He’s had yet another horrible week. The old tricks aren’t working. Kamala Harris does not fear him. And it’s showing in the numbers.

  • prime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    As much as I’d like to celebrate, I can only think about how the attitude was the same regarding Hillary, and we all saw how that turned out. Fingers crossed.

    • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      It’s the truth, though… If trump could beat out Hillary, Kamala stands no chance in hell.

      Edit: Quit reading into this. It’s an opinion based on observation. It’s fine if you disagree and want to tell me why I’m wrong. I welcome that. But assuming I’m pro-trump or anti-harris because of this comment is an assumption you shouldn’t be making. I said nothing to indicate support for either.

        • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          “Time” is the greatest clarifier. This narrative you’re talking about isn’t made from lies about Hillary. It is about things that were called called lies at first, but then, over time, were proven to be correct. But by they time they were proven correct, hardly anyone cared about it anymore, the focus had shifted to other topics, and the MSM hardly reported on it.

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The energy around Clinton was different, even most dems weren’t thrilled with Hillary and she was unpopular with undecided voters, meanwhile we know and have seen the threat that is Trump, and Harris is fairing better so far.

        We’ll see of course, but it’s not as similar as it might seem if you’re just saying “Woman vs Trump is the same”

                • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  This is from a more detailed comment I made:

                  "Tim waltz (and family) finances. Facts: Tim owns no stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs. He owns no real estate, investment property, or otherwise (neither does his wife). He also has no 401k, IRA, or any retirement fund. His net worth is estimated to be 115,000$ to 330,000$. All this is not great, considering he’s 60(ish?) nearing retirement. the average net worth for congresspeople and senators is around $1 million. His only legitimate source of income is his pension.

                  Pros or cons, we can decide for ourselves if all this makes him a better candidate for VP or not. We can make some assumptions, and one assumption I can make is that waltz personally seems to be financially ignorant.

                  There are other pros and cons about Waltz, but as far as finances, Tim Waltz is a scrub. And I think that these facts are very important when considering electing him into a position where he’s at the controls for financial decisions for an ENTIRE country… whatever side you lean toward, all this should be concerning."

                • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  There are reasons, but what sticks out to me is that he seems financially illiterate. Neither he nor his wife own a home or any other assets. He owns no business. No stocks, bonds, securities, 401K or investments anywhere. Waltz ownz nothing… None of this is bad, necessarily, if you’re a regular citizen, but I’d want/expect someone running for Vice President to be more financially savvy.

                  Tim waltz is a scrub