What's new
By:
Filters

The Kamala thread.

east_beast said:
There's just SOOOOO much he can hit her on. He needs to get the fuck over it not being Biden anymore and STFU about anything to do with race and just pick the abundance of low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

This may be the first time that someone other than you thinks you are correct…… may want to mark this on your My Little Pony calendar
 

Opinion

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?​

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

5 min
3818


Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a campaign event in Detroit on Aug. 7. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
imrs.php

By Catherine Rampell
August 15, 2024 at 6:42 p.m. EDT
“Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.


So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.
That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”



The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_4


Normally, the government doesn’t like collusion. In fact, the Harris campaign’s statement about her anti-“price gouging” agenda highlights a case she won as California attorney general against companies colluding to fix prices for LCD flat screens. Presidential administrations of both parties have similarly pursued cases against cartels and other anti-competitive conduct.

That’s because price-fixing is already illegal. And it should be! It’s important to distinguish between real cartel behavior (whether among TV-makers or meatpackers) vs. temporary spikes in prices and profits due to high demand or supply-chain disruptions. Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference. They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters.
They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won.


On Wednesday, a government report showed that grocery prices in July were up a measly 1 percent from last year, as the White House itself touted. Indeed, annual grocery price inflation has hovered around that level for the past eight months, way down from the double-digit inflation in mid-2022.

Additionally, profit margins for supermarkets are notoriously thin. Despite Harris’s (and Warren’s) accusations about “excessive corporate profits,” those margins remained relatively meager even when prices surged. The grocery industry’s net profit margins peaked at 3 percent in 2020, falling to 1.6 percent last year. If that sounds high, note that the average net profit margin (what’s left over after expenses) for all public companies nationwide is 8 percent.
So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up. Once those shocks abated and consumers started spending down their pandemic savings, price growth cooled.

These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about “greed.”
But more to the point: If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?
 
Writter is not a Trump fan, and is scolding Harris


Opinion

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?​

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

5 min
3818


Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a campaign event in Detroit on Aug. 7. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
imrs.php

By Catherine Rampell
August 15, 2024 at 6:42 p.m. EDT
“Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.


So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.
That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”



The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_4


Normally, the government doesn’t like collusion. In fact, the Harris campaign’s statement about her anti-“price gouging” agenda highlights a case she won as California attorney general against companies colluding to fix prices for LCD flat screens. Presidential administrations of both parties have similarly pursued cases against cartels and other anti-competitive conduct.

That’s because price-fixing is already illegal. And it should be! It’s important to distinguish between real cartel behavior (whether among TV-makers or meatpackers) vs. temporary spikes in prices and profits due to high demand or supply-chain disruptions. Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference. They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters.
They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won.


On Wednesday, a government report showed that grocery prices in July were up a measly 1 percent from last year, as the White House itself touted. Indeed, annual grocery price inflation has hovered around that level for the past eight months, way down from the double-digit inflation in mid-2022.

Additionally, profit margins for supermarkets are notoriously thin. Despite Harris’s (and Warren’s) accusations about “excessive corporate profits,” those margins remained relatively meager even when prices surged. The grocery industry’s net profit margins peaked at 3 percent in 2020, falling to 1.6 percent last year. If that sounds high, note that the average net profit margin (what’s left over after expenses) for all public companies nationwide is 8 percent.
So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up. Once those shocks abated and consumers started spending down their pandemic savings, price growth cooled.

These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about “greed.”
But more to the point: If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?
 
bigun said:
Writter is not a Trump fan, and is scolding Harris


Opinion

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?​

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

5 min
3818


Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a campaign event in Detroit on Aug. 7. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
imrs.php

By Catherine Rampell
August 15, 2024 at 6:42 p.m. EDT
“Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.


So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.
That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”



The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_4


Normally, the government doesn’t like collusion. In fact, the Harris campaign’s statement about her anti-“price gouging” agenda highlights a case she won as California attorney general against companies colluding to fix prices for LCD flat screens. Presidential administrations of both parties have similarly pursued cases against cartels and other anti-competitive conduct.

That’s because price-fixing is already illegal. And it should be! It’s important to distinguish between real cartel behavior (whether among TV-makers or meatpackers) vs. temporary spikes in prices and profits due to high demand or supply-chain disruptions. Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference. They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters.
They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won.


On Wednesday, a government report showed that grocery prices in July were up a measly 1 percent from last year, as the White House itself touted. Indeed, annual grocery price inflation has hovered around that level for the past eight months, way down from the double-digit inflation in mid-2022.

Additionally, profit margins for supermarkets are notoriously thin. Despite Harris’s (and Warren’s) accusations about “excessive corporate profits,” those margins remained relatively meager even when prices surged. The grocery industry’s net profit margins peaked at 3 percent in 2020, falling to 1.6 percent last year. If that sounds high, note that the average net profit margin (what’s left over after expenses) for all public companies nationwide is 8 percent.
So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up. Once those shocks abated and consumers started spending down their pandemic savings, price growth cooled.

These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about “greed.”
But more to the point: If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?
Click to expand...

Communism will work this time… /<gen x

This is what happens when the government controls education.
 
bigun said:
Writter is not a Trump fan, and is scolding Harris


Opinion

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?​

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

5 min
3818


Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks during a campaign event in Detroit on Aug. 7. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
imrs.php

By Catherine Rampell
August 15, 2024 at 6:42 p.m. EDT
“Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.


So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.
That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”



The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...mc_magnet-op2024elections_inline_collection_4


Normally, the government doesn’t like collusion. In fact, the Harris campaign’s statement about her anti-“price gouging” agenda highlights a case she won as California attorney general against companies colluding to fix prices for LCD flat screens. Presidential administrations of both parties have similarly pursued cases against cartels and other anti-competitive conduct.

That’s because price-fixing is already illegal. And it should be! It’s important to distinguish between real cartel behavior (whether among TV-makers or meatpackers) vs. temporary spikes in prices and profits due to high demand or supply-chain disruptions. Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference. They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters.
They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won.


On Wednesday, a government report showed that grocery prices in July were up a measly 1 percent from last year, as the White House itself touted. Indeed, annual grocery price inflation has hovered around that level for the past eight months, way down from the double-digit inflation in mid-2022.

Additionally, profit margins for supermarkets are notoriously thin. Despite Harris’s (and Warren’s) accusations about “excessive corporate profits,” those margins remained relatively meager even when prices surged. The grocery industry’s net profit margins peaked at 3 percent in 2020, falling to 1.6 percent last year. If that sounds high, note that the average net profit margin (what’s left over after expenses) for all public companies nationwide is 8 percent.
So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up. Once those shocks abated and consumers started spending down their pandemic savings, price growth cooled.

These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about “greed.”
But more to the point: If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too?
Click to expand...

Communism will work this time… /<gen x

This is what happens when the government controls education.
 
Now she's offering up to $25k of our money, for first time home buyers. Now nobody will have to give up their avocado toast.


Vice President Kamala Harris' economic agenda is set to include a provision for first-time and first-generation home-buyers.
Harris is scheduled to announce her policy plans at a Friday rally in North Carolina, which include a proposal to give some first-time homebuyers up to $25,000 in down payment support, according to a campaign official.
The Harris-Walz proposal would provide assistance to working families who have paid their rent on time for at least two years and are looking to buy their first house. First-generation homeowners who fit the bill would be eligible for even more support.
"Many Americans work hard at their jobs, save, and pay their rent on time month after month. But they can't save enough after paying their rent and other bills to save for a down payment — denying them a shot at owning a home and building wealth," the campaign said in a preview statement obtained by Business Insider.
Advertisement

The campaign estimates that the proposal would allow more than one million first-time homebuyers, including first-generation buyers, to purchase a home each year.
Former President Donald Trump addressed parts of his housing plan during recent campaign events, promising to open up swaths of federal land for housing construction.
Related stories
66bf60131aa2ac29ee31d68f?width=600.jpg
New parents could get $6,000 for the first year of their child's life and a restored child tax credit under Kamala Harris' economic plan
66b3852f393cd3c8629bfc6a?width=600.jpg
Tim Walz is a YIMBY. He's supported a ton of new housing that's kept rents down in Minnesota.
Harris is also expected to announce a proposal to end the housing crisis by building three million new units, offering tax incentives to homebuilders who prioritize "starter homes" intended for first-time homebuyers, and creating a $40 billion innovation fund to encourage local governments to build housing, according to the campaign.
The Harris economic agenda also includes assistance for renters, including expanded rental assistance for struggling Americans and the removal of tax benefits for Wall Street investors and corporate landlords, according to the campaign.
Advertisement

Several of the Harris housing policies expand on similar plans President Joe Biden's administration sought to achieve in recent years, including rent caps and assistance for first-time homebuyers.
The Friday rally comes at a key moment in the race as Harris picks up steam in the polls, particularly regarding the economy — an area in which Democrats have historically struggled.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Roc Doc said:
Now she's offering up to $25k of our money, for first time home buyers. Now nobody will have to give up their avocado toast.
Click to expand...
$25k isn’t gonna do shit towards the purchase of a home given todays real estate market. It would be a swift kick in the ass, and I would take it if it was available, but I would have to have a hell of a lot more money to make is down payment.
 
rockota said:
This may be the first time that someone other than you thinks you are correct…… may want to mark this on your My Little Pony calendar
Click to expand...
I've said this plenty of times and you've usually gotten triggered by it. :laughing:
 
WashingtonMatt said:
Click to expand...

Best journalist in the country right now.

Support him and other independent guys!!!!! Matt's substack is RacketNews and $5/mo. Dude is killing it lately. He is back tearing into the Crossfire Hurricane, Muller Investigation and the lead up to it after finally getting back a ton of FOIA info.

I sub to Matt Taibii, Glen Greenwald and Michael Schellenberger.

Nobody better on freedom of speech issues. Liberal guy but the last or two, he has turned both barrels on the Intel community and the dems.

Well worth the money for just the comments alone on his articles.

Great writer
 
Beat95yj said:
$25k isn’t gonna do shit towards the purchase of a home given todays real estate market. It would be a swift kick in the ass, and I would take it if it was available, but I would have to have a hell of a lot more money to make is down payment.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you have to claim that as income on your taxes later that year.

That is a stack of billions to do that to just drive inflation more
 
Beat95yj said:
$25k isn’t gonna do shit towards the purchase of a home given todays real estate market. It would be a swift kick in the ass, and I would take it if it was available, but I would have to have a hell of a lot more money to make is down payment.
Click to expand...
Maybe in West Virginia, but not in most of the coastal states for sure. It's lip service, she's good at that apparently.
 
east_beast said:
I've said this plenty of times and you've usually gotten triggered by it. :laughing:
Click to expand...

You’ve agreed with yourself plenty of times?

That doesn’t trigger me at all. I think everyone should have at least one fan in their corner.. even if it’s just the voice in their head. :flipoff2:.
 
Beat95yj said:
$25k isn’t gonna do shit towards the purchase of a home given todays real estate market. It would be a swift kick in the ass, and I would take it if it was available, but I would have to have a hell of a lot more money to make is down payment.
Click to expand...

Bullshit it won't.

It'll artificially inflate home prices and increase inflation.

So Realtors, banks, insurance companies, and tax collectors will get more in pocket while the whole process makes everything in general that much more expensive.
 
$25k isn’t gonna do shit towards the purchase of a home given todays real estate market. It would be a swift kick in the ass, and I would take it if it was available, but I would have to have a hell of a lot more money to make is down payment.
Ditto I'd get me a new used trailer to put on the place and have money left over
 
ProjectTwin said:
Bullshit it won't.

It'll artificially inflate home prices and increase inflation.

So Realtors, banks, insurance companies, and tax collectors will get more in pocket while the whole process makes everything in general that much more expensive.
Click to expand...
There's that too.

I can't believe some people still pay 6% commission to Realtors.
 
this sounds promising

Trump huddles with Tulsi Gabbard ahead of debate with Harris

Former President Trump has met with former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) in recent days, huddling with the one-time presidential candidate who shared a
ground.news

  • Trump is preparing for a debate with Harris by enlisting Tulsi Gabbard, a former rival and representative from Hawaii. Gabbard's involvement was confirmed by Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
  • Gabbard previously challenged Harris during the 2020 presidential race, criticizing her foreign policy and record on criminal justice.
  • Gabbard's attacks had a significant effect on Harris’s campaign, reportedly rattling her and impacting her performance in subsequent debates.
 
Weasel said:
this sounds promising

Trump huddles with Tulsi Gabbard ahead of debate with Harris

Former President Trump has met with former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) in recent days, huddling with the one-time presidential candidate who shared a
ground.news

  • Trump is preparing for a debate with Harris by enlisting Tulsi Gabbard, a former rival and representative from Hawaii. Gabbard's involvement was confirmed by Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
  • Gabbard previously challenged Harris during the 2020 presidential race, criticizing her foreign policy and record on criminal justice.
  • Gabbard's attacks had a significant effect on Harris’s campaign, reportedly rattling her and impacting her performance in subsequent debates.
Click to expand...
Gabbard destroyed Harris. She's a master debater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh