fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Red
Well-Known Member
The least I would expect from ignorant people. I’ve heard everything was deliberate on Trump’s part. A message to his base, red meat for his base: “I’ll make sure blacks stay in their place”. That should do wonders for the black vote for Trump. And here I thought he was just resorting to his own gross ignorance. Well, can’t rule that out either….
FIREWORKS! Chicago Crowd Erupts After President Trump Unleashes on Rude Reporter to Her Face (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
President Trump traveled to Chicago on Wednesday to deliver remarks at the National Association of Black Journalists conference.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
I know for some reason you get really defensive when anyone is critical of Kamala. It’s not okay to show her lack of competence on this forum?
Or is this forum a “just be critical of Trump and RFK” and anyone else is not welcome? I’m being serious here.
The minute she was chosen for the left, the posters here have become noticeably defensive about posts that are critical of Kamala. We are on the verge of calling people trolls who, in their opinion, think Kamala is not a good choice.
Anyone says something about Kamala is “well Trump is so much worse”. Yeah, so what. Can’t both main party candidates be bad?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I think most posters on here have expressed exactly that sentiment, that both suck. Now we have come to the part of the conversation where we just lob **** back and forth because, well really it's because it's all we have to do for the time being. So there is going to be a lot of "oh yeah well what about X instead of Y" formulaic responses. We know they both suck. Many of us are happy that one now at least sucks dramatically less than the previous option. That's all we got until they give us something more of substance to discuss.
Red
Well-Known Member
Kamala Harris and the rise of Neobirtherism. So very easy to read Trump. But not to his true believers.
www.theatlantic.com
“The first iteration of birtherism was a synthesis of conservative ideology aimed at the first Black president, Barack Obama. It said that immigrants and nonwhite people had usurped the birthright of real Americans, who were white, and inverted the natural hierarchy of the nation.
The second iteration of birtherism, directed at Kamala Harris, who would be America’s second Black president, is similarly ideological. But it tells a different story, one in which Black identity confers an unfair advantage over white people—an advantage that is doubly unfair for Harris to seize because she is not truly Black.
This is what Donald Trump meant when he smeared Harris during an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention on Wednesday. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump said.
The first thing to understand is that Trump’s professed ignorance is a lie. Harris was identified in news reports as the first Black woman to become a district attorney in California back in 2003, when she won office in San Francisco. Trump donated to Harris twice in 2011 and 2014, during her campaign for attorney general of California, around the time she was being touted as “the female Obama” precisely because she is Black. In 2020, a Trump campaign spokesperson pointed to those donations as proof that Trump was not racist, saying, “I’ll note that Kamala Harris is a Black woman and he donated to her campaign, so I hope we can squash this racism argument now.” Harris did not recently become Black; Trump recently decided to pretend to be confused about it.
What Trump’s Kamala Harris Smear Reveals
The former president is suggesting that Harris became Black only when it was obvious that being Black conferred social advantage.
www.theatlantic.com
“The first iteration of birtherism was a synthesis of conservative ideology aimed at the first Black president, Barack Obama. It said that immigrants and nonwhite people had usurped the birthright of real Americans, who were white, and inverted the natural hierarchy of the nation.
The second iteration of birtherism, directed at Kamala Harris, who would be America’s second Black president, is similarly ideological. But it tells a different story, one in which Black identity confers an unfair advantage over white people—an advantage that is doubly unfair for Harris to seize because she is not truly Black.
This is what Donald Trump meant when he smeared Harris during an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention on Wednesday. “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump said.
The first thing to understand is that Trump’s professed ignorance is a lie. Harris was identified in news reports as the first Black woman to become a district attorney in California back in 2003, when she won office in San Francisco. Trump donated to Harris twice in 2011 and 2014, during her campaign for attorney general of California, around the time she was being touted as “the female Obama” precisely because she is Black. In 2020, a Trump campaign spokesperson pointed to those donations as proof that Trump was not racist, saying, “I’ll note that Kamala Harris is a Black woman and he donated to her campaign, so I hope we can squash this racism argument now.” Harris did not recently become Black; Trump recently decided to pretend to be confused about it.
Last edited:
They can be bad to you. That doesnt make them bad to others. We have plenty on here who like Trump and defend him. I think Kamala is a great option. When you provide bad reasons to hate on her I will complain about it and attempt to debate it. When you try to both sides a silly argument its in bad faith. There is also a lot of room between both are bad and one is really awful and one has a few faults.
I am sorry you feel like a victim on here...
The statements from her are not in the same realm as what Trump has said. Its a pretty meh thing to post about. Her statement was fine.
You have been mostly critical of her for the reason I just quoted you for. Then you go on in support of someone much worse at that thing, so you change it. So it seems your dislike is insincere and your support of people who are not candidates also seems that way. To be honest I only partially believe you are not voting for Trump. Its very common tactic for Trump votres to claim to be against him/not like him and then just bash the other side and claim both sides. Then you go out of your way to try and push a person that has no chance of winning and who you claim should be the democrat nominee that is a terrible option.
Ill ask for the last time: Who is a women that you think would be a great leader and you would support for President?
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
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.
Red
Well-Known Member
I think either political party, any political party, would be in a panic given Biden’s debate performance and nose diving poll numbers. In the Democrats case, many are genuinely concerned that Trump’s candidacy represents a truly existential threat to democratic institutions. Is that fear misplaced? I don’t think so.
I do believe that the democratic leadership, aware that time has never been more of the essence, are also aware that there is no room for infighting. Only unity matters with Trump looming over the office of the presidency.
I have no problem criticizing Harris. I never warmed to her during the 2016 Democratic primaries. And I wondered if Obama’s idea of a mini-primary season, and true open convention would have been a stronger example of democracy in action. I don’t back MAGA’s claims of a coup by the Democrats, however.
But no turning back at this stage. I expect another bump in the polls following the convention. And I’m glad Trump went racist. His party is very concerned about the “wisdom” of such a tact. But I don’t expect he can help himself, he never has, and never will, cast a wider net.
I guess what I’m saying is, regardless of her qualifications, her abilities, etc., there’s no turning back from supporting her, and boosting her. And I find I have warmed to her, and do believe she’s highly qualified. Trump is an existential threat. And I had looked at Biden as a caretaker-bridge in the first place. Just prevent Trump 2.0. But I’m just speaking for me, and there’s never been an election year like 2024.
PJF
Well-Known Member
PJF
Well-Known Member
The image simply points out that the liberals got stuck with the worst possible candidate. Facts are hard for many of you.
PJF
Well-Known Member
Worst candidate ever. She can't even get Christmas right.
View: https://x.com/theblaze/status/1819127146604122156
View: https://x.com/theblaze/status/1819127146604122156
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I think the difference here is that none of us criticize trump for repeating himself.
We criticize him for saying things like water destroys batteries, nukes should be used to stop hurricanes, sexual assault, fake universities, attempts to steal elections, sleeping with pornstars and cheating on all his wives, inciting attacks on the Capitol, suggesting that injecting disinfectant might be a good Idea, batteries vs shark as which option is a worse death, he only likes soldiers who don't get captured, storming airports in the revolutionary war, make a moat filled with alligators and snakes around the border, etc etc. (could go on for days)
When we criticize trump for these types of things and then criticize Kamala for repeating herself it kind of seems very minor and grasping at straws'ish.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Last edited: