Money is pouring in for Kamala Harris as U.S. presidential candidate

Well said @ChimneyPot

Trump literally denounced project 2025 shortly after it was released.

I don't trust him because he's a narcissist, disloyal, and a populist.

@Wabash6503 Trump says whatever suits him on whatever day. Since you have correctly perceived that he’s a disloyal narcissist, I’m assuming that you can also discern that he is also a liar which is why you can’t trust his denouncements.

I think a Trump presidency is an extremely dangerous prospect, and I would vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping him out of office so long as they seemed relatively stable and moderate. In this case that is Kamala Harris. I also happen to agree with enough of her policies.

She is not a moderate... Though she is selling that these days.

Yes... He's a populist. Abortion, despite my own views about it, has majority support in the US, which is why he changed his tune on it. And despite his many character flaws, I know he'll stick to that, because that's his M.O. as a populist. The dangerous thing about him is the lack of principles. Can't trust someone like that. Which is why I really can't trust Harris or Biden. Harris was literally the most liberal politician in Congress just a few years ago. As VP, she and Biden implemented the most liberal administration the US has ever seen... To the detriment of the country, and to the detriment of our allies. Now the little she does say about policy objectives, makes her out to be as conservative as Trump on several issues. That's beyond Trump in terms of dishonesty.

The truth is, right now in the US, we have two terrible candidates and neither deserve to be elected president. I was strongly considering RFK, but he has suspended his campaign now. So I'm left without a candidate that I will support and I'm not going to just vote for the least worst option. Plenty of people will buy whatever lies they are told and compromise their own values to do so. I won't. I think more people should do the same, and expect more out of the people who want to lead our nations.

this is part of the issues with having a democracy we need better systems rather than the current ones

Why do you say that about her? She is relatively stable and moderate in my eyes.

Both sides of the political media are reporting it. Left calls it rebranding, right calls it flip flopping. Either way, she is running away from her past statements. The problem is she helped enact them the last three years...and if you believe her statements from the past, she intends to go even further left.

Not sure if you're from the US or UK, but I've noticed that nearly everyone's comments from the UK sounds like all they watch is CNN and MSNBC. What's up with that?

So you're anti-democracy?

we need a population that is not lead by the media when it comes to choosing their leaders

If you brits have been wondering what normal Americans are up against Wabash-whatever is a good example of the kind of crazed, anti woman, irrational, thinking that produced Trumps voters.

Just ignore him. We will out vote him, I hope.

We used to have the fairness doctrine in the US until 1987, that prevented most of the vitriol coming out of the political media. And then politicians got rid of it. This why we can't have nice things...here.

Because pikkumy77 is the best ever...🙄

Clearly you haven't seen anything I've written about who I'm not voting for. What I can't believe is that even after 50 years and 65,000,000 abortions progressive liberals still think there needs to be more. Which is very representative of the left's view on government, which is to force their failed policies on the entire nation. Regardless of whether or not the constitution allows for it, or the majority of the country even supports it.

So, do tell me how the 14th amendment (due process clause) guarantees a medical procedure? Oh yeah, that's right... It doesn't. And states should have the right to govern it themselves, you know, because that's what the constitution actually says. All this sounds wildly, crazy to you I'm sure.

Whatever, keep telling yourself I'm a Trumper if it helps you sleep better at night. God forbid someone tries to talk some sense to you.

Who are you voting for, then, if you don’t plan to vote for Trump or Harris and RFK has dropped out?

This is a UK site and the right to an abortion is a settled question in the UK. Talking about 65 million forced births is probably not the way to win over an audience on mumsnet, TBH.

This!!

And to be honest I’m not sure I’d say access to safe abortion has been a failed leftist policy, quite the opposite.

I wonder if Wabash considers legalisation of same sex marriage or the right for gay couples to adopt to be ‘failed leftist policies’ too.

I am very excited for the potential policies of a Harris-Walz administration. What he achieved in Minnesota with only a single vote to spare in the legislature is indicative, in broad strokes, of the goals they have: make government work, make ordinary people’s lives easier, keep children safe from gun violence.

I neither believe Wabash’s stories about his politics nor am I interested in Trump’s voters. We can’t have nice things as long as we try to appease these people.

Banning abortion is the ultimate express of forcing a failed policy on a population.

They aren’t just out to ban abortion : they are out to repeal Griswold v Connecticut which legalized contraception, they propose to use the Comstock laws against prurient materials in the post against all information or medication or contraception for women, and they oppose no fault divorce. The specific policies that the Trump administration would pursue are well known to everyone but his voters. They never believe the republican party will do the things it says it will do.

I probably won't cast a vote for President. I'll vote for those candidates on the rest of the ballot that I do support. But at this point, I'm not going to make the mistake of supporting either of the two terrible candidates.

It might not sway many opinions, you're correct on that... But it should. At a minimum, folks that like to say they think independently should think twice and answer a very reasonable question, which is how do you do both. Because if you look at abortion or politics in general as a zero sum game, than you are an extremist that will only accept having it one way... And that means you'll do anything (moral or immoral) to accomplish it.

If that's how you view me, than you are part of the problem. Democracy relies on dialogue... When you openly call for source if a dissenting opinion, which you did by implying that conservative viewpoints should be appeased, than you are saying that you are adamantly opposed and you will do anything to win. That's extremism. For what is worth, I hope you change your mind, because I'm not opposed to abortion or reproductive rights, I simply think it is being overused, and there should be discussion about how to minimize it, rather than trying to make it more prevalent...and, I'm here trying to create dialogue.

Literally no one is trying to “make abortion more prevalent

Your post to me was utter word salad. No idea what you are on about.

Goodnight and good luck.

I'm not talking about banning it. I'm saying it's overused. And the roots of overuse stem from racism and Nazi eugenics. To me, it seems like this should be an easy issue to find common ground on, but unfortunately political parties have based their identity on it, so it makes it harder to discuss. For example, 71% of Americans think there should be some limitations. This is a super majority, and yet we are all being held hostage by the political extremes at both ends, to the point where most people can't even discuss it rationally. Why is that?

Sorry for the typos. I disagree with you though about prevalence... Nearly all the comments addressed to me so far have been based around the idea that no limitations should be placed on abortion. And that is also the stated goal of far left politicians.