Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Suppressed Poet]

Exactly! It was a good interview.

As I stated in my previous post, I expect that to be the reaction from the hardcore Trump haters such as yourself. Notice I’m saying hardcore Trump haters and not Kamala supporters, because deep down very few Democrats actually like Kamala & are primarily motivated to vote for her simply because they can’t stand Trump.

That is all well and fine, but her goal was to speak to an audience and sway undecided voters that don’t necessarily share that TDS. I don’t see how her responses & performance in this interview did anything to woo those group of voters. In fact, it may likely have had the opposite effect.

[Suppressed Poet]

No, I would not agree with that statement because is demonstrably false. Harris received votes in the 2020 primary even though she withdrew before voting began. She received votes because her name was still on the ballot. Why would somebody vote for somebody who has withdrawn? I don't know. We could ask RFK, Jr.

Wow. Ok, we’ll agree to those facts. That’s something she can be proud of.

[Neveragain]

I'm doing everything I can to cope with supporting a candidate that was installed for me.

I know.

Bless your heart.

[Neveragain]

Wow. Ok, we’ll agree to those facts. That’s something she can be proud of.

I do know that if I'm Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc. if this woman becomes POTUS, this is the moment I have been waiting for to roll the dice.

[Suppressed Poet]

I do know that if I'm Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, etc. if this woman becomes POTUS, this is the moment I have been waiting for to roll the dice.

Biden tells Iran that attempts on Trump’s life would be act of war: report
https://nypost.com/2024/10/14/us-new...en-tells-iran/

Yep, this pretty much tells us whom Iran prefers to have as U.S. President. It’s also becoming more obvious that Biden is bitter and low-key wants to see Kamala lose.

[Seran]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the Albertsons / Kroger merger. Government should investigate to make sure the grocery market remains competitive, prevent price fixing, and uphold antitrust laws. I don’t know enough of the facts to have a strong opinion one way or the other on the matter.

Where I lose you is when you say supply and demand is a myth. That’s the equivalent of saying the earth is flat or that gravity doesn’t exist. Supply and demand is a mathematical law in a free market. I think we can find common ground that there must be laws enforced to keep that free, but that does not include profit caps or price fixing by government.

Additionally, it seems like you are either surprised or find something inherently wrong with corporations seeking to achieve maximum profit. That’s what they are supposed to do. Don’t kid yourself they now or have ever gave a rat’s ass about what is economically best for you or the economy at large. That doesn’t make them evil. That is expected human behavior. People want a return on capital investments and businesses do what they do to make money. Government’s role is to simply make sure they play by the rules and uphold the free market.

Supply and demand is a theory, the exact terminology was coined in the 17th situation and has been used to explain the dynamics of a free market. It's not a law, nor is it an immutable force. It's a concept originally intending to explain the natural flow of a market to achieve w balance between supply and the demand which consumes it.

When I point to the 'myth' it's in derision to those who believe a free market has room for illegal actions, unconscionable profiteering, and other anti competitive acts as you've sussed out. A free market is good, and capitalism has made this country the envy of most others due to the strength of our industrial ability and stability of our economy. When corporations act solely in their self interests to the detriment of all else, it can have massive long term detrimental effects which laws have been created to curtail. Profits derived from having a quality product that is in demand isn't the issue. Ensuring you're the only product, retailer, or service by way of destroying competition and then profiteering is the issue.

[Suppressed Poet]

“I think she had a mission that she wanted to do,” Baier said after the interview. “Maybe she wanted to have a viral moment or pushback. She came to Fox News and she wanted to have a go-after-Donald-Trump viral moment that plays on a lot of other channels and on social media. She may have gotten that.”

Even Baier thinks Kamala did good at the interview.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/...a-mission.html

An accurate paraphrased summary of the entire interview:

Baier: Why do you suck at being the VP & what exactly are you turning the page from?

Harris: TRUMP!!!

[Methais]

“I think she had a mission that she wanted to do,” Baier said after the interview. “Maybe she wanted to have a viral moment or pushback. She came to Fox News and she wanted to have a go-after-Donald-Trump viral moment that plays on a lot of other channels and on social media. She may have gotten that.”

Even Baier thinks Kamala did good at the interview.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/10/...a-mission.html

If that's what you got out of that statement then lololololololololololol

[Methais]

She's never won a primary when her name is actually on the ballot.

Unlike you said, Harris has won a primary. It was one of the obstacles she had to overcome to be elected Attorney General of California.

[Suppressed Poet]

Supply and demand is a theory, the exact terminology was coined in the 17th situation and has been used to explain the dynamics of a free market. It's not a law, nor is it an immutable force. It's a concept originally intending to explain the natural flow of a market to achieve w balance between supply and the demand which consumes it.

When I point to the 'myth' it's in derision to those who believe a free market has room for illegal actions, unconscionable profiteering, and other anti competitive acts as you've sussed out. A free market is good, and capitalism has made this country the envy of most others due to the strength of our industrial ability and stability of our economy. When corporations act solely in their self interests to the detriment of all else, it can have massive long term detrimental effects which laws have been created to curtail. Profits derived from having a quality product that is in demand isn't the issue. Ensuring you're the only product, retailer, or service by way of destroying competition and then profiteering is the issue.

It’s called the law of supply and demand for a reason.

Again, we can find agreement that government should have an active role in upholding a free market & enforcing anti-trust laws. Competition is necessary. Monopolies and oligopolies are bad for the consumer. If you take it further and say that government should cap corporate profits and/or institute price controls on certain goods or services, you are moving away from capitalism and into a command economy. Command economies are bad. It’s been tried before several times and always leads to diminishment of the quality of goods & services + shortages.