What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

The Donald thinking it’s his call as to which individuals are what race, has long been a thing for the bigot….”they sure don’t look like Indians to me…..”

www.independent.co.uk

Trump uses racist language to describe Native Americans in resurfaced 1993 clip

As Donald Trump faces growing criticism for falsely claiming that vice president Kamala Harris “happened to turn Black” only recently, a resurfaced clip from 1993 could cause more issues for him. Trump made his comments about the vice president’s race at the National Association of Black...
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
The Midnight said:
It’s not.

The more you post the more people are gonna hate your side.

It’s having the opposite effect to what you want to achieve.
Click to expand...
It is having exactly the effect he wants, as he is a troll. He is getting a rise out of people and he gets off on that. So you responding to him makes him laugh and probably fap a bit harder that night. The best tactic is to ignore him. He is disingenuous at best, a full on worthless troll at worst. And, for the record, it is for the worst. He is a troll, and nothing more.
 
Bucknutz said:
And last time I’ll bring this up, neither of these major party candidates have any substance, especially when they are off script. Of the 3 candidates, looking objectively, rank them by substance if they went on a long 3 hour off script podcast like Joe Rogan; Substance would be policy driven and looking at the candidates knowledge, articulate, and actually interesting to listen to.

Mine would be
1. RFK
Big gap
2. Trump
3. Harris

Why Trump over Harris, I believe after you understand his way of talking (I’m the best, no one does better, it was the biggest), he can talk about different policy topics and make it interesting. Kamala who I think is more articulate that Trump, couldn’t talk about policy in depth, host would have to constantly drive the conversation, nervously laugh and then talk in circles. Just listen to Smartless podcast which is a 30 minutes long and if you actually listen to her, she doesn’t really say anything, just answering questions with no depth. The hosts don’t even push back on any answers. Just all generic answers, scare tactics with race added in. You listen to it and you come away with literally no new information.
Click to expand...
I liked this post because I agree with a good 1/3 of it. Neither candidate has much substance at this point. I do not believe that Kamala will ever join Mount Rushmore, and that she lacks depth.

But if she is playing in the kiddie pool, Donald is kicking his bare feet and gnarled troll toes through a muddy puddle, at best. He has shown the most extreme lack of depth I think we have ever seen in a presidential candidate. @fishonjazz laid it out very succinctly. His track record of despicable actions and ridiculous statements so far outshadow anything negative about Kamala that she might as well be Mahatma Gandhi. She is looking so so much better than we imagined simply because her point of comparison is probably the most deplorable president we have ever had. Like I even look good next to the douchebag at the gym throwing his weights to the ground and scamming on anything in tight pants that might have a vagina. Next to Trump, she looks positively Lincoln-level presidential. I am sad you cannot see what a train-wreck he is and will be for the country again, except for white christian nationalists, the 1%-ers, and those who aspire to be in the 1%. I am beginning to think you sympathize with that demographic, but I don't really want to believe you do. I just cannot see a single redeeming quality from Donald. Not one. And also, since an election is really a contest between 2 people, at least in backwater America it is, then we are right to counter any comment about one with comments about the other. Especially when the only criticisms on the one side are completely subjective..."she mis-spoke, what a rube"...and the criticisms on the other side are literal criminal acts with active court cases. So in this light, the comparison isn't remotely close. I choose the one who shows they care at least a little about what is best for the country and the actual people living here, not the one that cares only about his own aggrandizement at all costs ("fight like hell"). One is surprised to suddenly be in the spotlight, the other threatened our very democracy and literally took lives to hold onto a spotlight that was no longer his. So yes, for any thinking, rational, non-bigoted, moral, and ethical American the choice is pretty clear.
 
MVP said:
They were until Biden dropped out. Now we have one terrible, awful, despicable candidate and one which is not great but at least decent. Choice is obvious.
Click to expand...
The choice is an illusion. You don't have any more say on who will be the next US President than you had in who was the democrat nominee. It has been decided for you. What remains to be seen is how loudly they can make you clap and cheer for the privilege of being freed from things that used to be protected rights.
 
  • Hmmm
Reactions: MVP
1722619516895.png

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the 2024 presidential race makes its turn into the final stretch, the White House assured journalists that they would only have to pretend Kamala Harris is likable for a couple more months.

Members of the media, weary from the exhausting duty of portraying Harris as capable, experienced, qualified, and decent, were relieved to find out that they would only have to maintain the ruse until election day.

"Don't worry, you don't have to do this forever," one White House insider told reporters. "We just have to make people think she's a bright, likable person until they cast their votes… or until we cast their votes for them, am I right? But for real though, once the election is over, you can stop trying so hard."


Journalists were glad to learn that their herculean efforts would not be an ongoing requirement. "It's a big relief," one reporter said. "Making her seem like a person anyone would want to be around is a tall order. We leave work drenched in sweat every night from the strain of propping her up as a likable human being. I don't think we could keep it up beyond November even if we had to. Thankfully, we can stop doing it after the election and just go back to hiding her flaws like we normally do for every Democrat."

At publishing time, the White House had informed journalists that they should start preparing now for the difficult job of portraying Harris as being a successful president if she wins this year and runs again in 2028.
 
MVP said:
Like women's rights to decide about their own body? I think Trump freed them from those protected rights didn't he? At least he keeps bragging about it?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Women in the United States can still kill their unborn children without consequence, even those women living in super red states although there may be some travel needed. What Trump did was appoint Supreme Court Justices who opened that issue up to democracy. The people in some states decided to alter the line this way and some states decided to alter the line the other way. If the people don't like where the line is drawn in their state then they have the power to advocate for the line to be moved as the issue is still open to democracy. Trump also removed from the GOP platform anything having to do with women having the ability to kill their unborn children.

Trump has said that he personally believes in abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It is the late term abortions that Trump is super against.

The democrat party position is to remove the issue from being open to democracy, and to remove any restrictions so that even women in their 9th month having contractions can stop in a clinic to have their child killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top