrat candidate

We are doomed!

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with these
debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they can protect
the Democrat candidate

So it's the "legacy media" that's forcing you to support a candidate you
"literally" claimed you didn't support?

[NoBody]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and said,
"Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with these
debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they can protect
the Democrat candidate

The first thing we have to do is change the word "moderator" as ABC
completely destroyed the proper use of the term.

[NoBody]

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.
Harris responded by talking about her childhood and how she is for the middle
class and how she believes in “the ambition, the aspirations, [and] the
dreams of the American people.”
She made misleading remarks about Trump’s economic agenda and at no point
answered Muir’s questions.
Vice President Kamala Harris is asked if Americans are better off
now than they were under former President Donald Trump.
She did NOT answer the question and lied about Trump’s economic plan.
David Muir failed to note that Harris did not answer the question.
pic.twitter.com/UvL7dJljT9
[She didn't answer because we know the answer is "yes".]

She didn't get that question with the answers in her debate pack from
ABC?

[Ubiquitous]

Post by NoBody

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better
off now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or
under former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.
Harris responded by talking about her childhood and how she is for the
middle class and how she believes in “the ambition, the aspirations, [and]
the dreams of the American people.”
She made misleading remarks about Trump’s economic agenda and at no point
answered Muir’s questions.
Vice President Kamala Harris is asked if Americans are better off
now than they were under former President Donald Trump.
She did NOT answer the question and lied about Trump’s economic plan.
David Muir failed to note that Harris did not answer the question.
pic.twitter.com/UvL7dJljT9
[She didn't answer because we know the answer is "yes".]

She didn't get that question with the answers in her debate pack from
ABC?

Funny you should ask! I heard remarks that her earing appear like a pair of
Nova H1 audio earring and that an anonymous whistleblower has claimed that
ABC gave Kamalah the questions ahead of time and told her they'll only "fact
check" Trump. YMMV.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

Candidates and moderators learned audiences respond to overstepping.

[suzeeq]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

The candidates were better behaved then.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

The candidates were better behaved then.

Perhaps Nixon should have been pressed a bit on what the hell is secret
plan to end the war was.

[shawn]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 04:49:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

The candidates were better behaved then.

Perhaps Nixon should have been pressed a bit on what the hell is secret
plan to end the war was.

Josh was certainly pressed hard on the secret plan to fight inflation
when he made reference to it.

[anim8rfsk]

Post by shawn
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 04:49:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

I've been watching such debates since the Nixon era and don't EVER
remember the moderators being so involved in the debate - and NOT in a
good way.

The candidates were better behaved then.

Perhaps Nixon should have been pressed a bit on what the hell is secret
plan to end the war was.

Josh was certainly pressed hard on the secret plan to fight inflation
when he made reference to it.
http://youtu.be/B_3kELe0M8A
http://youtu.be/j3sj-TSbWjs

That was a great moment in television.

[NoBody]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her
biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

I'm shocked I tell ya....

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

The Biden debate method needs to end. We need actual balance by
"moderators".

[trotsky]

Post by NoBody

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ubiquitous
Vice President Kamala Harris refused to answer the opening question of the
presidential debate on Tuesday night when asked if Americans were better off
now, under nearly four years of the Biden-Harris administration, or under
former President Donald Trump.
The question was posed to Harris by ABC News moderator David Muir at the
start of the debate.

Yep. She completely avoided the question and instead gave us her
biography.
Trump did the same thing later on and Muir immediately came back and
said, "Okay, but you didn't answer my question" and posed it again.
He held Trump's feet to the fire but did no such thing for Kammie.

I'm shocked I tell ya....

Post by BTR1701
I'm really getting tired of every four years we go through this with
these debates. The legacy media insists on being the moderators so they
can protect the Democrat candidate.

The Biden debate method needs to end. We need actual balance by
"moderators".

Are you saying Trump was emulating Biden when he said "They're eating
the dogs?"