Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.
The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.
“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”
In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.
I prolly agree with you, and you seem to have a good handle on the current political climate (thus an intelligent head on your shoulders), which is why I think it’s worth my time to suggest some introspection w/r/t your first sentence. Thanks for your consideration.
Before the Pandemic I would have agreed. However, because of people’s stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to facts, proof, and the science itself, people died. Many of them died through no fault of their own, or the fault of others, which is bad enough. However, many died because of those we gave too much leeway and understanding to. If being hopelessly polite and stretching my own patience to unimaginable lengths cause ANYONE to die, I may as well be a part of the cause of their death. Tolerance is no longer an option. Like it or not, there are lives at stake this time as well.
I stood against the anti-vaccine and anti-mask fools. I am sure as hell going to stand against the people who in bad faith claim to be Democrats or left-leaning. Who claim to want what’s best. Who shout their claims that their way is the only way when it clearly leads us down a dark path. I will stand against them.
Because it has to be done.
The pandemic blew my mind as well.
Is it more of our gut feel or is it an evidence-based position that kicking off a response with 10% ad hominem before getting into the meat begets better results than skipping the ad hom?
Depends on what you’re replying to, really. Though honestly, some people are so hard and radically set in certain beliefs that I use it to spark conversation. Because you know the types I’m targeting rarely respond to reason. The goal then is to get them to respond at all.
I know the playbook, you menial mentally mangled badly reconstructed sentient regressive bipedal sticks in the mud. I shall use it against you all! >:(
Keep in mind while answering this question that your goal while arguing in front of an audience is to fend off ideas and not (necessarily) to convince the other person.
No, I support the mockery. This isn’t Fox News, not everyone gets equal time.
If only they had actual arguments instead of cute naivety. But hey, some americans just deserve project 2025.
I notice you never answered my question. You sure responded to others, which is your right. Go on, give us an alternative that match the necessary criteria I listed. Here, I’ll make it easy: