Navigating the Election: Weighing the Pros and Cons On Candidates
Because Trump's not a fascist at all...
Trump said during a Thursday interview that “deranged” special counsel Jack Smith should be “thrown out of the country.”
“We should throw Jack Smith out with them, the mentally deranged people,” Trump said during his appearance on WABC 770 AM’s “Cats & Cosby Show” with hosts John Catsimatidis and Rita Cosby.
“Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged and he should be thrown out of the country,” the Republican nominee added while talking about immigration, one of the most important topics for voters in the 2024 presidential election."
Interesting take? Should we just throw citizens out of the country we disagree with or don't like?
https://www.aol.com/trump-says-jack-smi … 28610.htmlMy, panic is palpable. Has it served you well before? I mean you ruminate on Trump. You reach backward, forward, and all in between. Has any of this served you well?
“Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged and he should be thrown out of the country,”
Do you agree?I’ll reserve judgment until I see him in action. I have no personal reason to label him. I assume Trump has his reasons for speaking out, especially since he knows what Smith is accusing him of. So, I’ll wait to see how his case unfolds and what the verdict will be.
When someone hits out at him he hits back. I feel it's that simple. I would lose respect for him if he did not hit back. I guess it would be nice if he did not for the other side. LOLSo in some scenario it is okay to throw citizens out of the country? Trump hits back? But isn't throwing someone out of the country fascist?
I didn't address the fairness of his comment; I only noted that when someone attacks him, he tends to retaliate. I believe it’s that simple, and I would lose respect for him if he didn’t respond strongly.
I'm not critiquing his statement; I’m just focused on what he proposes as an agenda and whether I find it plausible.Well, I think it's not a problem for a leader to respond strongly but a leader must have a response that is lawful, constitutional. Lol folks talking about Harris getting a little bit worked up in speeches and we've got Trump out here threatening to remove his enemies from the country. Just incredible.
I see Trump as a guy who isn’t a politician—he speaks like a New Yorker or someone you'd meet at a kitchen table. He’s just a citizen at this point. As for Harris, it seems she’s just following orders, likely from the same handlers who guided Biden. And we know how well that turned out. She struggles to manage herself socially and goes off the rails when unscripted. What’s missing here? Her wild, erratic accusations make her seem unstable. Trump has never shown any signs of authoritarianism; he was a strong president, and it’s clear a large majority support him. Harris would do well to step back, gather the pieces, and present a logical agenda for once. Day by day she sounds more unhinged. She has made herself a comedy figure at this point.
I'd say many have sanewashed Trump...it's funny though, he doesn't go along with any of the washers. He means what he says. He seems to bristle when the followers reinterpret or give a different meaning to his statements. He's done it on air quite frequently with hannity and Ingram when they give him the line " oh you don't really mean it like that..." And he says yeah, yeah I do.
Harris follows a script that doesn't include calling journalist enemies, calling for the removal of American citizens from the country, calling half of the country the enemy within... That's a okay with me. Trump's comments are increasingly fascist.
Most of them dont see him as a fascist, because they agree with him. Im sure if he was in power and declare that there wont be more elections and he's to be the president king, most true MAGAs would agree.
What is JUST as interesting is Harris telling us Trump is "unhinged" ("much like "deranged", right?) and Biden telling us he must be locked up (much like "thrown out of the country", right?)
You could at least make an effort at giving equal treatment, don't you think?The Biden comment has not been quoted completely. Any leader who would threaten to throw those he doesn't like out of the country IS. Fascist, IS unhinged. Trump is now calling journalists terrible people, enemies of the public. Sounds like a fascist to me..
I noticed that you didn't answer the question though, is it okay for a president to throw people out of the country for revenge, or because he doesn't like them? Not even sure that's constitutional....Still no fairness, just repeated name calling. Oh well, I think it is to be expected from the far left with TDS.
(It is as fair to do that as it is to turn the entire Justice system against a political opponent, with myriads of trumped up cases, new laws and interpretations, etc. It is as fair as hounding with dozens of faux "trials" for a decade, all to remove a political opponent.)“Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged, and he should be thrown out of the country,”
Agree or disagree? Constitutional?Shall I take a page from your book? Yes: he is mentally ill, evil to the core and a danger to our Constitution!
There: I used your methodology of name calling and exaggeration. Did it work? Do you believe me? Or do you reject is as just another lie (which it is)?Trump made the statement that an American citizen should be thrown out of our country, do you support this idea?
His own voice...
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/184 … untableGOPI think all I... and many Americans hear now from anyone and any media source with a Left bias is...
Waa Waaaa Wa Waaaa Waa Waaaaa
Think of Charlie Brown in class...
The Democrats... The Establishment was given one final chance...
After Americans were beaten down by Covid... by a media that went nuclear in its anti-Trump... pro-rioters (until they weren't BLM riots)... stance...
Americans were divided enough to let Biden and Harris in...
And what did they get for it?
World War III and on the precipice of Nuclear Devastation of Civilization...
Millions of Migrants helped into America and being put on the Taxpayer tit.
Inflation... Higher Interest rates on loans... the devaluation of the dollar...
What does Harris and Kerry and Biden say they want to do???
Shut down free speech? Continue to escalate the wars?
Increase taxes on the rich (which ALWAYS ends up being increased taxation on the working stiffs that can't weasel their way out of it like the rich do)?
Continued support of men beating up on women in women's sports?
Continued support of child mutilation and indoctrination?
Policies that promote hiring foreign migrants over American citizens?
How much worse can they make the lives of Americans?
Give them another four years and we will find out... and things will be a lot worse.He is on tape, recorded. In his own voice you can hear exactly what he said. What does "left bias' have to do with anything?
Trump hasn't refuted any of this, only some of his followers have tried to sane wash this one.
Kamala Harris can't raise her voice but Trump can throw people out of the country okie dokeRight over your head....
Harris and crew are running on...
WWIII...
Massive Debt... more spending... more inflation...
Americans come last... especially white Americans...
More migrants to come...
Those are some of the top talking points that the Democrats/Harris have to crow about.I note you don't address any subject put to you. okie doke --- your bait is very weak
And Biden said this ---- "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually eliminate — physically eliminate — shoot, kill — someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him. "
So your thoughts on such a crazy statement?Deflection?
The Supreme Court immunity ruling is clear that a president can label anything as an official act and he has immunity.
Civil servants?
More than 2 million civilians work in "the federal government today. Donald Trump believes that many are “rogue bureaucrats” in a mythical deep state. “They’ve got to be held accountable,” Trump has said. “They’re destroying this country. They’re crooked people. They’re dishonest people.”
The plan is spelled out in project 2025 which Trump is on record saying would lay out the blueprint for his movement.
He has stated, emphatically that he will remove a citizen of this country. That's fascism.
So, your thoughts on such a crazy statement?Yes, I deflect, you have gone on and on, and the conversation has become played out. I am hopeful others here will take my queue.
COME ON FOLKS time to move on getting boring....Here, this isn't boring at all and should hold your attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdstZDC … obertReichNope... Robert Reich... not my cup of tea...
Not quite as bad as listening to Hillary's hysteria... but damned close.
[EDIT] and yeah... he's drearily boring...
Joe Rogan Trump Podcast BREAKS 10M Views OVERNIGHT, Trump Says NO INCOME TAX As He Nears 2024 WIN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDQM8CUTI5A
Try that for fun.Such a good interview... Good move on Trump's part 14 million on board listening. This man does know how to get his word out, does he not?
I had heard about 70% of that all in previous interviews...
It wasn't his best, he had a couple chances to get some laughs that he took a pass on... sometimes adding in some levity, in a 3 hour interview, is the way to go... but, if you hadn't watched his other recent interviews, then this was probably way more interesting.
Lol I'm going to assume that Trump followers are in agreement with Trump's plan to throw citizens out of the country.
They know it is wrong while they spend all of their time in conspiracy theories and diversions trying to convince everyone that it is fair play.
They don't care as the people Trump would want to eject are not their favorite color anyway.
Trying to reason with this sort is as futile as trying to wash a turd.Jeez... you are so full of vitriol.
You know... you have been like this since Biden won... even in a victory of questionable means you could not enjoy it, not let go of this dark dislike for anyone not on board with Ol' Joe.
The last time when I felt you were reasonable was when we were debating who we wanted as the Dem nominee... Gabbard vs. Warren back in 2019.
I think... and I am going out on a limb here... part of the reason you feel this way is deflection... you are deflecting the loathing you have for much of what this Administration has done, onto those who call it out.
You cannot seriously tell me you support the death of hundreds of thousands Ukrainians and Russians that might have been avoided if Joe had not pushed for war over negotiating...
You cannot possibly support the escalating death and destruction going on in the Middle East today, entirely funded and supported by an Administration that, to this day, sends billions to Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere which only funds and pours fuel on the fire...
How can Americans NOT be upset that over 13,000 KNOWN murderers were allowed to enter into America???
Instead of blaming Americans for wanting to put Americans first... perhaps you should consider all the turmoil and struggle this Administration has brought to the country and the world.Trump is the reason my vitriol level has gone up. I am beginning to realize how much I dislike Republicans and Trump oriented conservatives more with each passing day.
I have been like "this" since Trump descended from the escalator in 2015. Nothing but divisiveness and trouble from the very beginning. My loathing is saved only for Trump and everything he stands for and for all of those that think he is the great messiah that will solve all of our problems.
I wasn't reasonable in by your standard in 2019 either, there is a great deal of difference between Gabbard and Warren.
You can go out on a limb but you are barking up the wrong tree, regardless. You make a poor psychiatrist, and if you have not figured my theme after so long, you are deflecting. Trump is the focus and the danger, almost anyone would be better.
Regardless of the wars abroad, can Trump solve them in a day? Is it his sheer presence, the force of his personality? Does he believe that he has some secret sauce that would bring everything to a successful solution short of capitulating to Putin or giving Netanyahu permission to indulge himself in bloody reprisals against civilians in the Gaza region? Well, I don't.
There are many more murderers that are domestic and are citizens. Everybody know that these immigrants have been less predisposed to committing crimes than residents. But, so many of you are willing to indulge in the lie as part of a racis, xenophobic scheme to stoke the fears of the feeble minded and have them pull the lever for Trump.
Yes, I blame THOSE Americans as I am ashamed to be identified with any nation that elect felons, sex predators, insurrectionists to the top job. Because of logistics, I am not free to leave unfortunately, but if Trump wins, I just reside here, nothing more. I will work against MAGA and any fascist policy that they propose. I will support Europe over America as no longer deserving the title of "Arsenal of Democracy". I only regret, that among all my siblings, I am the only one stuck in a Red oriented state.
There is your answer...... so yes, in the new Trump regime, I probably will be imprisoned.Come on... that last sentence is hyperbolic hysteria at best...
Did Clinton, or Biden, or anyone else face criminal charges for their crimes?
Has anyone been rounded up and jailed for waiving a flag... other than an American flag? Perhaps a Pride flag? ...BLM flag?
You aren't going to jail for speaking your mind... it is Harris and Kerry and Clinton and other Democrats that are saying speech needs to be restricted, X needs to be shut down...
It is Trump, and many of his supporters that have been taken to court, have been threatened with imprisonment... and many have already been sent to prison for supporting Trump, or else in order to get out of jail they turned on Trump.
The FBI has been weaponized against him, since before he was President. They have investigated and jailed many of his supporters.
If all this had been done to Clinton and Biden the outrage you would be spouting out about it would be endless... a torrent of animosity going far beyond anything we have seen.
You support a warmongering cabal that has used its position within the government to attack all those that would try and restrict their abuse of power... those who do not want endless wars... those who do not want to give up their freedoms.
It is the Democrats locking up their political opposition, or confiscating their assets, or dragging them through the courts...
It is the Democrats that are wantonly fighting wars on multiple contents.
It is the Democrats that are saying the Constitution is antiquated and the 1st and 2nd Amendments are hindering their ability to transform the nation into what they want it to be... problem being, the majority of the country does not agree with them.
The Democrat Party and the Donor class supporting it may try hard to paint Trump as a Fascist and worse, but it is they who have acted like Fascists... they are the ones declaring half or more of America as Domestic Terrorists and threats to Democracy...
If Trump does win... which I still do not believe they will allow to happen... it is only because so many Americans have begun waking up to who the real threats to Democracy are.Ken, as for hyperbolic, is it?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/media/tr … index.html
Trump speaks in anti press terms never so much as whispered by any past Presidential candidate. This thin skinned narcissist has expressed a disdain for anyone or anything the can be considered dissent in his small minded world. Is it not natural that that attitude about dissent will go well beyond broadcast networks and print media? Not so hyperbolic...
Neither Clinton nor Biden have been charged with anything, comparing them with Trump is a false equivalence.
More conspiracy theories, Ken?
The FBI has been after Trump, the Justice Department has been after Trump? It is as if he has not committed any crimes that warrant their attention. I surely do not buy it.
The only totalitarian and proposed fascism as a solution for America comes from Trump and MAGA, don't be fooled by the phony populism facade. Trump himself has said it. The only threat to the Constitution and rule of law has come from your side, Ken. I am not easily deceived by Rightwingers who think that they are clever.
I am afraid that Trump will win because America fundamentally at its core is a racist and misogynistic society and while people are reluctant to admit it, it will reveal itself in the final stretch on Election Day. The fact that a man like Trump remains competitive already tell me a lot about this country, and it is not good.
I appreciate your ability and desire to engage and communicate rather than cower and withdraw when you are not told what you want to hear.". . . because America fundamentally at its core is a racist and misogynistic society . . ."
Well damn, where do you go from there? You must be miserable as hell.
GAAnd if Harris wins, America is still a "fundamentally at its core is a racist and misogynistic society".
So where do you go after that happens? Forever searching for perfection, forever sad because you can't find it?America will prove me wrong if Harris can be elected and all the deficits inherent in Trump and MAGA are properly understood. It is still a racist and misogynistic society but there is hope that progress can and is continuing.
No, America has not been perfect but over the last 90 years but the goal was to work toward it even within the reality of two opposing political parties. We have been making progress in fits and starts, that is Until Now.
"Democrats that are saying speech needs to be restricted, X needs to be shut down..."
You have any quotes on that?
But there is this..
“It’s so bad they should lose their license, and they should take ’60 Minutes’ off the air,” Trump told right-wing podcaster Dan Bongino last week.
AND
Earlier this year, Trump said CNN and NBC, “should have their licenses or whatever they have taken away," when the networks opted not to broadcast his live remarks after winning the Iowa caucuses,...
AND
last month he repeatedly accused ABC of wrongdoing after he was fact checked during a presidential debate with Harris, floating “they ought to take away their license” as punishment..
Limiting a free press? Limiting free speech, the first Amendment? This is not fascism?Freedom of speech is not as cut and dry as it may seem. While it protects the exchange of ideas, it doesn’t provide a free pass for the intentional spread of falsehoods, especially by media outlets that have broad influence.
Trump has indeed emphasized media accountability, sometimes even mentioning the revocation of broadcasting licenses as a potential consequence for media outlets that he views as knowingly spreading false information. His stance reflects the idea that while media outlets have the right to free speech, this does not extend to the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods that can mislead the public. The goal behind this push, as he’s articulated, is to ensure that news organizations report accurately and responsibly, especially when they hold significant influence over public perception.
The distinction lies in the role of speech: while free speech protects the exchange of ideas and opinions, it does not provide a blanket right to mislead. Media accountability in this context refers to fostering transparency and trustworthiness, ensuring that the information shared meets certain ethical standards. Trump’s position advocates for this by holding media organizations to account if they violate these standards—something he believes should be within the government’s oversight when it directly affects public welfare and trust. Our media today lies openly. Their lies are easily detected and can be proven with little research.
I prefer a media that does the research and reports the truth instead of blatantly reporting propaganda.I remember lots of folks on this very forum not very long ago absolutely railing at the idea of moderation for horrendous content on X. That it was just an assault on the first Amendment.
Yet, now since Trump floats the idea of government control of media, it's all ok?
In the cases where Trump has threatened media, it's been about editing their content for time..not about "propaganda" at all. In the case of cbs, he simply didn't like the shorter answer the network chose to air (for time) rather than a longer one in which he felt made her look bad somehow... I heard both answers and the difference was negligible.
So does this government oversight of media in terms of public trust and safety apply to Elon musk's hellscape of X?
Lol I got to go back and find that thread on musk , free speech, the first Amendment.... Thinking there's some real gold in thereTrump isn't promoting oversight; he's calling for accountability to stop blatant mistruths from being reported by the media. I believe this is essential because misinformation can have serious consequences, and we should hold media outlets accountable for their reporting. The focus should be on ensuring that the truth is prioritized, rather than allowing false narratives to proliferate unchecked.
Journalists typically answer to their editors and the standards set by their news organizations. While they operate under principles of journalistic integrity and ethics, the accountability mechanisms can vary widely depending on the outlet.
It's evident that many networks have been weaponized by political parties, which poses a danger to our freedom of speech. Lies cannot be considered free speech in any respect. When misinformation is presented as fact, it undermines public trust and can lead to serious consequences. We need to prioritize truth in reporting to ensure that our discourse remains healthy and informed.
The media has come dangerously close to controlling narratives through lies and propaganda. This trend threatens the integrity of information and skews public perception. When media outlets prioritize agendas over truth, it compromises the very foundation of free speech and informed discourse.He is calling for broadcast licenses to be revoked. He is calling journalist enemies of the people, calling them evil people.... This is fascism to the core. His recent accusations against CBS had nothing to do with false statements whatsoever.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, which protects individuals' rights to express ideas, opinions, and even incorrect or unpopular views without government interference.
While there are exceptions to free speech—such as incitement to violence, defamation, or national security threats—any law or government action restricting speech must be narrowly defined to avoid unconstitutional overreach.
Any attempts to limit speech, even for purposes like curbing disinformation, must carefully balance national security and democratic freedoms to avoid eroding the fundamental rights that underpin democracy.
Agreed?Given the rise of propaganda in today's media, I strongly believe we must establish some form of limitation to prevent the spread of lies. While any attempt to limit speech should be approached cautiously, especially concerning national security and democratic freedoms, we cannot ignore the urgent need to hold media accountable for misinformation. Balancing these concerns is essential to protect our fundamental rights while ensuring that truth prevails in public discourse. Without these safeguards, the integrity of our democracy is at risk.
It's a sad reality that we've reached a point where our country feels the need to monitor the media. I attribute this to unscrupulous individuals who believe they can manipulate society through propaganda. This issue is evident and must be addressed. There are those who seek to undermine democracy and misuse free speech, using propaganda to control societal narratives. It's crucial that we recognize this threat and take action to protect the integrity of our discourse and democratic values.I wonder how the self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist", Elon musk would take that?
Seems that you have argued previously that such actions would be government overreach, unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution, especially the First Amendment, is designed to protect free expression, even when that expression includes falsehoods or controversial ideas. While combating disinformation is important, creating laws that penalize either media outlets or individuals for spreading disinformation could pose a threat to these protections...Apples and oranges --- " I wonder how the self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist", Elon musk would take that?"
Who in the hell goes to social media for news?
Social media chat forums and news media networks serve different purposes, which significantly affects how lying or misinformation is perceived in each setting. News media networks are established as professional organizations with a mandate to inform the public, adhering to journalistic standards that include fact-checking, neutrality, and accountability. When a news outlet spreads false information, it’s a serious breach because they’re expected to uphold public trust. If they’re caught misleading people, they can face consequences like public backlash, loss of credibility, or even legal action. Social media chat forums, on the other hand, are spaces for casual conversation and user-generated content, where people can express opinions, share experiences, and speculate freely without formal oversight or any obligation to be accurate. In these forums, misinformation or unverified claims are more common because the platform isn’t designed to serve as a news source.
Another key difference is in how each medium manages moderation and accountability. News media networks have editorial teams and fact-checkers to verify information before publishing it, and they often have processes for issuing corrections if they make mistakes. They’re held accountable in ways that social media platforms, due to their informal nature and sheer volume of content, are not. Social media relies largely on community-driven reporting and less stringent AI-based moderation, which makes it far harder to enforce accuracy across the board. Since people typically see news media as trusted sources for facts, lies from them have a much broader and more immediate impact on public opinion and decision-making, so we demand a higher standard of truth from them. Misinformation on social media, though it may spread quickly, is often met with more skepticism since users know these platforms are informal spaces that carry a mix of accurate and inaccurate content. Ultimately, news media networks have a professional responsibility to report truthfully, while social media forums are informal spaces where lying doesn’t carry the same level of responsibility or institutional accountability."Who in the hell goes to social media for news? "
A little more than half (54%) at least sometimes get news from social media, according to Pew.
So government overreach as far as broadcast media but hands off of social media?
You had previously stated the following...
"The U.S. Constitution, especially the First Amendment, is designed to protect free expression, even when that expression includes falsehoods or controversial ideas. While combating disinformation is important, creating laws that penalize either media outlets or individuals for spreading disinformation could pose a threat to these protections..."
It seems as though many folks have currently changed their ideas on Free speech protection under the first Amendment since Trump is calling for government intervention to revoke broadcast licenses.Not sure why anyone would take any social media site seriously---- I mean talk about government overreach and shutting down free speech.
The Biden administration’s role in shaping social media content became especially apparent with how the Hunter Biden laptop story was handled by both Facebook and Twitter. When this story surfaced in October 2020, just before the election, it raised allegations based on data reportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Both platforms initially suppressed or limited the story due to concerns about its authenticity, but this decision was later heavily scrutinized, as it highlighted how government influence could potentially steer the narrative.
On Facebook’s side, Mark Zuckerberg explained in a 2022 interview that, before the election, the FBI had warned Facebook about potential foreign misinformation campaigns, specifically alerting them to be on guard. Facebook responded by restricting the distribution of the Hunter Biden story temporarily, allowing fact-checkers to assess its validity. Although they didn’t remove the story entirely, the decision to throttle its reach came at a sensitive time, and the public saw this as possibly steering information flow during a key moment in the election cycle.
Twitter’s handling of the story was similar. They initially blocked users from sharing links to the New York Post article about the laptop and even suspended the Post’s account. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, revealed internal debates among Twitter’s staff about suppressing the story, largely influenced by fears of foreign interference and misinformation. Eventually, Twitter reversed its decision after widespread backlash and allowed the article to be shared. However, these moves highlighted the impact that government advisories could have on moderating high-stakes content.
From my perspective, both cases show how quickly government influence can shape what we see on social media, especially with stories that have real implications. It’s concerning because it edges into controlling public discourse, and with this much control, it’s easy to see how it could be used as a form of propaganda. For some, these actions were necessary to protect the election from misinformation; for others, like myself, it raises red flags about the fine line between safeguarding information and controlling it.
The Biden administration’s role in shaping social media content became especially apparent with how the Hunter Biden laptop story was handled by both Facebook and Twitter. When this story surfaced in October 2020, just before the election, it raised allegations based on data reportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Both platforms initially suppressed or limited the story due to concerns about its authenticity, but this decision was later heavily scrutinized, as it highlighted how government influence could potentially steer the narrative.
On Facebook’s side, Mark Zuckerberg explained in a 2022 interview that, before the election, the FBI had warned Facebook about potential foreign misinformation campaigns, specifically alerting them to be on guard. Facebook responded by restricting the distribution of the Hunter Biden story temporarily, allowing fact-checkers to assess its validity. Although they didn’t remove the story entirely, the decision to throttle its reach came at a sensitive time, and the public saw this as possibly steering information flow during a key moment in the election cycle.
Twitter’s handling of the story was similar. They initially blocked users from sharing links to the New York Post article about the laptop and even suspended the Post’s account. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, revealed internal debates among Twitter’s staff about suppressing the story, largely influenced by fears of foreign interference and misinformation. Eventually, Twitter reversed its decision after widespread backlash and allowed the article to be shared. However, these moves highlighted the impact that government advisories could have on moderating high-stakes content.
From my perspective, both cases show how quickly government influence can shape what we see on social media, especially with stories that have real implications. It’s concerning because it edges into controlling public discourse, and with this much control, it’s easy to see how it could be used as a form of propaganda. For some, these actions were necessary to protect the election from misinformation; for others, like myself, it raises red flags about the fine line between safeguarding information and controlling it.
It does put things into perspective. Trump’s statements about removing media licenses may have sounded bold at the time, but in light of the Biden administration’s actual actions, they seem relatively mild. While Trump’s words were strong, they were ultimately hypothetical—a vocal critique of media bias and accountability. In contrast, the Biden administration took tangible steps that directly impacted what Americans saw and heard on major social media platforms.
Yeah... The Democratic party sickens me, as do most that ascribe or support its deplorable tactics.
Well, we've seen the exhortation to "march peacefully" called an "insurrection", and certainly any criticism of the Democratic party is a national security threat.
So...anything Democrats don't like is within that "narrow definition", right?I don't think any Democrats have floated the idea about taking away broadcast licenses. Sort of seems like a violation of the first amendment, doesn't it?
It seems that many here came out strongly against any sort of content moderation for X, citing free speech and the first Amendment but now that Trump talks about limiting media, it's all of a sudden a good idea.
Is Trump's idea of taking away broadcast license says of CBS, ABC and NBC constitutional?
The threat from any politician to revoke a broadcast license simply because they disagree with the station’s content undermines this basic freedom, doesn't it?Is it worse to remove a broadcast license or shut down a major social media player? I've been seeing threats for a long time now that if social media doesn't cooperate with Democrat's idea of proper censorship it will be shut down.
Is there a real difference? Trump does seem to learn dirty tricks from Democrats rather quickly, doesn't he?Do you have any quotes of Democrats raising the idea of shutting down any sort of media?
Do you think Trump's suggestions violate the constitution?The Biden/Harris administrations have subverted free speech.
The Biden administration has faced criticism for allegedly collaborating with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to moderate or suppress certain speech, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples include reports that administration officials pressured platforms to remove or limit posts deemed as "misinformation" about COVID-19 and vaccines. Documents released from lawsuits, such as those filed by state attorneys general, have shown instances of coordination between government agencies and social media companies. This has raised concerns about potential First Amendment violations, as it blurs the line between private sector decisions and government influence over online speech.
The Biden administration has also been scrutinized for allegedly influencing social media platforms regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Before the 2020 election, a New York Post article revealed potentially damaging information related to Hunter Biden's business dealings, but Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of the story, citing concerns about unverified information. Later reports and whistleblower accounts indicated that government officials and intelligence agencies might have influenced this decision, leading to claims that the story was intentionally suppressed. This has fueled concerns that these actions undermined free speech by limiting access to information with potential electoral implications.'The Biden administration has also been scrutinized for allegedly influencing social media platforms regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Before the 2020 election, a New York Post article revealed potentially damaging information related to Hunter Biden's business dealings, but Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of the story, citing concerns about unverified information. Later reports and whistleblower accounts indicated that government officials and intelligence agencies might have influenced this decision, leading to claims that the story was intentionally suppressed. This has fueled concerns that these actions undermined free speech by limiting access to information with potential electoral implications.'
Remind us again who was president in 2020. Saying it was the 'Biden Administration' that did it is a lie. Candidate Biden coordinated with allies to legally suppress the story that far-right media was lying about in saying it would implicate him. Unlike candidate Trump, in 2016, who illegally used his business to pay money to suppress damaging information about him prior to the election. Something the far-right seems to have zero issue with. The hypocrisy is glaring.Evidence regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story came to light just before the 2020 election, with the New York Post breaking the initial story on October 14, 2020. The article revealed allegedly compromising details about Hunter Biden's business dealings, raising concerns over potential conflicts of interest involving then-candidate Joe Biden. However, social media giants Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of this story, citing misinformation concerns and their policies on hacked material.
After Biden took office, the scrutiny intensified. In 2023, the House Judiciary Committee released documents showing that the FBI and other agencies engaged in regular communication with social media companies during this period. The Committee argued this amounted to "government-induced censorship," claiming that the Biden administration pressured platforms to limit or control certain types of content, including stories surrounding Hunter Biden's business dealings.And the part you leave out is that both campaigns were in contact with social media companies to censor content that they believed violated the terms of service for those private platforms, including the Trump White House. But your post seems to be a denial that the only candidate that was 'government censorship' would have been the one currently in office in October of 2020. Joe Biden was a private citizen at that point.
NO, the Biden/Harris administration did this --- and they factually did it. Trump has not revoked one license of any media outlet. They outwardly asked two of the biggest social media companies to take away free speech from the users.
The Biden administration’s role in shaping social media content became especially apparent with how the Hunter Biden laptop story was handled by both Facebook and Twitter. When this story surfaced in October 2020, just before the election, it raised allegations based on data reportedly from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Both platforms initially suppressed or limited the story due to concerns about its authenticity, but this decision was later heavily scrutinized, as it highlighted how government influence could potentially steer the narrative.
On Facebook’s side, Mark Zuckerberg explained in a 2022 interview that, before the election, the FBI had warned Facebook about potential foreign misinformation campaigns, specifically alerting them to be on guard. Facebook responded by restricting the distribution of the Hunter Biden story temporarily, allowing fact-checkers to assess its validity. Although they didn’t remove the story entirely, the decision to throttle its reach came at a sensitive time, and the public saw this as possibly steering information flow during a key moment in the election cycle.
Twitter’s handling of the story was similar. They initially blocked users from sharing links to the New York Post article about the laptop and even suspended the Post’s account. The Twitter Files, released after Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, revealed internal debates among Twitter’s staff about suppressing the story, largely influenced by fears of foreign interference and misinformation. Eventually, Twitter reversed its decision after widespread backlash and allowed the article to be shared. However, these moves highlighted the impact that government advisories could have on moderating high-stakes content.
From my perspective, both cases show how quickly government influence can shape what we see on social media, especially with stories that have real implications. It’s concerning because it edges into controlling public discourse, and with this much control, it’s easy to see how it could be used as a form of propaganda.
Ken, Have you noticed that some people can’t even consider discussing Harris openly—her past, her record, or what she stands for now? It feels like there’s a kind of blind support for her, similar to how they stood by Biden without much scrutiny. And let’s be honest, we’ve all seen how that turned out. Inflation is high, border issues have exploded, and many feel the economy is barely holding up. Yet, it seems these supporters won’t acknowledge these realities; they’d rather stick to criticizing Trump than look at the issues facing us under the current administration or with Harris as the potential next leader.
It's almost like there’s a refusal to apply the same level of scrutiny to Harris that they do to Trump.
I’ve noticed that when people criticize Trump, it’s often purely based on media-fed narratives, almost like they’re repeating lines without really thinking about the big picture or specific policies. It’s rare that they bring up Biden or Harris’s current actions or policies, even though Harris is running for president now. Instead, they focus solely on what the media has drilled into them about Trump, like personal scandals or controversies, rather than his policies or accomplishments while he was in office.
When I try to talk with people who have this perspective, they hardly ever acknowledge anything positive that Trump might have done—things like economic growth, certain foreign policy achievements, or even criminal justice reform that helped a lot of people. It’s like they’re conditioned to hate him without looking at the full picture. I find it fascinating—and a bit troubling—because it’s as if the media has set people up to obsess over Trump while completely ignoring what’s happening with the current administration. It seems to be a kind of phenomenon in how people are influenced by the media.
"How can Americans NOT be upset that over 13,000 KNOWN murderers were allowed to enter into America???
Here we go again...
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, clarified that these figures span several years and include migrants who entered the U.S. during the Trump administration and previous ones.
This data goes back 40 years; it doesn't specify that those 13,099 people entered the U.S. during the Biden-Harris administration.
It noted that individuals on this list may not be in ICE custody but could be detained or incarcerated under the jurisdiction of other agencies.
Why do some folks on this forum keep repeating these talking points that have been debunked over and over and over.
The very first claim is misleading—Biden has consistently had a lower approval rating than Trump. This seems to be another instance of misinformation. I can understand how your opinions might be shaped by selective interpretation of information. For instance, you mentioned Trump’s taxes as if they hadn’t been released. It might be helpful to research more thoroughly before supporting the link you shared. A deeper dive into the facts could provide a clearer picture. The video is mostly mistruths. And no it in no respect would hold my attention. I always search out facts, always. No one pulls the wool over my eyes as a rule.
And Biden said this--- He is sitting president Yikes! "This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually eliminate — physically eliminate — shoot, kill — someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him. "
And Harris has hidden this man's dementia. What in the world does that say? Should we trust this form of human being?
Great point... So on the spot--- I just have always called it hypocrisy.
Any president that would make the ridiculous statement Biden made needs to be removed from office...
"This is a guy also wants to replace every civil servant — every single one; thinks he has a right under the Supreme Court ruling on immunity to be able, if need be — if he — if it was the case — to actually eliminate — physically eliminate — shoot, kill — someone who is — he believes to be a threat to him. " https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … oncord-nh/
He is unstable, and she knew it, yet was okay with hiding it.
Hypocrisy is alive and well--- all that was ignored, as Biden's dementia has and still is being ignored. The worst part of Biden's statement was he claimed Trump would eliminate, shoot, and kill... Lock him up was the milder end of the context of that full statement. Biden should not be sitting in the White House.
Trump shoot people?
"Former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said President Donald Trump inquired about shooting protesters amid the unrest that took place after George Floyd's murder in 2020. He recounts that incident, and many others, in a wide-ranging interview with NPR's Michel Martin on All Things Considered.
Esper said he stayed in the administration because he worried that if he left, the president would more easily implement some of his "dangerous ideas."
Dangerous ideas or cool ideas?
Cue up all the reasons esper is a horrible person...
"Social Security is socialism and is a pain in their side, so it is not unreasonable to presume that Trump would go with the ideological principles of the Republican Party who fought Social Security since FDR." Credence
They are not fighting it. Where is it being even talked about? Who is talking about it?
What politicians are against Social Security these days?
There are NONE.More than likely, I'm going to assume you are drawing some form of Social Security Payment. If you don't like it, why don't you give all your money back that it has paid to you?
I suspect Trump who has never worked an honest day in his life, has never drawn social security. We will never know because he is afraid to release his Tax records. I'm sure it would release a Pandora's Box of illicit and illegal transactions.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … nsparency/Your Point? (... besides wanting to drag fingernails across a chalk board.)
Most like Social Security withholding just fine because they have no discipline to save for retirement by their own planning and efforts.
~ well, they might have self-discipline and self-mastery over their own finances if Social Security had never been invented by FDR.
But its too late now. And everybody knows it.Perhaps you did not know this but factually his taxes were released and he had no history of breaking any tax laws---There was no evidence of illegal activity in Trump's tax returns.
Donald Trump's tax returns were released (6 years) to the public in December 2022, following a lengthy legal battle. The House Ways and Means Committee voted to make six years' worth of Trump’s tax information (from 2015 to 2020) publicly available, just before Republicans took control of the House in January 2023. The release revealed details about his income, taxes paid, and business losses during his presidency and the years immediately before and after.In case others are serious about this.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/30/politics … index.htmlI'm glad I encouraged you to seek out the facts. I was surprised to find out that you weren't aware Trump's taxes were released to the public years ago. Given the outcome showing he didn’t break any tax laws, I would think most people would have let the matter go.
The link you provide does offer some insight on the matter.Wow! Someone says Trump MAY have behand illegally, while offering no convictions.
Again.He’d be sitting in jail if he so much as spit on the sidewalk. Can you just imagine the team that had to dig through those tax records, searching for crimes? Those documents must be practically covered in drool. No, really this man is consistently being condemned but has done nothing. Yet after all this crap, we still have some that buy into anything that is dished up.
It's called desperation. TDS has a strong hold, Trump must be taken out, and they can't find a way to do it. The result is desperate acts that haven't a chance of working, that don't make sense and that actually do the opposite of what they want, but they do it anyway because they're desperate.
No one would dare talk about it on pain of being removed from office. I believe that it is still an underlying ideological pinning belonging to the Republican Party. You might not remember but I do, when GW Bush was talking about privatizing the program allowing Wall Street wolves a field day with a citizens hard earned money’
Virginia must reinstate 1,600 noncitizen voters: Biden-appointed judge
A President Biden-appointed federal judge Friday ordered Virginia to reinstate the voter registrations of more than 1,600 residents who told the state they’re not US citizens and thus ineligible to vote.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/25/us-news/n … med-judge/It’s started—desperation is on full display now. This judge needs to be removed. Thankfully, the governor is stepping in and won’t tolerate this kind of weaponization in the courts. Hopefully, we’ll see a new law requiring voter rolls to be purged before every presidential election. It’s clear this is necessary to prevent fraud. We have the right guy fighting this time around.
Why would the judge need to be removed? Because Ken picked out one sentence of an article and ignored the rest?
I could care little about what the judge ordered. This will be fought, and end up in the Supreme Court. This judge was clearly weaponized. This kind of weaponization must stop. Once again the Democrats are trying to skew an election this is America, not Venezuela. Thank God for men like Youngkin.
AP “Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls.,” Youngkin said in a statement after Friday’s hearing."
"Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the state, said during arguments Thursday that the federal law was never intended to provide protections to noncitizens, who by definition can’t vote in federal elections.
“Congress couldn’t possibly have intended to prevent the removal ... of persons who were never eligible to vote in the first place,” Cooper argued.
The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, though, said that many people are wrongly identified as noncitizens by the DMV simply by checking the wrong box on a form. They were unable to identify exactly how many of the 1,600 purged voters are in fact citizens — Virginia only identified this week the names and addresses of the affected individuals in response to a court order — but provided anecdotal evidence of individuals whose registrations were wrongly canceled."
"Cooper acknowledged that some of the 1,600 voters identified by the state as noncitizens may well be citizens, but he said restoring all of them to the rolls means that in all likelihood “there’s going to hundreds of noncitizens back on those rolls. If a noncitizen votes, it cancels out a legal vote. And that is a harm,” he said.
Virginia’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, issued an executive order in August requiring daily checks of DMV data against voter rolls to identify noncitizens.
State officials said any voter identified as a noncitizen was notified and given two weeks to dispute their disqualification before being removed. If they returned a form attesting to their citizenship, their registration would not be canceled.
Prior to Youngkin’s executive order, the state did monthly checks of the voter rolls against DMV data, in accordance with a state law passed in 2006.
Youngkin said the Justice Department was wrongly targeting him for upholding a law that was followed by his predecessors, including Democrats, even if they didn’t take the extra step of ordering daily checks as he did in his executive order.
“Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls.,” Youngkin said in a statement after Friday’s hearing.
Giles questioned the timing of Youngkin’s executive order, which was issued on Aug. 7, the very beginning of the 90-day quiet period required under federal law.
“It’s not happenstance that this was announced exactly on the 90th day” of the quiet period, she said Friday from the bench."
Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Jason Miyares, issued a statement after Friday’s hearing criticizing the ruling.
“It should never be illegal to remove an illegal voter,” he said. “Yet, today a Court – urged by the Biden-Harris Department of Justice – ordered Virginia to put the names of non-citizens back on the voter rolls, mere days before a presidential election.”
U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who had alerted Justice Department officials to the removals. praised the ruling.
“Governor Youngkin’s purges have served only one purpose – to disenfranchise thousands of lawfully voting citizens of the Commonwealth. That stops today,” he said.
Nearly 6 million Virginians are registered to vote.
A similar lawsuit was filed in Alabama, and a federal judge there last week ordered the state to restore eligibility for more than 3,200 voters who had been deemed ineligible noncitizens. Testimony from state officials in that case showed that roughly 2,000 of the 3,251 voters who were made inactive were actually legally registered citizens."The people self-identified as non-citizens. What makes you think that they would want to break the law, cast a vote then, and go to prison when they are already identified?
What's absolutely clear is that Virginia broke federal law in messing with the voter rolls so close to an election - something they know is illegal.I will reiterate my response to Ken from his original post...
Or maybe just that the action broke the law?
The law — the National Voter Registration Act — requires Virginia and other states to stop systematically removing the names of ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election, known as a “quiet period,” to avoid errors that could take eligible voters off the rolls.
Advocacy groups that sued — the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and others – said that data shared by the state for the case shows more than 1,600 people had their voter registrations canceled under the program during the quiet period.
Maybe just follow the law? You've ignored so much of what was said from The source you listed...
Youngkin said he acted “under a law in Virginia that’s been in effect since 2006. It’s been applied by Republican and Democrat governors alike into this 90-day period.”
The federal law is clear and the judge interpreted it correctly, you can't throw people off the rolls during the quiet periodYes, they had me at --- Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls.,” Youngkin said in a statement after Friday’s hearing."
Yes, they had me at --- Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls.,” Youngkin said in a statement after Friday’s hearing."
I am with Younglin--- and getting to the bottom of who perpetrated this scam that a liberal judge has is on board with voting fraud.And why did they have to reinstate? The federal law.
A federal judge also temporarily blocked Alabama’s voter removal program also..... Trump appointed judge. Should that judge be removed from the bench also? Apparently the judges in both cases are just adhering to the law
All of the eligible voters who were wrongfully purged from the voter rolls will now be able to cast their ballots.
The judge in the Virginia case said, the state lacked proof that the purged voters were noncitizens but went ahead and canceled their registrations anyway in violation of federal law.
The Justice Departmen t and private groups, including the League of Women Voters, said many of the 1,600 voters whose registrations were canceled were in fact citizens whose registrations were canceled because of bureaucratic errors or simple mistakes like a mischecked box on a form.
The judge also stated that the state is not completely prohibited from removing noncitizens from the voting rolls during the 90-day quiet period, but that it must do so on an individualized basis rather than the automated, systematic program employed by the state.The priority here is ensuring non-citizens don’t get to vote—simple as that. Those committing these crimes should be caught and prosecuted. I have no respect for the laws these judges are hiding behind; They are within their rights, it just shows how backward the system is. I believe Youngkin might take this issue to the Supreme Court to overturn these protections and track down those behind the scheme. The Attorney General in Pennsylvania also seems committed to holding lawbreakers accountable. All I want are fair elections, and it’s good to see both Virginia and Pennsylvania actively watching for fraud.
Or maybe just that the action broke the law?
The law — the National Voter Registration Act — requires Virginia and other states to stop systematically removing the names of ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election, known as a “quiet period,” to avoid errors that could take eligible voters off the rolls.
Advocacy groups that sued — the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and others – said that data shared by the state for the case shows more than 1,600 people had their voter registrations canceled under the program during the quiet period.
Maybe just follow the law? You've ignored so much of what was said from The source you listed...
Youngkin said he acted “under a law in Virginia that’s been in effect since 2006. It’s been applied by Republican and Democrat governors alike into this 90-day period.”
Tens years ago... the beloved by Hollywood and Media...
Trump On The View In 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXbo3zijOYSo I'm sure you know Trump was on the Rogan Podcast...
Its a long 3 hours, I did listen to it all... but I found a good break down of the show a review that gets to the top moments in 20 minutes, enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDlCwgw638kKen, take time to listen to the full interview, which was a conversation more than an interview. It was really very interesting from start to finish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY
Michelle Obama laying it out as only she can..
https://x.com/1zzyzyx1/status/1850306215395610899Michelle Obama's speech in Kalamazoo certainly aimed to rally support for Kamala Harris while disparaging Donald Trump. However, her approach missed a critical opportunity to address the substantive concerns many voters have regarding Harris's agenda and effectiveness.
In her speech, Michelle suggested that Harris is held to a higher standard than Donald Trump, but this claim overlooks Harris's own shortcomings. She has developed a reputation for evading questions and struggling to articulate her thoughts clearly. The idea that she's unfairly scrutinized is absurd; Trump faces relentless criticism for every word he speaks. Many voters are frustrated that while Harris is positioned as a victim of scrutiny, her policies and actions haven't proven her capable of effectively addressing the nation's pressing issues.
This is a pivotal moment for voters to demand accountability and clarity from all candidates, not just to support someone based on their identity or party affiliation. We need leaders who can articulate real solutions and demonstrate effectiveness in governance.
In my view, Michelle has aligned herself with the rest of her party. Rather than seizing the chance to present Kamala Harris's agenda, she failed to do so because, frankly, there isn't one to share. This absence of a clear agenda reflects poorly on their leadership and priorities. I'm not concerned about any perceived unfairness in holding Harris's character to a higher standard; my focus is on holding an agenda to a higher standard.
In my view, she spoke down to the audience, and her speech sought to insult their intelligence. She focused instead on shallow talking points. She is a mud dweller, and after that speech earned her place.Harris presents her platform relentlessly at this point. She talks about it over and over and over. Trump on the other hand? We have no idea or either does he at this point what his plan even is.... He talks about tariffs that seems to be it. Other than that I suppose he has "concepts" of a plan? I've heard more from him about windmills bothering whales, Arnold Palmer's schlong, schools doing sex change operations, Hannibal lecter, Alphonse capone, being electrocuted by marine batteries, Haitian pet eating...and on and on.
In my opinion, Michelle spoke to a thought most of us were already having out here. I think someone stayed. "Trump can be lawless while Harris is expected to be flawless"
When she doesn't give a dissertation on string theory she's called a dunce while Trump chooses to talk about nonsense like Harris getting rid of cows.I find this argument dismissive of the complexities in today’s political landscape. While Harris may present her platform repeatedly, I see a lack of substance and practicality in Harris's proposals. Conversely, Trump’s discussions, although unconventional, often address real issues that resonate with many Americans, even if they sound outlandish at times. His agenda resonates with Americans.
The idea that Harris must be flawless while Trump can be lawless overlooks the fact that voters want genuine leadership and effective policies, not just rhetoric. Instead of critiquing Trump for his style, I believe we should hold both candidates accountable for their actions and policies.
In my view, Michelle Obama had little to offer in terms of an agenda during her speech. Instead, she focused on how Harris has been treated poorly because of her presentation style. That seemed to be the extent of her argument. It’s disappointing that rather than providing a substantive discussion about policies or a vision for the future, she resorted to defending Harris's image without addressing the pressing issues that really matter to voters.I want to address another aspect of Michelle's speech that I found unacceptable. She touched on the discussion on race and gender, which felt quite demeaning. It seemed as though she was suggesting that women or Black individuals should automatically support her simply because of their gender or color. As a woman, this really upset me. I want the first female president to be someone with a solid agenda who is genuinely capable of doing the job, not someone who relies on identity politics to gain support. As I said she spoke down at the people, not to the people. She sought to deepen the divide...more or less sharing-- "You're different, and Ya better remember that." My God
Before last night I held some respect for her."She sought to deepen the divide...more or less sharing-- "You're different, and Ya better remember that." My God"
Deepen the divide? And language like Enemies within, deranged leftist lunatics, vermin? Just brings the country together? We could write a book on Trump's divisive language.
As far as racial statements are overtones by Michelle Obama, I must have missed that. Is there a statement in particular?
I loved it, flawless for one while lawless for the other and yet they are both treated the same?
'Rather than seizing the chance to present Kamala Harris's agenda, she failed to do so because, frankly, there isn't one to share.'
There's plenty of agenda, but like most parts of reality these days, MAGA cultists cannot acknowledge it because it does not agree with their own world view. And the majority of Americans are looking to move past the delusions of Trump and his base. They tell us things are not what they are, despite the facts staring them right in the face.I was commenting on Michelle Obama's speech, pointing out that she couldn't touch on Harris's agenda because, frankly, there isn’t one that makes sense. If there is one, she should share it. You jumped straight to Trump, but maybe consider my response to Obama’s speech. I’m very much on board with Trump's agenda and could argue against her lack of an agenda all day.
Part of Harris' agenda is protecting the rights of women, which Michelle Obama was speaking directly to. Which is exactly what I mean when I say MAGA cannot deal in reality. They say she has no agenda, or 'it doesn't make sense,' when giving women equal rights to men makes perfect sense to people that respect women.
Outside of playing Robin Hood with other people's money, what is her agenda? Because that's all I've heard. That and "closing the border" which appears to mean, to her, making anyone wanting in a citizen so it is legal to enter.
She just took Joe's much of it word for word. Copy/Paste
We all know that Harris means a continuation of all the same behind the curtain people pulling strings...
It will be a continuation... but instead of Dementia Joe stumbling around we will have Harris with her word salad and clueless answers dealing with a world on fire.
While pushing all the same insane policies at home, flying in migrants, letting women get beat up in sports by men, etc. etc.
Of course, that's all you've heard. It's all you choose to hear. And apparently, according to you, no president is supposed to spend the money the government brings in with tax revenue to assist with the problems the country is facing. Followed by a complete fabrication of Harris' position. And here, I thought it was only Trump that just made things up out of thin air.
Yes: "... misuse of free speech," is abuse of freedom of speech. It was meant for good. Not bad.
I agree: "It's crucial that we recognize this threat and take action to protect the integrity of our discourse and democratic values." The sad thing is this: According to the Ten Commandments and other religious doctrines, lying is prohibited. But no one pays attention to the boundaries and the moral laws which God himself has put forth. Woe to those who use "propaganda to control societal narratives." Woe to the victims of their falsehoods and fake reports which they use for nefarious and manipulative purposes.
Not fair.
No fun.Meanwhile at the Trump rally...
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1850616657477095712
This is supposed to be funny? He's talking about Americans. This crap is so tone deaf.Are you responsible for what I say? Am I responsible for what you say? Whoever this man was, he is responsible for what he said... The audience certainly did not like what he did say. And that was their right.
They brought this guy into the rally to speak. Does anyone really believe that his material hadn't been heard before? The guy said exactly what the Trump campaign wanted him to say. That's why he was put out there. It's vile, it's hateful... It's the Trump brand. You can see the reaction on social media, that a lot of trump followers loved it
Is there any vileness that certain members of this forum won't try to defend?
My point is that each of us is responsible for our own words. I can’t claim to know what anyone else knew or assume I have the right to make up what I think was or wasn’t done regarding the person in question. In fact, I believe this mindset—assuming and asserting opinions as facts—is one of the most harmful issues in our society today. Presenting views as facts can be dangerous.
In my view, this man's statements were rude, uncalled for, and mean-spirited, and revolting--- And they were certainly untrue; Puerto Rico is not only a historic land but also a beautiful part of our world.I think it's reasonable to believe that a campaign apparatus invites and vets all of its speakers, that their material is seen in advance and loaded onto those teleprompters. It will be interesting to see if Trump forcefully, in a meaningful manner, distances himself from that man's commentary. Or does he just continue as if it was never said. If he wanted to distance himself from all of the Hitler associations, that really sure didn't do it.
Perhaps not one that respects free speech, which seems to bother you. You do realize that free speech can be very ugly—just like the ugliness we’re witnessing from the Harris campaign, which has labeled Trump as a fascist and compared him to Hitler. Some of her supporters also aim similar insults at anyone who supports him. For example, Kamala Harris herself has referred to Trump’s rhetoric as “dangerous,” and her campaign has suggested that his actions echo those of authoritarian leaders. Additionally, figures like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Elizabeth Warren have made strong statements labeling Trump and his supporters as extremists, calling for a rejection of their ideas. These comments contribute to a toxic political environment where dissenting voices are not only criticized but outright vilified.
Trump has no reason to distance himself from the left's rhetoric. He has never promoted what he is being accused of; in fact, I consider him a true patriot—unafraid to stand up for America and everything it stands for.Oh I didn't say anything about restricting speech at all. I have said nothing about their right to bloviate in a vile manner. Yes, they had every right under the first Amendment to entertain us with a cacophony of hateful speech. I don't think I have heard anything on the Democratic side that even comes close to what we heard last night. They put on a speaker who called the Democratic nominee a prostitute...
Oh but you did --- "Willowarbor wrote:
I think it's reasonable to believe that a campaign apparatus invites and vets all of its speakers, that their material is seen in advance and loaded onto those teleprompters."
The fact that you think speech should be vetted, and given a stamp of approval, says a lot about your views on free speech. It's clear that the Trump campaign allowed speakers to express themselves without rehearsed or pre-approved words. Perhaps you missed the many speakers who openly stated that they didn’t agree with all of Trump’s ideas. Free speech can't be monitored if it's shared as a feeling or a view. It only becomes a problem when it is put forward as a pure fact, that can be proven to be a lie.
It seems you don’t understand that for some, this approach represents transparency and authenticity, giving people the freedom to share their perspectives.
I really enjoyed the rally last night. Trump isn't a typical politician, and his campaign feels far from rehearsed or carefully planned. I appreciated that everything shared felt genuine. I had the right to love what was being said or be frustrated with some comments, but honestly, not a bit of it felt phony. I saw thousands of people gathered to celebrate their candidate, and there was no fluff—just real words from Americans speaking their minds. It was refreshing to experience that kind of authenticity.Do I think a campaign should vet speakers so that they represent the message of the campaign? seems to make sense to me. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's about presenting your message to your voters and apparently the show that we saw at the garden was an accurate representation of Trump's message. This isn't a free speech argument whatsoever.
If I had been making an argument about limiting speech, I would have said that some apparatus beyond the Trump campaign should have ruled against allowing hateful language to proceed.
In the same manner that Trump wants to take away broadcast licenses."Do I think a campaign should vet speakers so that they represent the message of the campaign? seems to make sense to me. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's about presenting your message to your voters and apparently the show that we saw at the garden was an accurate representation of Trump's message. This isn't a free speech argument whatsoever. "
"Do I think a campaign should vet speakers so that they represent the message of the campaign? "
Again --- The fact that you think speech should be vetted, and given a stamp of approval, says a lot about your views on free speech. It's clear that the Trump campaign allowed speakers to express themselves without rehearsed or pre-approved words. Perhaps you missed the many speakers who openly stated that they didn’t agree with all of Trump’s ideas. Free speech can't be monitored if it's shared as a feeling or a view.
At the Trump rally, it was clear the guests were not vetted for their opinions or statements. Let citizens decide if what they saw and heard was suitable or not; we all have the freedom to think for ourselves. People have different views on what they want in a president and the qualities that matter most. By now, it’s obvious many are looking for something beyond the status quo in a leader. It sounds like you feel some guests shouldn't have had a platform because of certain derogatory comments. I also found some remarks unnecessary and unfair, crude.
But what was on display was free speech—unvetted, unrehearsed, and truly free—giving listeners the chance to form their own views about what was said, just as I did and have shared with you above. I appreciated hearing each speaker's perspective. Some were enlightening; I saw genuine passion, strong support, trust, and even love among certain speakers."Again --- The fact that you think speech should be vetted, and given a stamp of approval, says a lot about your views on free speech. It's clear that the Trump campaign allowed speakers to express themselves without rehearsed or pre-approved words".
Wonderful, I can assume then that he approved of all of the messages and that they were congruent with the goals of his agenda. He gave hate a platform. He gave racism and misogyny a platform. Certainly he was free to do it. Again this has nothing to do with free speech. Applause for his use of free speech... It was really ugly. His Association and acceptance of the speech and the speakers say a lot.
But using your argument, how is it okay for Trump to float the idea of taking away broadcast licenses of major networks?
I do believe that Trump's campaign is trying to distance themselves from many of the speakers last evening. Not sure if Trump is. But why hasn't the statement from them this morning been hey we let people go up there and give their thoughts, as ugly as they are, we thought there was nothing wrong with that... No, The campaign is trying to walk back all the vile comments. Attempting to say that they don't represent the campaign but why on earth would you put them up there to begin with??
"A Trump adviser said the speakers’ remarks weren’t vetted by the campaign.".
So why are they trying to distance themselves from the speakers?
I don't know, this again seems to be an instance in which Trump's followers are telling us what he meant to do or what his campaign meant to do when the campaign or Trump himself really doesn't seem to back that up.To me, free speech is about allowing people to share their individual thoughts and perspectives openly, even if those ideas might be controversial or uncomfortable for some to hear. If we start expecting speech to be filtered to fit everyone’s views or to stay within certain agreeable boundaries, it’s no longer true free speech—it becomes controlled. True free speech means making space for a range of voices and ideas, even if some of them come across as harsh or unpopular.
I know that some today advocate for policing words to ensure they align with particular standards. But that kind of regulation would effectively cancel out the freedom of speech altogether, restricting the open exchange of ideas that is essential to a vibrant, democratic society.
In your comment, it sounds like you are suggesting that by giving a platform to certain ideas—ones they find “ugly”—he must be endorsing them. Not sure Trump knew what this comedian was going to say. You are taking this for granted.
However I believe that supporting free speech means recognizing people’s right to express a range of views, whether or not they align with everyone’s beliefs. Limiting speech to only the ideas that are universally appealing would defeat the purpose of freedom of expression.
Free speech matters because it allows for disagreement, debate, and even discomfort. Trying to mold speech to fit a narrow standard of acceptability would only render it controlled and, honestly, hollow. I think true free speech is about tolerating views we might not like or agree with—it can be uncomfortable, but that discomfort is a crucial part of an open, free society.
"A Trump adviser said the speakers’ remarks weren’t vetted by the campaign.". So why are they trying to distance themselves from the speakers? "
I haven’t heard Trump distance himself from what was said at the rally, though it’s possible I missed it. As I mentioned, it didn’t seem like anyone’s speeches were vetted or rehearsed in any way. If any of his campaign staff are distancing themselves from the comedian's remarks, it emphasizes a key point: we all have the right to interpret what’s said, form our own perspectives, and come away with our own opinions. That’s part of the open dialogue that free speech supports, even if interpretations differ.
What I was trying to express is that Trump is transparent in his communication and effectively uses free speech to convey his points. He recognizes that others have the right to express their own views and has shown a willingness to challenge opposing opinions. This openness to dialogue is a hallmark of his communication style and resonates with many of his supporters. Engaging with differing perspectives is a crucial element of the democratic process, and Trump's approach highlights the importance of that exchange.
I don’t have anything more to add regarding Trump's comments about taking away news outlets' licenses. As I mentioned earlier, the media and journalists have a responsibility to report the truth. When they claim that their reports are factual, they aren’t just exercising their freedom of speech; they also wield the power to undermine the truth. In my view, I stand with Trump on the need for action against the deliberate spread of lies. As I stated in another comment, it should be the responsibility of the companies to ensure that accurate information is reported. It’s clear that this is a significant problem that needs addressing.
Context... he is gay, he is a raw comic, by that I mean he makes his livelihood being offensive.
Get it?
Once again, media and the Dems making every mole hill they can find into a mountain of misinformation.
Check this out for raw and offensive... and its not from a comedian:
Michelle Obama LOSES IT as Rally Fans PROTEST Kamala
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHfTHSVHoZ0
Conservatives always have a problem with proportionality for them 1 lie or falsehood by a democrat is the equivalent of 100 by the same Republican. Which one am I going to call a liar with more certainty? This is not a “final jeopardy” question, folks.
Even a 5th grader within our community can discern the difference between Harris and Trump, I don’t know why supposedly reasoning adults have to scratch their heads over this. These conservatives ask our community to ignore the obvious elephant in the room and focus on the gnats instead. Yes, Trump matters. And no, I am not too fond of the conservative politics, but I have lived with them over several administrations. Republicans could have selected a far less toxic and abrasive candidate to promote their conservative agenda earlier this year, but did they? No. Someone who did not break the rules we all live by regardless of political affiliation. Someone that did not have a “rap sheet” longer than my arm (2 feet). Someone that could engage publicly without racial and misogynistic slurs. Someone with the courage and integrity to show up for interviews rather than “cop out” with any number of excuses. But, his supporters know that he does not need to “know” anything, that is why he is free to say anything and run his mouth like a spigot that you cannot shut off. That is not why they vote for him.
so many whites remain tone deaf in regards to the answer as why our community consider Donald Trump a far greater threat than Kamala Harris. Trump has already threatened civil liberties, stupid talk about jailing opponents and muzzling the press. You don’t seem to realize that minorities are first and foremost to be adversely affected by any such changes, if history is any guide. Racist talk cannot be really independent of what that person thinks or believes, who does not know that?
As I explained earlier for those that did not see or hear, Trumps administration was far from a boon for African Americans. Some of these forum participants will dismiss you when you do not tell them what they want to hear. I am not here to tickle your ears. Those that cannot accept adverse ideas and principles as part of our discussion do not deserve to be here. I answer questions directly and my responses may not always be pretty, but there is a reason why 86 percent of AA vote Democratic. I try to explain why. Do I have to shout from the tree tops? Trump is existential threat to our community and by extension ,the nation, in my opinion of course.
Funny how certain conservative posters say that anti-Trump is because of biased media, what do I say about this Anti-Harris crowd? Why should I believe that their sources are so much more credible?Advisers Propose That Trump Give Security Clearances Without F.B.I. Vetting
A memo circulating among at least half a dozen advisers to former President Donald J. Trump recommends that if he is elected, he bypass traditional background checks by law enforcement officials and immediately grant security clearances to a large number of his appointees after being sworn in, according to three people briefed on the matter.
The proposal is being promoted by a small group including Boris Epshteyn, a top legal adviser to Mr. Trump who was influential in its development, according to the three people.
If adopted, it would allow him to quickly install loyalists in major positions without subjecting them to the risk of long-running and intrusive F.B.I. background checks, potentially increasing the risks of people with problematic histories or ties to other nations being given influential White House roles. Such checks hung up clearances for a number of aides during Mr. Trump’s presidency, including Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Mr. Epshteyn himself.
The proposal suggests using private-sector investigators and researchers to perform background checks on Mr. Trump’s intended appointees during the transition, cutting out the role traditionally played by F.B.I. agents, the three people said. Once Mr. Trump took the oath, he would then summarily approve a large group for access to classified secrets, they said.
Asked about the proposal, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, responded with an attack on Vice President Kamala Harris, saying she and Democrats “have weaponized the Department of Justice to attack President Trump and his supporters” and that Mr. Trump would use “the full powers of the presidency” to build his administration starting on Inauguration Day.
Mr. Epshteyn, who was indicted earlier this year in Arizona in connection with a so-called fake electors scheme to upend Mr. Trump’s 2020 loss and has two prior arrests in that state, speaks with Mr. Trump multiple times a day and is one of his most influential aides. He is a lawyer and consultant who has helped recruit and manage the legal team that has been defending Mr. Trump in the four criminal
In addition to Mr. Epshteyn, who failed to get a clearance during a brief White House stint in 2017 before leaving the post, many aides worked with temporary security clearances for more than a year because they could not get permanent clearances approved. Others eventually left the government, too.
In 2019, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 officials and contractors whose applications had been denied by career employees for “disqualifying issues” that could put national security at risk. One of them appeared to be Mr. Kushner.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/p … s-fbi.htmlSpeaking to Navigating the Election...
Bill Ackman: Trump is the only candidate that's talked about growth
https://youtu.be/bPdsN_YmP60?t=152
Really solid view.I think this comment from the web sums it the Trump rally best:
The "joke" (about Puerto Rico) is further proof that reich wingers don't know funny. They just say horrible things and think that it's funny.Really? You too with the Hitler and Nazi b.s.?
I thought I "knew" the people here, after better than a dozen years, but I don't, not really... and I don't think I'd want to.He's not going to win and he knows it. This really was proof of that and swaying undecided voters or clenching swing States was not the goal of this event. This was done purely to fire up the base and get them ready to commit violence when the "election is stolen". He has no path to legitimate victory, his path is to disrupt the election and send it to the house after election results cannot be certified.
Whipping up hate is his go-to move. But it won't be words anymore, it will be people's actions.Too many examples to ignore it. And the people here are exactly who I thought they were. Gullible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTot3YQ16fIWeak bait... I see you’re convinced that some here fit a particular stereotype, but using blanket statements like ‘gullible’ to describe an entire group is dismissive and undermines any real conversation. Throwing around generalizations is a shortcut that avoids real engagement. If you’re genuinely interested in making a point, why not bring specific examples to the table instead of defaulting to easy insults?
I did bring specific examples in that post. And instead of discussing those examples, you had to focus on the fact that I find Trump's supporters gullible for denying the very speech he used that mirrored Hitler speech. Deal with it, those who vote for Trump are voting for someone who admires and mimics Hitler.
I don't fall into repeating the same comments over and over. After a point, I find it for a better word silly. I also as I said find your particular bait old, and weak. Not interested, said what I hoped to share.
Right, completely unwilling to address the 'polluting the blood, 'vermin,' or mentioning of 'genetics' examples that were in my link that are direct correlations to Hitler speeches. And like I said, there are plenty of examples of Trump using Hitler speech to back up the claim that Trump praises and sees him as an idol. But if I were a Trump voter, I would deflect away from those specific examples as well, because the truth hits a little too close to home.
Trump at the Garden: A Closing Carnival of Grievances, Misogyny and Racism
The inflammatory rally was a capstone for an increasingly aggrieved campaign for Donald Trump, whose rhetoric has grown darker and more menacing.
A comic kicked off the rally by dismissing Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” then mocked Hispanics as failing to use birth control, Jews as cheap and Palestinians as rock-throwers, and called out a Black man in the audience with a reference to watermelon.
Another speaker likened Vice President Kamala Harris to a prostitute with “pimp handlers.” A third called her “the Antichrist.” And the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson mocked Ms. Harris — the daughter of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father — with a made-up ethnicity, saying she was vying to become “the first Samoan-Malaysian, low IQ former California prosecutor ever to be elected president.”
“The king of New York is back to reclaim the city that he built,” his son, Donald Trump Jr., declared anyway.
David Rem, a childhood friend of Mr. Trump, called Ms. Harris “the devil.” Grant Cardone, a businessman, declared that the sitting vice president had “pimp handlers.” Sid Rosenberg denounced Hillary Clinton as a “sick son of a bitch” for linking the Trump rally and a pro-Nazi event at the arena of the same name decades ago.
Mr. Rosenberg called the entire Democratic Party “a bunch of degenerates, lowlives, Jew-haters and lowlives. Every one of them.”
By the time the former president himself took the stage, an event billed as delivering the closing message of his campaign, with nine days left in a tossup race, had instead become a carnival of grievances, misogyny and racism.
The rally served as a capstone to an escalating series of remarks from Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly said in recent days that one of the gravest threats that America faces is “the enemy within.”
On Sunday, Mr. Trump described the date of his potential election as a “liberation day” from what he described as an occupation by invading migrants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/t … rally.htmlThe rally went full Nazi. It was very reminiscent of the 1939 Nazi rally held at that very location. It was billed as a “Mass Demonstration for True Americanism.”.
What a grotesque parade of hate, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and lies. Nothing but grievance, conspiracy and radicalism. For those who continually rail about Harris' lack of policy, where was the policy talk?
Trump and his campaign out did themselves with this one and I think sunk their ship in the process. There is still a section of maga that doesn't embrace this level of hate , the dark vulgar nature of it. Trump also made it crystal clear that he is running on an authoritarian platform.
His followers will rationalize the rally, they'll reframe everything that was said and tell us what the real meaning was behind it...but those who just dabble in maga will be peeled away. Most likely to sit home.
Trump's closing argument was to recreate the 1939 Nazi rally at the garden. What kind of American could still vote for him after that?
Cue the followers...." But I just can't understand the Harris plan...and what happened to the joy? "First, I understand where you're coming from. I saw what you saw, and I heard what you heard. A few of those who spoke had very strong feelings and, yes, they expressed them openly. However, there were others who shared different, more positive perspectives. I felt that some of the attacks were vile, uncalled for, and hard to listen to.
I also saw some people ready to hit back; instead of taking the high ground, they got into the mud. Yet, I’ve heard equally vitriolic words from the other side. Many of the comments coming from Harris’s campaign lately have reached the same level of vileness. So, I do expect the other side to respond in kind, giving an eye for an eye. It’s hard not to see that this vitriol goes both ways.
After all of the Trump's latest clown show, you would think that that in itself would alarm voters, but again most of Trump followers are just like him and no better, so they will either ignore or spin it.
But, Egad that is half the country. After 250 years this will be the beginning of America's decline.Did it ever occur to you that when 160,000,000 people disagree with you that you just might, maybe, be wrong?
Perhaps, but that does not change the fact that trump has 50 percent of the country that are more than comfortable with him. The type of trashy persona he represents gives me reason to be concerned.
I dont think you really want to use that argument.
Hitler was able to convince the German people that exterminating others was justifiable, after all.
That’s a factual point. Perhaps you should carefully consider who you label as Hitler, Nazis, or fascists, and take a closer look at your own political party and the injustices they have perpetrated. There are several actions by the current administration that some may view as fascistic. These include allegations of the administration influencing social media platforms to suppress dissenting opinions or critical reporting, particularly around sensitive topics like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
There have been increased surveillance measures and data collection practices that infringe on personal privacy, raising concerns about government overreach. The frequent use of executive orders to bypass Congress on significant issues undermines the legislative process and checks and balances. Furthermore, there are allegations of using federal agencies to investigate or intimidate political opponents, resembling tactics used in authoritarian regimes. The administration’s support for policies that may limit free speech in the name of combating misinformation can infringe on First Amendment rights.
The increased militarization of local police forces and federal response teams can lead to aggressive policing tactics against peaceful protests. There is also a push for increased government control over various sectors of the economy, such as healthcare and energy, which restricts individual freedoms and market choices. Attempts to influence or undermine judicial decisions threaten the impartiality and independence that are crucial to our legal system. Lastly, fostering a political environment where dissent is met with hostility leads to polarization and the demonization of opposing viewpoints. These actions raise valid concerns about the direction of governance and its impact on democracy and civil liberties.'These include allegations of the administration influencing social media platforms to suppress dissenting opinions or critical reporting, particularly around sensitive topics like the Hunter Biden laptop story.'
And again, the claim that it was the 'Biden administration' that did this is a flat-out lie. When the laptop story was suppressed, Trump was the president. It would have been members of his administration that did the pressuring, according to your own timelines.
Are Executive Orders new? You make it sound like no president used them to bypass an ineffective Congress.
And those allegations of investigations have led to undercovering of actual criminal activity and convictions - something the fascists in the Trump base deny as valid, despite the mountains of evidence to confirm the criminal activity. An attack on the Capitol to prevent the certification of a legal election is labelled a tourist visit to deny the existence of crimes.
And let's not go talking about the 'militarization of local police forces and federal response teams...against peaceful protesters' when it's Trump who asked if he could shoot peaceful protesters.
Government has always had control over various sectors of the economy, due to safety concerns. There are laws about what can be broadcast on public television channels, from language to content. And the courts have acted as a check on any overreach.
Someone in MAGA complaining about 'fostering a political environment where dissent is met with hostility; is the height of hypocrisy when their candidate openly calls the media the 'enemy of the people' and political opposition 'the enemy within.'As I said I shared my view, hopefully, any that follow this thread will be able to read both and make up their own minds.
Agreed. We have made our cases as to who is the bigger fascist - the ones quoting the Hitler language and openly praising Hitler or the ones who aren't.
Here is my view:
With MAGA, it's not about Make America Great Again. It's about Make Americans Great Again. Notice the N and S at the end of America.. It's about how is an American defined. Trump and company is proposing to do what Hitler did with Germans. If you belong to the Aryan race it was O.K for you to be a German Citizen. You are from a superior race. If not you were castigated and sent to concentration camps for further processing..
How is an American defined by MAGA. What does Trump mean when he says?, "They are poising the blood of our country." Who are they? Is he referring to undocumented immigrants having children with "Americans"?
Does was one have to be a Trump lover to be an American in his New World Order? What if you are not a Trump lover, are you still an American. Do Trump lovers believe that non- Trump lovers are unpatriotic and hate America?
I watched 60 minutes last night. They had a piece on how Trump and company are going to mount massive deportations of undocumented immigrants, including their children born here. The GAO says it's going to cost billions of dollars to pull that off and ICE does not have the resource to do it on their own.
Stephen Miller, one of Trump's champions of deporting immigrants said, if we don't have the resources, we will assign personnel from non-enforcement agencies to make it happen. They are going to load these people into airplanes and return them to their country of origin.That is some delulu stuff... from the guy supporting the side that is full on Critical Race Theory... DEI... all the problems in the world stem from Cis White Men...
OKie DOkieThat's what I thought, you can't answer my question. So you label me as someone I'm not, I had to look up Cis White Men. My son is gay and I take great offensive of anybody slandering him. He came out when he was about 20 years old.. Up until then he was miserable most of the time. He is now Captain of 747-400 and flies all over the world. He is a highly respected, responsible individual.
No, all the problems in the world come from people who don't mind their own business and let others live their own lives, regardless of who are what they are.People Power --- You may have misunderstood the context --- The term "Cis white men" typically refers to individuals who identify as male, are of Caucasian descent, and whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.
I think with all the abbreviations today it's easy to not even be aware of all the new labels."No, all the problems in the world come from people who don't mind their own business and let others live their own lives, regardless of who are what they are."
HALLELUJAH PRAISE
Unfortunately, you have not addressed the subject. This is the first comment that started the conversation.
"Willowarbor wrote:
Do you have any quotes of Democrats raising the idea of shutting down any sort of media? Do you think Trump's suggestions violate the constitution?"
My reply --- The Biden/Harris administrations have subverted free speech.
The Biden administration has faced criticism for allegedly collaborating with social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to moderate or suppress certain speech, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples include reports that administration officials pressured platforms to remove or limit posts deemed as "misinformation" about COVID-19 and vaccines. Documents released from lawsuits, such as those filed by state attorneys general, have shown instances of coordination between government agencies and social media companies. This has raised concerns about potential First Amendment violations, as it blurs the line between private sector decisions and government influence over online speech.
The Biden administration has also been scrutinized for allegedly influencing social media platforms regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story. Before the 2020 election, a New York Post article revealed potentially damaging information related to Hunter Biden's business dealings, but Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of the story, citing concerns about unverified information. Later reports and whistleblower accounts indicated that government officials and intelligence agencies might have influenced this decision, leading to claims that the story was intentionally suppressed. This has fueled concerns that these actions undermined free speech by limiting access to information with potential electoral implications.I have to admit, I'm late to the party.
Begging your pardon, but the original posting was about how great Trump's Madison Square Garden rally was. Trumpers loved it. Non-Trumpers thought it was vile and vitriolic. You played the what about Harris game and the other side. I have questions about how MAGA's define what is an American? No body seems to be able to answer that question. Are the children of undocumented immigrants American?
.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/us-citizen-children-impacted-immigration-enforcementI'm sorry; I'm a bit lost with your comment. This is the permalink where Willow and I started our conversation, initially focused on free speech. Since then, it’s developed into an ongoing discussion with many variables regarding free speech, where Willow and I have exchanged various views. The conversation has also covered the recent Trump rally, where I felt free speech was strongly evident. You've joined a lengthy dialogue about this topic. And yes, I mentioned Harris's rally, where I felt people were carefully vetted in terms of what they shared—just my perspective. In contrast, I don’t feel that those at the Trump rally, or what they expressed, were vetted at all.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … ost4347276
I am proud to say I support an America First agenda. I can only answer your question from my perspective. For many in the MAGA movement, being "American" is fundamentally about embracing values such as individual freedom, respect for the law, and dedication to the country’s founding principles. These values—upholding the Constitution, preserving traditional values, and having pride in American history and culture—are what define an American.
When it comes to children of undocumented immigrants who are legal citizens by birth in America, the 14th Amendment grants them U.S. citizenship. Speaking from my perspective, I believe that anyone who embraces American culture, learns the language, and fully commits to American values is, in the truest sense, an American.
I find it difficult to engage with your comments because they seem to lack common sense and rely heavily on conjecture rather than factual information. I understand it's your view. However, the concerns you raise appear to be a litany of unrealistic complaints that do not accurately reflect the realities of the MAGA movement or its intentions as I understand it. Without a factual basis, it's challenging to have a constructive dialogue on these issues. I believe it would serve us better to ground our discussions in reality rather than hypothetical scenarios. I do understand your complaints, and I realize you are not alone regarding your concerns. But thus far I truly believe Trump has America's best interest at heart.
That hits the nail on the head.
They are the ones supporting a death cult, a warmongering Administration, and the lunatics, the people that think its 'enlightened' to allow kids to get mutilated.
I don't blame them...
For most people who have detached and come to their senses... it has taken something extreme to hit them... they lost their job because they would not get a vaccine, or they can't pay their bills and they lose their home while they watch their government bring in millions of migrants and putting them on government support... whatever it is, it was something drastic that snapped them awake and made them see what was really going on.
Get away from the Main Stream Media lies... including the polls... and its telling:
I Went To The Hood To Ask About Trump and Harris. The Polls Are Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66qiMyyWOvc
Its a 'weird' video... one of many examples.... opposite of what the 'fake news' wants you to believe. Many people still don't like Trump, but they don't like Biden or Harris either... while the people who do like Trump really don't like Biden or Harris.
This one was pretty good too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR6GDlAiHrw
Those are your fellow voters.... like em or not.
Dan, It well appears that some nowadays can let what you shared go smack over their heads. It is very much an odd phenomenon. One I have never seen in my lifetime.
Seems to me that it should at least instigate a little thought. Yes, another 160,000,000 agree with you, but that huge number that do not should make one think a bit.
And Hitler rose to power with wide support...
It should, but I think it’s time to acknowledge that many people can’t see the bigger picture; they only focus on what aligns with their beliefs. It’s as if reality means very little to them, and they can easily ignore anything that doesn't fit the mindset they’ve grown accustomed to.
One true giveaway that brainwashing has occurred is how those who think this way conveniently avoid discussing Kamala Harris. It’s as if acknowledging her performance and policies would disrupt their narrative, revealing a deeper unwillingness to engage in honest, critical conversations. Ignoring significant topics like her role in the administration shows a lack of genuine debate and a preference for echo chambers
Another observation taken from the internet:
Trump has been doing nothing BUT mimicking Hitler and other authoritarians in his quest for absolute power. Let's count the ways.
1. Both blame others and divide on racial lines.
2. Both relentlessly demonize opponents. (Hitler's Volksempfänger diatribes demonized his domestic political opponents, calling them everything from parasites, criminals, cockroaches, and various categories of leftist scum - which is 100% copied by Trump on the daily.)
3. They unceasingly attack objective truth.
4. They relentlessly attack mainstream media.
5. Their attacks on truth include science.
6. Their lies blur reality--and supporters spread them.
7. Both orchestrated mass rallies to show status.
8. They embrace extreme nationalism.
9. Both made closing borders a centerpiece.
10. They embraced mass detention and deportations. (Hitler promised to make Germany free from the "evil" Jews and Slavs. Trump is doing the same with the "evil" coming from Mexico.)
11. Both used borders to protect selected industries.
12. They cemented their rule by enriching elites. (Literally all Trump did during his first term was further enrich corporations and the already wealthy. Anyone who says otherwise is lying through their teeth.)
13. Both rejected international norms.
14. They attack domestic democratic processes.
15. Both attack the judiciary and rule of law.
16. Both glorify the military and demand loyalty oaths. (We know, from those who worked with Trump during his first term, that loyalty oaths were DEMANDED by Trump.)
17. They proclaim unchecked power. (Trump's unchecked wave of detrimental EOs.)
18. Both relegate women to subordinate roles, and demonize those who refuse to stay in the role they choose for them.
One or two similarities might be a coincidence, I'll give you that. Eighteen DIRECT similarities, though? When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.Sickening to hear people talk this way.. and to understand that they invited this vile speech onto their stage.
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1850912669995319689Oh good grief, he is a comedian! The audience booed him. He is used to it, as a non-P.C., non-woke comedian!
Weak, weak arguments, per usual, but, again, I get it!
Ya'll are stuck with no wind-no sail, Kamala!Did you find the other speakers as amusing? One of them saying Harris is the Antichrist and another saying she's a prostitute? Really? Tucker purposely confusing her ethnicity as Samoan?
Prostitute > Hitler!!!
I suspect "antichrist" had EVERYTHING to do with her telling the Jesus lovers that they were at the wrong rally! Ya think, maybe, a possibility!?!
I don't know her ethnicity either (hasn't it changed throughout the years) so I cannot comment on that.
Ok, AB
Does no PC-non woke equal a green light for racism, misogyny and every other manner of vile behavior? Under those conditions for conservatives, anti-woke is OK?
Is that the example of the associates that a Presidential candidate presents? This country is in a lot of trouble as there will be continuous discord and no peace as a result. Trump cannot shoot and jail everybody that opposes him. Is it any wonder that I cannot support such a man?There has been none of that! Only in your mind. But that's where the Democratic Party needs you to be. They are counting on it, as they lose many of their staunchest supporters, in droves.
Far-Right Figures Escalate Talk of Retribution and Election Subversion
Michael Flynn has said “hell” will be unleashed if Donald J. Trump wins. Mr. Flynn’s close associate has discussed plans to overturn the election if Mr. Trump loses.
At the Rod of Iron Freedom Festival, a far-right event in Pennsylvania this month, Mr. Flynn told the crowd that after a Trump victory: “Katie, bar the door. Believe me, the gates of hell — my hell — will be unleashed.”
At the same event, Ivan Raiklin, a close associate of Mr. Flynn’s who serves on the board of directors of Mr. Flynn’s organization America’s Future, urged Trump supporters in Pennsylvania to go to the state capital, Harrisburg, and “confront” their state representatives with “evidence of the illegitimate steal” after the election if Mr. Trump loses.
Mr. Raiklin also called on Republican-held state legislatures to withhold their electors in the event of a Trump loss that Republicans consider illegitimate.
“We run the elections,” he said. “We try to play it fair. They steal it, our state legislatures are our final stop to guarantee a checkmate.”
The maneuver Mr. Raiklin laid out appears to defy the Electoral Count Reform Act, the bipartisan law passed in 2022. The law was meant to prevent a repeat of Mr. Trump’s attempt to exploit the Electoral College vote to overturn his defeat in 2020. It states that only state executives, not state legislatures, can certify the slates of electors that determine the winner.
Mr. Raiklin laid out similar plans days later in North Carolina and at a county Republican Party event in Maryland. He argued that North Carolina’s legislature should preemptively allocate its electoral votes to Mr. Trump, even before the state’s ballots were counted, on account of hurricane-related disruptions.
Mr. Flynn has continued to stay involved with the circle of people who are already laying the groundwork to claim the election was stolen and try to overturn the result if Mr. Trump loses.
At the Rod of Iron event on Oct. 11, Mr. Raiklin told a small group of livestreamers that he was planning for a range of scenarios in the days after the election.
“I have a plan and strategy for every single component of it,” he said. “And then Jan. 6 is going to be pretty fun.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/p … trump.htmlWell, so much for Sharlee's First Amendment argument. Apparently, all speakers had to submit their speeches to the campaign to be loaded onto the teleprompter and when they discovered that Hinchcliffe planned to call Harris the 'c-word,' they asked him to take it out. Meaning, they were fully aware that he planned to call Puerto Rico a floating island of garbage and approved of the messaging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiz4uo_lF_wThat's it then...
This means I have to vote for the crew that has dragged us into WWIII...
To believe they had the gall to allow a Comedian to go up there and make what he thought was a joke... a GAY comedian at that!!!
WTF... how are we supposed to resurrect the Reich if we are allowing GAY comedians up on stage to tell jokes!!!
If a comedian says something... it might as well come out of Trump's mouth... I don't care if Trump knew about it or not... its STILL Trump's fault!!!
I don't care about children being mutilated... or millions of migrants brought in, over 1.2 million of which are taking American jobs while another 5.6 million have been put on government support...
I don't care about inflation, or higher interest rates, or rampant violence, or women competing against men in sports being normalized...
A damned comedian went to a Trump rally and said something people interpret as offensive... every single Trump supporter should be round up and sent to 're-education' camps... every single one!!!Ken, got to laugh--- you seem to have forgotten it's all about the words --- don't ya know... I mean common sense is out the window.
We're in WWIII? Why didn't anyone tell us on the left? And yeah, a comedian was allowed to be racist at a Trump rally. And we see so many defending that racism on here. Maybe some 're-education' would be a good thing if defending blatant racism is what is found appropriate.
Well.. if you listen to Trump we're actually headed for World War II...so there's that.
They don't tell you anything they don't want you to know...
Those of us not hanging on MSNBC or CNN like its gospel already know.
What DO the 'experts' say...?
Washington Post syndicated columnist George Will last week flatly declared that WWIII is already underway. Comparing today to 1940, he enumerated a shocking uptick in terror attacks across Europe, believed to have been orchestrated by Russia’s intelligence agency GRU.
The alarm bells began ringing in earnest this week as it became apparent that Russia is preparing to send thousands of North Korean troops into the conflict with Ukraine.
Last July, foreign policy writer Mark Toth and longtime military intelligence officer retired Col. Jonathan Sweet made a similar declaration in The Hill, asserting, “We are facing death by a thousand Russian and Chinese cuts around the globe, and the vast majority of the country remains unaware of our growing peril.”
Yup... it appears you fit that "unaware of our growing peril" part... its not just you, our media lies and deceives like you cannot believe... heck I have known for decades and I still can't wrap my head around how insidious and all encompassing it really is.
China-Russia-Iran-North Korea axis heightens the risk of WWIII
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Comme … k-of-WWIIIKen—they’re feeding them tons of words, lots of scary stuff... as if we're on the brink of the second coming of Hitler. Meanwhile, the media leaves out the details you’ve wisely pointed out. No one’s as blind as those who can’t see what’s right in front of them.
He was allowed to be a comedian. There's a big difference.
I am sure that a big part of this Nation would be fine with "re-education camps", up until they become the residents and there's no one left to speak out for them, their rights, their life.Who mentioned camps? I simply stated that some 're-education' would be good for those that want to defend open racism like what we saw at the Trump rally.
As in, "re-education" through media perhaps?!?
Oh that's right, that's already happening. You're a student, right?
Academia? Nope, already happening there too.
Hmmm... what's left... Camp?Those in the far-reich default right to camps, it's in their programming.
Your idea, not mine, but nice try. A for effort.
Not my idea. Ken's. And when I mention 're-education,' you immediately mentioned camps. So, yeah, absolutely yours.
LOL okay. Re-education isn't in my day-to-day vocabulary, I borrowed it from you, and that was a mistake on my part! Guilty.
Angie—it’s pretty hopeless, just smile and walk away. There’s plenty of good news today. Trump is promising to create a "compensation fund" for victims of migrant crime, potentially offering financial support to victims and their families. It’s a strong statement that the government intends to put citizens’ safety and welfare first in its immigration policies.
While she speaks of fascism Trump speaks to the people about making things better. Fixing horrendous problems she was a part of creating.
I returned from a cruise recently and there had been a comedian on the ship, doing stand-up. The cruise director gave a heads up that it was not a p.c. show, and to leave while there was still time... lol. No one left!! He had the place in stitches! No one was off-limits, he insulted every race, creed, color... both sexes, and he even made fun of himself. It was old school, and it was a refreshing return to comedy.
Go on a cruise, lighten up!We're talking about a political rally though. A man who is running for a position in which he has to be a leader for everyone, not just white people. Did you notice the target of all of the jokes? Did I miss where he joked about white people? The Trump campaign knew this man's material and sent him up there anyway. I'll consider it an endorsement. Trump is acting like he has no clue what the guy even said but as of yet he has not denounced any of it.
There was a lot people, 100,000 between the venue and outside of the venue with the overflow.
The people needed to be entertained.
That's all it was. Entertainment!
Go on the cruise with V (and spouses of course, if you have them) have fun, lighten up!Not in any stretch of the imagination were there 100,000 people. The garden holds about 20,000, there were not 80,000 people in the surrounding streets...
So political rally or cruise ship lounge, it's all the same?
Calling a group of people garbage is just funny all the way around...got it.Changing the numbers and changing the joke, it's all the same, got it!
You know what—you have every right to feel the way you do and to vote for whoever you choose. The same goes for anyone else who took issue with that comedian's comments. It seems you’re bothered by others' opinions on his speech—and honestly, that’s solely your problem. Others here have shared their thoughts, and have the same rights you have exhibited.
It’s clear now that the Trump campaign knew what he was going to say. You’re free to interpret that however you like. I’m not sure why you think your view should matter more to those here who disagree. It seems like you believe your opinion should outweigh others. Good luck with that.
You don't understand. When the goal is to be offended, when you carry an entire log firmly entrenched on your shoulder (instead of a little chip) and actively search for something to be offended by, you will not "lighten up".
Instead you will turn everything possible against Trump, denigrating and demonizing him whenever you can. You're not there to laugh, not there to enjoy or have fun; you're there to work...at making Trump look as bad, as evil, as possible whether it's true or not.
You will, for instance, do your best to turn an off color joke into something evil and racist (even though it was not about race at all). Then you will attribute it to Trump, whether he approved of it or not, knew it was coming or not. You will even insinuate or outright claim that Trump said it even if that is a flat out lie.
It's not about fun, it's not about enjoyment, it's not about have a good time; it's about keeping a political opponent out of the White House, and anything goes.What is "fun" about calling an entire island of people floating garbage?
Big mistake on the part of Trump's campaign... They October surprised themselves...way to go!It was a good stand up... for the Democrats.
Btw, Trump had a chance, two days later, to at least say he doesnt agree with all the offensive and racist shit the comedian said. But he only said he doest know him and didnt hear him. Trump 101.
But he does know his audience. Why distance himself when his MAGAs are delighted? It was "a love fest".470,000 Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania. At this point, I think Trump is trying to lose the election.
JD Vans staying on message.
"My own view on this is, look, again, I haven’t seen the joke. You know, maybe, maybe it’s a stupid, racist joke as you said, maybe it’s not. I haven’t seen it. I’m not going to comment on the specifics of the joke," he said.
They know their audience. Yup.
Btw, most people are talking about Puerto Rico, but he also made comments about jews, muslims, blacks. Plus, he wasnt the only one making offensive comments. And those were not comedians.
They are hateful and disgusting persons.Yup... I'm sure that joke got every single one of them to vote for Harris.
Being able to pay their bills, care for their families, avoid WWIII... that crap doesn't matter...
I'm sure its worth living in poverty to prove a point to Trump."Yup... I'm sure that joke got every single one of them to vote for Harris."
Now that's funny.
I laughed!
Some of us still know how to.Oh, sure, none of that actually matters—apparently, one mean-spirited comedian is all it takes for them to give up on everything else you mentioned. Come on, Ken, have you really lost all common sense here? Don’t you know that all Hispanics are just waiting to drop everything and vote for Harris now? Clearly, nothing else matters but that comedian's words. But honestly, doesn't this kind of stereotyping say a lot about anyone who actually thinks this way?
It's sort of a very basic idea that people don't like to be disrespected, they don't like to be made fun of or put down.
Plus... Trump is a fascist running on "concepts of a plan" tariffs , tariffs, tariffs and has an abhorrent character on top of it.
It's not just the joke, it's the whole package."It's sort of a very basic idea that people don't like to be disrespected, they don't like to be made fun of or put down. "
It's also very common for comedians to push boundaries with crude or insulting jokes, using shock value to elicit laughs. However, what one person finds funny, another might find offensive or hurtful, making it a very subjective form of entertainment. You might want to consider, it may not be your cup of tea, but you are one individual--- nothing more.
Regarding your concerns regarding Trump, those are also your individual opinions--- nothing moreThe comedian talked about every ethnic/racial group. He was an equal opportunity pusher of boundaries. He didn't single out just one group.
Oh good, this is still a thing... so for a morning laugh:
Puerto Ricans Explain & Defend Comedian’s “Floating Island of Garbage” Joke at New York Rally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz-LaIf7t7wOn the other side, Kamala mocked two college students who were pro-life. When they stated that Jesus was Lord, she told them that they were at the wrong rally. She told them to get out of her rally. However, NOTHING was said about this at all.
That was a good start to the morning.
I bet Puerto Rico garbage is a top Google search trend today.
What if the Puerto Rico lady talking about PR's landfill problem (is that a real problem?) is right? What if that really was the genesis of the joke?
GAPuerto Rico's landfill problem was the genesis of the joke; however, the joke was inappropriate during the rally. It was in poor taste. There is a time & place for everything.
Yet the actual comedian has not stated that was the genesis of the joke... Trump's campaign actually came out with a statement saying that the joke does not reflect the views of trump...
Lol Do you know how bad something has to be in order to have the Trump campaign try to distance themselves?
Yet another attempt for some to tell the rest of us what was "really meant "
As an aside I wonder where all the remnants from the destruction of Hurricane Irma and Maria of 2017 was suppose to go. Didn't they devastate Puerto Rico? I wonder the same thing about the two recent hurricanes this year that hit the southeast. Imagine half a town needing to be disposed of.
It was just a bad joke...
Most of us have heard about the trash island in the middle of the ocean
Been in the news for a few years... easy to google...
Then he said Puerto Rico... at a Trump rally... and here we are...
Wasting time on nonsense.
No, the comedian did not specifically point out a group, and I feel his words were rude. He has the right to share his thoughts, the context of his statement reflects his own views. No one should assume that his opinions encompass anyone else. Now Biden's “garbage” remark about Trump supporters was clearly his perspective, and it’s hard to accept that a president would refer to any Americans as garbage. That bold and rude statement speaks volumes about how Biden perceives a segment of the population.
When appearing at a rally for Trump, his views are going to also reflect those of the leader of that rally. And you can be offended by Biden too, and choose not to vote for him in this year's election. Oh, wait...
"When appearing at a rally for Trump, his views are going to also reflect those of the leader of that rally. And you can be offended by Biden too, and choose not to vote for him in this year's election. Oh, wait..."
We clearly see free speech differently. At the rally, several individuals openly disagreed with Trump on various issues. He encouraged people to speak and created an open forum for them to share their views—that’s free speech at its best. I don’t feel the need to continue this discussion. That said, you’re welcome to respond; I’ll give you the last word because I genuinely value free speech. I also believe in honesty, so I’ll say this politely: I find that I have nothing in common with your views.We do see free speech differently, indeed. He was free to speak his racist humor. But in granting that ability, the campaign was promoting it to a national audience. Even in a big tent, those who speak are going to be representative of the whole.
You honestly can't tell me that the views of the squad don't get articulated as the views of the whole of the Democratic party by many on the right. Trump using the 2019 Virginia example of a late-term abortion and trying to apply that one rare, and distorted, case as the policy for the entirety of the party is the finest example of the right doing just such a thing.
And it's fine if we disagree on views, that's normal. But what gets troubling is when we disagree on reality. And right now, MAGA exists in an alternate reality where they deny basic facts.The only thing I can say -- the word "indeed" is getting old, just a tip. Have a nice day. I promised you the last word...
Hey, don't infringe on my free speech rights when it comes to using "indeed."
So Biden doesn't have free speech rights? Puerto Ricans automatically have American citizenship. They just can't vote. As I said before, this all is hinged on what is an American?
Stephen Miller who is the architect of Trump's massive deportation act of 1798 is an 100% Jew. At the rally, he said, "America is for Americans only." What an irony that is. His Jewish family has disowned him because of behavior and beliefs. The L.A. Times said what Miller said reminded then of Hitler's Nierenberg rallies where he said, Germany is for Germans only."
Did you know that America was named by a German navigator for an Italian named Amerigo Vespucci who was a master navigator and map maker. They gave this new world country the name "America" in his honor.
So it's assumed that all the people at Trump's MSG were real Americans and of course all MAGA members are real Americans. The "joke about Puerto Rico probably caused Trump to lose the Pennsylvania vote from Puerto Ricans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2020, the Puerto Rican population was the largest detailed Hispanic group in Pennsylvania. The Pew Research Center says Pennsylvania has the fourth-highest Puerto Rican population in the United States which makes up about 8% of the state’s population.
My wife and I are 100% Italian and our parents immigrated to America in the 20's. We are not Trump lovers, but we see our selves as real Americans. I served four years in the Air Force during the cold war protecting your a**s here from Soviet bombers coming to the U.S. I didn't have fake bone spurs to keep me out of serving my country.
The only real Americans here are those who are living on reservations as refugees or now own casinos. The rest of us are immigrants. There is a difference between political satire and comedy just for the sake of putting others down those who you think don't belong here because of their heritage, race, color, or beliefs. I understand crowd mania and how easy it is to become part of it. But it can also be very dangerous and I think Trump's MSG rally was on the threshold of that, especially "They are poising the blood of our country."Once again, it seems you didn't fully engage with my comments on the subject and approached me with a chip on your shoulder. I pointed out that everyone has the right to free speech, and we each have the ability to interpret his words as individuals. I found his "garbage" comment just as distasteful as I found the comedian's remarks.
As of now, Stephen Miller has not been officially appointed to any position in a potential future Trump administration since Trump hasn't yet won the presidency. I feel you might be reacting to something the media has stirred up to provoke a response. None of us can predict how Trump would handle immigration issues.
I believe that anyone born here or recognized as a legal citizen is an American in every sense. I won't assume how Hispanic individuals will react to rude comments from a comedian. I see people as individuals, not as groups. It's unfair to assume that Hispanics are unconcerned about serious issues in our country just because of something a comedian said. If I were Hispanic, I would find such an assumption insulting to my intelligence. Hispanics face the same challenges we all do under this administration, and I’m sure they care more about solving problems than voting blindly based on derogatory remarks from a comedian.
"I didn't have fake bone spurs to avoid serving my country."
What do you think about Bill Clinton and Joe Biden receiving multiple deferments?
What did you think of Biden's Garbage comment? You seem to only dwell on Trump's what you feel are wrongdoings.
I hope you can simply answer the two questions I have asked. I have answered yours at great length. I notice that you very rarely answer any of my questions. I think this says something.
Regarding my thoughts on Trump's MSG rally, I saw a wide range of diverse speakers expressing their views freely and spontaneously, such as Dr. Phil, RFK, and more. Many of them openly stated that they didn’t always agree with Trump, and it was refreshing to see such openness. The speakers appeared to be enjoying themselves and engaging in a lively atmosphere.I'm sorry, but what are the two questions you have asked?
LOL --- I knew I should not have invested in a response... Fell right into this one.
If you are talking about the two questions in you latest reply, I can answer them. It doesn't make it right for anybody to be a draft dodger in my book. But I don't think Clinton and Biden called people like John McCain a loser, just because he was captured by the Viet Cong, imprisoned, and tortured.
"A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them,'" Kelly said of Trump. "A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”He values the men and their service, but not war. After all, he grew up in the "Make love, not war!" generation. He would rather negotiate and work toward peace. Something wrong with this approach?
"Kelly said of Trump."
Unless you have some audio or video of President Donald Trump making such a statement, I believe it is a blatant lie told by a man who was fired by President Donald Trump. Kelly has been busy making up stuff about President Donald Trump to sooth his fractured ego from being fired by him.
It's just that simple.Yeah, we all know who you believe. No matter what lie is told to you.
There have been several individuals present on that day who have claimed that Trump did not make that statement. They wanted to visit the site but were informed by the Secret Service that they needed to leave due to weather conditions that would prevent his aircraft from flying and maintaining the schedule. This has been substantiated by the Secret Service.
When it comes to Trump, why is it that anyone who speaks of their own negative experience with him, that person is a liar, that person is somehow of questionable character.? Especially when Trump has shown us repeatedly that he lies incessantly? That he has a poor character and a few morals? Yet we are to believe the other folks are always the liars with an ax to grind? The victim schtick has worn out . It just seems ridiculous at this point. Always an excuse, always someone else's fault. Even if I could ignore all of Trump's other glaring faults, I wouldn't vote for a candidate who constantly plays the victim, seems to relish the victim persona...frankly I think it's a personality flaw. It doesn't project strength at all.
I made no reference to anyone lying in my comment. I have pointed out a view in regard to the issue that my view was Kelly may have made his statements due to ego, and being fired. I have never said he lied.
I understand your perspective, but it’s important to emphasize that Trump is not a liar. Many supporters believe he speaks candidly and directly, often challenging the political establishment and the media. While critics point to statements they consider false, supporters argue that he is frequently misrepresented or taken out of context, particularly by the media.
The media has a tendency to skew his statements to fit a particular narrative, which can lead to misunderstandings about his intentions and positions. What many see as straightforwardness, critics label as dishonesty. This discrepancy often reflects deeper political biases, with the media amplifying negative interpretations while downplaying or ignoring the positive aspects of his presidency.
Instead of being a victim, Trump is viewed by his supporters as someone willing to fight against a biased media landscape that seeks to undermine him. This resonates strongly with many voters who feel that their concerns are not adequately addressed by traditional political figures. Engaging in constructive dialogue about these issues is crucial, as it allows for a more balanced view of Trump's character and the challenges he faces.
You see faults, but I see someone who is sacrificing for our nation and fighting to protect democracy. He doesn’t play the victim; he plays the fighter. He stands firm in expressing his views without backing down. Our perspectives on Trump couldn't be more different. I unlike you am not taken in by media hype. I just think that said something very negative about one's mindset. I do realize it is very prevalent today.I am very impressed with your writing skills. Are you using AI to help you write your replies? I love how you can rationalize Trump as somebody that I don't see at all. I guess that having over 30,000 documented lies and misinformation and continuing to lie doesn't agree with the proven facts about him lying every chance he gets.
His continuing to lie about an election being stolen from him doesn't matter to you. According to Trump he has never been found guilty of any of the charges levied against him. If he truly believes that, it makes him a pathological liar.
Psychologists call it cognitive dissonance when It is very difficult for people to hold two opposing views at the same time, especially when it comes to politics. Both sides suffer from it. But I see Trump as a pathological liar because he believes his own lies. I also see him as someone who is suffering from malignant narcissism and is a master con-artist who attacks those who oppose him and then plays the victim to his supporters.
As I said before, it depends on whether one sees the glass half full or half empty. You see Trump’s glass half full, I see it half empty and if we don't see the glass being the same, there is conflict.I use Grammarly’s free version to correct spelling and punctuation. Last year, I got into trouble using AI to write Hubs and was banned for three months, so I went back to using Grammarly. I also rely on my PC more than my cell these days.
I get where you're coming from. The "30,000 Trump lies" count often lacks context, and going through these claims can be frustrating, especially when so much seems open to interpretation. I’ve personally found that a lot of what’s labeled as lies isn’t so clear-cut, and I've stopped checking because I rarely found that what The New York Times called lies were actually that.
I just posted a thread on Harris's campaign mistruths, and I hope people find it fair and not biased. In my experience, her statements can feel more devious and harmful to the election process, so I think it’s important to bring attention to these concerns in a balanced way.
Hopefully, you remember that I’ve shared here often that I didn’t believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. I’ve openly discussed my thoughts on Trump, including his character, faults, and the positive qualities I feel he has. I believe people are made up of many variables that make a whole, and I don’t ever stick anyone in a box—I see individuality as something positive. I’ve also shared my personal approach to choosing a president. For me, job performance comes first—I see the presidency as a job that requires strong problem-solving skills and good common sense above all else. Emotions don’t play a role in my decision-making if job performance isn’t there.
I can agree with seeing the glass as either half full or half empty. To me, there’s no conflict in that—I always respect your perspective and make an effort to share my views while respecting others. I don’t see any value in digging in too deeply; what does that really accomplish?
Have you dug deeply regarding Harris, and are you sure she could do a better job than Trump??? Are you really even sure about her character?
This isn't the subject we were discussing; the topic was your accusation that Trump was a draft dodger. I simply pointed out that both Biden and Clinton also have similar histories. Instead of addressing that subject a bit more, you diverted the conversation to a completely different subject, like calling John McCain a loser just because he was captured, imprisoned, and tortured by the Viet Cong.
I believe Trump has a right to free speech, just like the rest of us. People can agree or disagree with his views. Regarding Gold Star families, many have spoken out loudly and truthfully about Biden's lack of empathy—this is just a fact. Trump denies making the “sucker” or “loser” comment, and John Bolton, along with many others, has claimed they did not hear him make that statement. I must offer testimonies from Goldstar families to add a factual source to my accusation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZhmRN1wHno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s887Yi1Gpi
"It's sort of a very basic idea that people don't like to be disrespected, they don't like to be made fun of or put down. "
Tell Biden that what he said was not a joke; he is not a comedian. and he is coming undone at the seams.He has been undone. He is way past becoming thus.
I'm late to the party again, but for me, all these comments are begging the question of what defines America and an American from the Trump side compared to the Harris side?
Where is the prevalent racism? Trump wants to be an isolationist, by making America First whatever that means. Trump will always have "The Others." for confliction, It fulfills a need in him and his people.
Harris wants to be inclusive and not only welcome "The Others" but also folks from the other side of the aisle to be part of her administration..
When The Others are not welcome, there will always be a divided America. Trump likes that better because it gives him a basis for good and evil with the perception that good is always on his side and evil is always on the side of The Others. It also allows easy manipulation of people. Hence the jokes made at the MSG were made to define and vilify The Others who are not real Americans in their minds.People Power -- While it’s important to discuss the definitions of America and what it means to be an American, the notion that Trump embodies isolationism and vilifies "The Others" simplifies a complex issue. Trump’s “America First” policy is often mischaracterized as exclusionary; in reality, it reflects a prioritization of American citizens and their interests in a global landscape. This approach emphasizes the need for secure borders and the protection of American jobs, which many supporters believe fosters national strength and unity rather than division.
On the other hand, while Harris advocates for inclusivity, she often fails to address the pressing issues that concern many Americans. While she may speak about “free stuff,” such as expanded social programs, she tends to breeze over critical topics like crime, fixing the border, and the economy. This lack of focus on tangible issues leaves many feeling that their real concerns are being overlooked. In contrast, Trump directly addresses a range of concerns without diverting attention; he doesn’t simply say, “Look here, not there.” He openly discusses crime rates, border security, and the economy, which resonates with those who feel their voices have been marginalized.
The perception that Trump supporters need an “us vs. them” narrative can be challenged by recognizing that many of his followers feel alienated by policies that they believe undermine their rights and security. Furthermore, the idea that jokes made at public events, like those at Madison Square Garden, are solely meant to vilify others misses the nuance in political discourse. When one comedian makes rude jokes it’s essential to recognize that this represents one individual’s viewpoint, not the collective perspective of all Trump supporters or Trump.
I’ve found that conservatives often don’t subscribe to groupthink, which adds to the great divide in our political discourse. They prioritize individualism and personal responsibility, believing that people should make decisions based on their own values and circumstances rather than conforming to a collective ideology. This emphasis on personal agency can create tension with those who favor a more collectivist approach, viewing issues through the lens of broader social dynamics or group identities. This might also explain why some conservatives aren’t as concerned about the comedian’s poor choice of material; they see it as an expression of individual humor rather than a reflection of their beliefs or values. To them, the focus may be on the comedian's right to express themselves, rather than on the content of the jokes. I found this comedian's words offensive, rude, and not in any respect fair. However, I did not blame anyone but the guy who so rudely said the words.
I can respect your individual opinion, it was well taken.Sharlee, the Democrats have their others. Those who are not in the uppermost middle & upper classes are deemed the others by the present Democrats. They despise them, considering those in the solid middle class, whether blue or white collared, are considered untermenschen. They only respect those who are in the uppermost middle & upper classes. Only those in the uppermost middle class & upper classes i.e. those who are making in the middle six figures & above support Democratic policies. The Democrats didn't care about the solidly middle class at all; in fact, this class is despised by the former.
The Democrats are fond of using celebrities & noted people to get the sheeple in line to vote for Kamala. Kamala feels that she is far superior to the so-called masses. Kamala is placating the masses to gain the ultimate power. She could care less about the American people. Obama was the same-he despised the solidly middle class.Hi Grace, I couldn't agree more with your observations. The Democrats have definitely created a divide, treating anyone outside the upper middle and upper classes as "the others." It’s as if they view the solid middle class—both blue-collar and white-collar workers—as Undermen, completely disregarding their contributions and needs. The party seems to only value the opinions and interests of those making six figures and above, further alienating the very people who form the backbone of this country.
Using celebrities to manipulate public opinion is a tactic that feels disingenuous. It’s frustrating to watch Kamala Harris act as though she’s above the masses, placating them just to secure power. She clearly doesn’t have the best interests of the American people at heart. It’s a troubling trend that we saw during Obama’s presidency as well, where the solidly middle class was dismissed rather than supported. This disconnect is damaging and shows a lack of genuine representation for the majority of Americans.
I am with Ken, this bunch is dangerous.YES, EXACTLY. It is as if those who don't have ADVANCED degrees & have high powered jobs aren't in the A group but in the D group or so-called misfits. Obama started the trend. He was also an elitist. He believed that he was superior because he had an ADVANCED degree, not merely a Bachelor's Degree.
When Harris apologizes for the lies, the name calling and the overall demonization her campaign and she herself is putting out, then I'll hold Trump's feet to the fire for not saying something an idiot comedian said.
It's fair that way. I don't have to like what our politics have come to, and I don't, but it IS fair. At least if one doesn't consider MSM and it's massive help to Harris is spreading her insults and lies it's fair.
I wouldn't know. But then I don't find much of what passes for "comedy" to be funny, either. Do you? Do you understand that there really are people, millions of them, that find insulting others to be funny?
Even been to a roast of someone? Did you find it funny? I didn't, any more than I found the "joke" of the almost complete devastation of PR from multiple hurricanes to be funny.
I highly doubt Trump's campaign knew what was coming. Those people aren't stupid, whatever label you might apply to them, and they would not have allowed it if they knew. IMO.
Yes, no argument from me, just utilizing a different approach.
Which is hopeless with this crew, no doubt about it.LOL You're right there! There is little hope for this crowd; TDS has strong in them, stronger even than the force.
And on an aside... I've come face to face with NK 'special forces'...
If its true... Ukraine is in for a SHOCK... those M'Fers don't play and don't surrender.Ken, here’s a thought—imagine if the government reinstated the draft. Picture the uproar we’d face trying to enforce it. With RFK Jr. recently pointing out how our youth are, on average, not healthy enough to even pass basic military physicals, it’d be a battle just getting enough qualified draftees. The state of health among the younger generation has become a national concern, and this would bring it right to the forefront. I must just shake my head at the thought.
Our ground forces will prove as capable and competent as our Administration...
You reap what you sow...
Outside of our Special Forces units our military is a shadow of what it was 25 years ago... it was more worried about being inclusive than being ready to win a war on multiple fronts... which is exactly where we are headed with a Harris Presidency.Maybe we could hire some soldiers from North Korea. I think it is very obvious we have poor minds in the higher-ups of the military hence the horrible pull out of Afghanistan. But Ken, you are not realizing the joy Harris will bring to the nation, her laugh, her smile..I mean is this not enough?
I don't know just how stupid Trump and his supporters think that everyone else is?
1. The free speech argument is just so much bullsh@t. A candidate for President of the United States at such a public gathering is not going to vet those that are invited to participate as well as the nature of their material? If I were really interested in the votes from constiencies that he found so easy to insult and offend, I would have used a bit more discretion in my guest list.
2. The other reason is Trump does not care. He and his supporters feed on this and double down, after all this is the stuff that makes Trump and Trumpers who they are. He does not want nor need the voters of those not in his racial base. He believes he can win without their support so why not spew the vitriol without limit?
3. So, it is not just about immigration, but about race. Puerto Rican's are American citizens.
So let's not be fooled, people.. . .not to mention, are lacking in character. Not opinion. Proven ad nauseum for the last decade.
This is SO perfect... it captures where we are... in politics... in world affairs, it fits how I see it so well, worth a watch
https://youtu.be/veG12D-7s5o?t=181Scary sh!t. UGH.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Monday that former President Trump has promised him “control” of public health agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), should he win a second term next week, according to a video viewed by The Hill.
“The key that … President Trump has promised me is — is control of the public health agencies, which are HHS and its subagencies, CDC, FDA, NIH and a few others, and then also the USDA, which is … key to making America healthy,” Kennedy said in the video.
Kennedy now serves on Trump’s transition team and has become a campaign surrogate. Trump has said he is committed to brining Kennedy into his administration.
During a campaign rally Sunday in New York City, Trump said he would let Kennedy “go wild on food” and “go wild on medicines” if he wins in November.Yeah, because there is no corruption in any of that...
Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns
https://www.science.org/content/article … rk-ethical
U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-food-ad … pert-says/
80% of Packaged Foods in the US are BANNED Elsewhere: Here’s WHY & the LIST
https://sustainability-success.com/us-f … e_vignette
RFK Jr. speaks against USDA and processed foods during campaign event in Maine
https://kyma.com/decision-2024/2024/07/ … -in-maine/
I think Haley has been pretty spot on with her political observations.
"Nikki Haley criticized Trump world on Tuesday for being “overly masculine with this bromance thing” after former President Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday."
This bromance and masculinity stuff, it borders on edgy to the point that it’s going to make women uncomfortable,” Haley said.
Yes, totally agree. And then Trump graces us with yet another "sir" story..
Trump told the rally crowd on Wednesday that his advisers had been counseling him against describing himself as a “protector” for women.
“They said, ‘Sir, I just think it’s inappropriate for you to say.’ I pay these guys a lot of money; can you believe it?” Trump said.
I said, ‘Well, I’m going to do it whether the women like it or not. I’m going to protect them...."
Gross. ' Whether she likes it or not” already cost him close to 500 million dollars, you’d think he’d shut his trap.
Sir, I think you're going to lose...
When Trump declares that he will be the protector of women, he's talking to the MEN. No woman wants "protection" from a sexual deviant.You know... I get it... have for a few years now...
You can't watch John Stewart's bit and not be concerned about the accusations made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOLqSUK0eBM
But then you watch JD Vance talking to Rogan for 3 hours and you realize there is no way that dire framing of Trump as (_insert all derogatory labels here_) can be true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRyyTAs1XY8
On top of that, there is no way, none, that Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr and Vivek Ramaswamy, the people Trump has surrounded himself with, are going to sign on for that type of evil.
What the current Administration is allowing... is evil... in Ukraine... in the Middle East... here at home, letting children be mutilated and calling it Progressive and moving humanity forward... nah...
At the end of the day... if you are still plugged into MSNBC or their ilk to get your version of what is going on in the world, well, then you are going to believe the end of the world will come if Trump wins...
And if you are NOT plugged into what the NYTimes and CNN is telling you reality is... then you KNOW we have never been in such a dire situation, with such profoundly bad (for America and Americans) leadership as we have suffered the last 4 years... and Harris will not be an improvement, a continuation of where we are going will be a disaster.JD "Trump is America's Hitler" Vance?
It's nearly impossible to take anything he has to say seriously.
When Trump loses, it'll be interesting to see just how quick Vance switches up yet again. I think he's toast after this election though."At the end of the day... if you are still plugged into MSNBC or their ilk to get your version of what is going on in the world, well, then you are going to believe the end of the world will come if Trump wins."
It won't be the end of the world, but the end of a democratic republic that this country was founded on. It's called The Constitution of The United States of America. You know it's the one Trump was supposed to pledge to God that he would support and protect, so help him God.
However, the poor guy lost his way, when he didn't get re-elected the second time. So instead he created death and destruction at the Capitol, because he couldn't accept losing an election by a duly elected and certified president.
He also did not provide a peaceful transfer of power. He also caused Fox News to settle out of court for billions of dollars by accusing Dominion that they rigged their ballot counting machines.
I am really looking forward to see what he will do if he loses this election.
Barrons
July job growth badly missed economists’ consensus estimate, according to data released on Friday, while May and June also saw downward revisions—tempering recent months’ hiring even more.
The U.S. economy added 114,000 jobs in July, versus the average call from economists for 175,000 new jobs. The previous two months’ hiring totals were revised down by a combined 29,000 nonfarm payrolls. May saw a gain of 216,000 jobs—2,000 fewer than before—and June saw a gain of 179,000, down by 27,000 from the originally reported growth of 206,000.
According to the August jobs report, the US economy added 142,000 jobs, Notably, previous months saw downward revisions, with July's job gains revised down to only 89,000 jobs added.
The August 2024 jobs number was revised down from 159,000 to 78,000. This revision was due to additional reports from businesses and government agencies, This administration does this monthly.
This administration revises frequently.'This administration revises frequently.'
And, as usual, the hypocrisy of the right is on full display.
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that, according to preliminary data, 501,000 fewer jobs had been created between March 2018 to March 2019 than officials had initially estimated. No one lost their job over it, because adjusting the numbers isn’t unusual — in fact, the government does it routinely."
But sure, make some partisan claim that it's only this administration that has the numbers adjusted. Maybe some basic knowledge about how often this happens would be a good starting point in the future.Unfortunately the numbers are BS... as usual...
Everything the Biden Administration government puts out is rosy at first and then is 'corrected' to show how bad things are going...
Whether they are talking about their wars overseas or the economy... they are failing everywhere their fingers touch.Ken,
This is true, and it’s what I wanted to point out. Right away, I got a response—though I'm not quoting directly here—saying that this kind of thing happened before Biden’s term, even during Trump’s. Sure, it did, but not every month, and certainly not to such a drastically skewed degree.
When they revise it in a few months... it will be .01% at best...
They have been doing this for the last 4 years...
Well, this is the end, all the barbs and back and forth we have enjoyed here the past few months... the election is upon us.
Two links that appraise where things are at the moment:
Mike Benz Exposes Elite's SHOCKING Wargame Plan For 2024 Election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evpxa5XJ5bg
How North Korea is Rapidly Preparing for Its Own War Soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPeQeBGK9b0Yeah, like they revised the fourth quarter of 2023 from 3.3% down to ... 3.2%. Not quite the endpoint of .01% that was exaggerated. And the same thing happened during the Trump term. The advanced estimates came in, then the second estimates were often revised down a tick. Funny how for the MAGA faithful, these things only suddenly began in 2021 in their minds. I'll add this to the hypocrisy and partisan thinking patterns we saw above with the jobs numbers.
Oh hell no..
"Trump said Thursday he would have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. work on “health and women’s health” and look at the nation’s food supply"
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … ns-health/Yes RFK Jr. will look at the nations food supply to see what kind of road kill he can pickup for us.. That's it, you make nice to Trump and he could care less whether you are rational or not because in the final analysis Trump is not rational. It takes one to know one.
This "man" is angrier and more hateful by the day. WTF.
Trump fumes over mic issues at Milwaukee rally
“I think this mic stinks, by the way. And then we don’t pay the contractor. I say don’t pay the contractor, then they write a story, ‘Trump doesn’t pay his bills, he’s a bad guy,'” Trump said.
“Do you want to see me knock the hell out of people backstage?” Trump added later, calling it a “pretty stupid situation.”
“I get so angry. I’m up here seething. I’m seething. I’m working my ass off with this stupid mic. I’m blowing out my left arm, now I’m going to blow out my right arm, and I’m blowing out my damn throat too, because these stupid people.
Btw,
We analyzed 9 years of Trump political speeches, and his violent rhetoric has increased dramatically
We are political scientists who analyzed Trump’s campaign and presidential speeches from 2015 through 2024. We found that one of the most striking trends in Trump’s rhetoric is the sharp rise in his use of violent vocabulary.
By 2024, Trump’s use of violent language had surpassed that of nearly all other democratic politicians we considered, approximating that of authoritarian figures such as Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/analyzed-9-y … 04148.htmlLet me hitch a ride, just to offer a first thought that has nothing to do with the message of your comment. (but does plagiarize one of your favorite responses)
As I'm sipping coffee and reading the blurb about the 'analysis,' and I get to its closing line . . .
Oh lordy, lordy, Hitler, Nazi, and Fascist wasn't bad enough, now they toss in Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro. Who is next? SMH
GAHey, we haven't even gotten to Rasputin, Attila the Hun, or Napoleon yet.
The guy has been going non-stop for months...
Getting shot at... sued... dealing with more BS than you would think any individual could handle for longer than imaginable...
And people wonder why he is getting testy?
Heheheh... well everyone will be getting testy in a few days, right along with him, I be thinking.
"I have this piece of glass here,” Trump said. “But all we have really over here is the fake news. And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much.”
Why are these people clapping? Do they not realize that nearly every item they buy at Walmart is an imported good and will be more expensive because of this?
Trump announces he is considering raising taxes on imported goods to “400 percent”: “I don’t give a damn”
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1852468934059901207Perhaps they think they will get a good paying job at the factory resulting from falling imports? Perhaps they like the idea of "Buy America"? Perhaps their patriotism does? Perhaps they don't like the idea of supporting sweatshops overseas? Perhaps they don't like supporting the economy of our enemies?
I could go on for hundreds of possibilities but you get the idea. There are lots and lots of reasons to like the idea, just as there reasons to dislike it. Reasons beyond "I hate Trump".I'm pretty sure factories to make all the little crap we buy from Walmart aren't going to be popping up the day after Trump (God forbid) would take office... I mean his followers probably think they will.
Are any credible economists supporting such tariffs?
"Trump’s Tariff Plan Would Undercut The Entire US Economy"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherma … s-economy/And he did so well his last time... It was the Democrat administration that brought us down. Hopefully, Trump can fix the damage. Like I have said before, who supports a bunch like them?
They clapped because they listened to everything he said and knew he was joking. He laid out real plans—to bring prices down, create jobs, boost manufacturing, and ramp up oil and gas sales like never before. He’s focused on building opportunity, not handing out freebies. What a concept! Personally, I love it."And he did so well his last time...
Did he impose 400% tariffs last time? Does anyone think this is actually a good idea? His audience was clapping for tariffs... That is literally like clapping for higher prices?There is a difference between plans and goals. Trump has goals if he has anything at all. I'm not sure it is just all BS. He has no plans for replacing Obama care. He only has concepts, if even that.
I can only share my view --- I’m aware of Trump’s somewhat unique agenda, and he has clearly shared much of his plan for accomplishing it. I believe a lot of what he proposes is quite doable, and I find his ideas like I said unique compared to other administrations. I appreciate his focus on examining all government agencies for unnecessary spending and bloated issues. I feel he would be a strong leader, work for world peace through negotiation, and show strength if needed. I felt very comfortable with Trump at the helm.
I can't list everything I like about his agenda since it's quite extensive, but I am genuinely very impressed. Willing to try unique over stagnation.
On the other hand, I truly don’t feel that Harris is suitable to run the country, especially considering she has done nothing in her four years in office. I find it odd that many would even consider her, coming from a failed administration. She hasn’t presented an agenda or shared anything sensible that I would want to see come to fruition. Her vision for America is one I do not share. At this point in our country’s growth, I believe we need a strong leader like Trump, someone with a clear vision for the future.As I have shared, I have followed Trump's campaign closely, watching interviews and rallies. I can share what I have picked up on what he has said about Obama Care. I feel Trump has many goals, and with his ego, I think he would work to leave the country in a better place than he found it. (This is just my view.)
Trump has made statements about keeping certain aspects of Obama-era policies, especially if he believes they can be improved in ways that align with his vision for the country. For instance, with healthcare, Trump has mentioned not completely dismantling systems like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but rather revising or replacing problematic parts to make it more cost-effective and patient-centered. He has admitted many millions are on the plan, and he is not for doing away with it.
It's frustrating to watch Harris distort his words on this issue, stirring fear among people who rely on Obamacare. Her claims that Trump plans to take away Social Security and Medicare do the same. In my opinion, this is just dirty politicking—spreading lies from a podium about issues that matter deeply to so many.September 11th, 2024...
'Donald Trump took aim at the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday in his presidential debate with Kamala Harris, reviving a 15-year-old partisan fight over a law that has swung from a liability to a political asset for Democrats.
“Obamacare was lousy health care. Always was. It’s not very good today,” Trump said on the stage. “And what I said, that if we come up with something, and we are working on things, we’re going to do it and we’re going to replace it.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna170655I think a lot of folks have forgotten what he actually did during his time in office..
Health Care Cuts Would Leave Millions More Uninsured...
Through 2017, the President pressed Congress to enact legislation repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and deeply cutting Medicaid. Meanwhile, the Administration has used its administrative authority to implement — and to encourage states to implement — policies that make it harder for many eligible people to get and retain health coverage.
The budget doubles down in both areas. It cuts Medicaid and subsidies for private coverage in the marketplace by $763 billion over the next decade, with cuts reaching $172 billion annually by 2028.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/trump-bud … ate-incomeI can’t help but laugh—think about it: any businessperson evaluating a project would look at its outcomes, whether it’s underperforming or has potential with some fine-tuning. Whatever Trump felt in 2016, it seems he believes his approach is working now and sees room for improvement.
I would think after seeing the program works for so many, he would be foolish not to keep it. Obama Care took a few years as any business to show it is working for many millions.
I’m not sure what he thinks would “make it better,” but I’ve noticed a shift in his attitude toward the Obamacare provision. I appreciate that he’s not looking to create problems for the sake of it; instead, he seems focused on finding ways to improve the situation. This kind of mindset is something I value when choosing a president.
The fate of social security under Trump?
"Not only do Trump’s proposals add trillions in new debt, they do so even though several of his tax ideas would mechanically force cuts in Social Security benefits. In fact, one analysis suggests that his tariff plans would lead to higher taxes for about 80% of the population. Cutting Social Security benefits and raising net taxes on most people and adding over $7 trillion in new debt — it is a genuinely reckless approach, reflecting the huge scope of the tax cuts Trump has promised the highest-income minority of Americans.".
I will cite the source of the quote but I can certainly add a multitude of economists who have stated essentially the same.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … he-economyI’ve made my point about Obamacare and what Trump has recently shared regarding the health plan. (A subject you brought up) I don’t understand why some people ruminate and divert the conversation in such a scattered manner.
I’ll pass—once again, you seem to divert and come off as trollish. I’ve pointed out your distractions before and shared a list of well-known economists with differing views, also highlighting some of your sources as unreliable in certain cases. Your comments feel repetitive.Trump hasn't proposed cutting Social Security benefits. It seems like Harris is really pushing that narrative/lie, even though there's no truth to it. Trump’s actually made it clear he plans to protect Social Security ---Yes, Trump has mentioned wanting to cut taxes on Social Security benefits for retirees. This would mean that Social Security income, which is currently taxable above certain income thresholds, would be less burdened by federal taxes. The idea is that this would put more money back in the pockets of retirees, allowing them to keep more of their Social Security benefits without a large portion going to taxes.
During the 2020 campaign, Bloomberg and other economic analysts projected that Biden’s economic plan would stimulate significant growth,
Bloomberg and analysts like Moody’s Analytics were overly optimistic about Biden’s economic plan in 2020, projecting significant GDP growth, job creation, and a smooth recovery. However, the actual economic outcomes diverged notably. For one, the forecasts did not fully anticipate the surge in inflation, which reached nearly 9% by mid-2022, the highest in 40 years. This rapid inflation drove up the prices of essentials like food, fuel, and utilities, placing a burden on American households. Rising housing costs were also a major issue. Increased demand, combined with historically low interest rates, pushed home prices up sharply, effectively squeezing out many prospective buyers.
Furthermore, while these predictions anticipated strong wage gains, real wages for many Americans actually stagnated as inflation outpaced earnings. The forecasted increase in purchasing power was largely offset by rising costs, which Bloomberg and others had underestimated. Additionally, the administration’s spending initiatives, including the American Rescue Plan, were projected to stimulate growth without significantly increasing deficits. However, massive government spending fueled inflationary pressures and contributed to high deficits, as increased tax revenue from corporations and high-income earners didn’t cover the spending as anticipated. Ultimately, these predictions missed critical economic pressures such as global supply chain issues, the rapid pace of inflation, and the limitations on real wage growth, resulting in outcomes that were far less favorable than initially projected.
I can't predict the exact outcome of Trump’s economic plan, but I can definitely say Bloomberg’s forecast for the Biden economy was far off the mark. They painted a picture of strong GDP growth, controlled inflation, and steady job gains. Instead, we saw inflation spike to near 9%, housing costs soar, and wage gains outpaced by the rising cost of living."Instead, we saw inflation spike to near 9%, housing costs soar, and wage gains outpaced by the rising cost of living." <even as we saw the standard of living fall.>
The cost of living rose to match that of the wage increase (most people live to the maximum, spending every penny they take in), but inflation was higher than that. Therefore, the standard of living had to fall...which COLA figures did not factor into the equation. The result was an artificially low "rate of inflation" being reported, lower wage increases for federal employees, lower increases in SS payments and lower tax bracket increases. All of which also lowered the standard of living.I completely agree with that comment. The cost of living has indeed risen to match wage increases, but since inflation has outpaced those gains, many people are struggling. Most individuals live paycheck to paycheck, spending everything they earn, so when inflation exceeds wage growth, it inevitably leads to a decline in the standard of living. The way COLA figures are calculated often fails to account for this reality, resulting in an artificially low inflation rate. This impacts not just wage increases for federal employees and Social Security payments, but also tax bracket adjustments, all of which contribute to a lower standard of living. It’s a complex issue that often gets overlooked in economic discussions.
I was making an attempt to point out to Willow --- I don't take every economist's critique of presidential candidates' plans to heart. Economists often have varying opinions, and their analyses can sometimes miss the mark when applied to real-world situations. As many did regarding Biden's economic plan.
Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action
Step by step, Donald J. Trump and his allies are following the strategies that caused chaos four years ago. Election officials say they are ready this time.
Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies are rolling out a late-stage campaign strategy that borrows heavily from the subversive playbook he used to challenge his loss four years ago.
This time, however, he is counting on reinforcements from outside groups built on the false notion of a stolen election.
LINKWell... if it wasn't stolen I guess there is nothing to worry about...
And if it was stolen... maybe this time they are ready to stop the steal...Ken,
So, according to Trump, the election is NOT stolen only when he wins. Any other outcome would mean that it is time to "stop the steal".Well if he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't need immunity. And if he is guilty then he should be put in jail.
A 'constitutional sheriff' tried to seize voting machines in 2020. Officials are bracing for a repeat.
In a rural county in southwest Michigan, a sheriff who sees himself as holding supreme authority has become a hero in the election denial movement.
A few months after Election Day 2020, a sheriff’s deputy and a second man walked into the office of the Rutland Charter Township clerk in southwest Michigan. Clad in dress clothes, the man identified himself as a private investigator and said he was conducting a criminal investigation into election fraud.
“It was kind of a shock,” recalled the clerk, Robin Hawthorne. “We didn’t have any discrepancies. We passed the canvass with flying colors, so it was like, ‘What are they doing here?’”
Hawthorne is a Republican in a solid-red township of 4,100 people. She had been Rutland Charter’s clerk since 2001 and had never encountered anything like this...
They got up to leave instead. But before doing so, Hawthorne said, they insisted that she not mention their visit to anybody to protect the investigation... She soon learned that the deputy and the private investigator had visited other township offices as part of an effort to find evidence of election fraud. And the man responsible for it was the top lawman in the area — Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf.
Leaf fashions himself as a “constitutional sheriff.” Sheriffs like him see themselves as holding supreme authority in their counties, exceeding that of state and federal law enforcement officials. They have become prominent figures in the election denial movement...
It’s difficult to say how many constitutional sheriffs exist in the U.S. The most prominent group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, was founded in 2011 by Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and member of the Oath Keepers militia. He has claimed that 10% of the nation’s 3,000 sheriffs are members, along with 10,000 ordinary citizens.
The group held a conference in Las Vegas last May, drawing a crowd of current and former sheriffs as well as election-denying Trump-world celebrities like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Leaf, meanwhile, is still focused on digging up election fraud from four years ago but appears to have moved beyond Michigan. Just last week, he posted a memo on his social media pages that said he’s made “referrals for criminal investigation” to the Texas Attorney General’s Office.
“He’s still out there talking, blabbering, stirring up the masses,” said Hawthorne, the Rutland Charter clerk. “People are coming up here saying they’re sure the machines are flipping the vote.”
Hawthorne said early voting has gone smoothly but she’s worried about the period after the election if Vice President Kamala Harris is declared the winner.
“There’s a lot of good ol’ boys around here who think what happened on Jan. 6 was great,” Hawthorne said.
The veteran clerk said she’s hoping things remain calm in her little corner of Michigan. But one thing is certain: If there is an emergency, she’s not going to call the sheriff’s office.
“I’m calling the state police,” Hawthorne said. “I don’t trust the Barry County Sheriff’s Office.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/co … rcna177906
The Babylon Bee Officially Endorses Kamala Harris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sOqlzkMwH4
And I can't leave out this:
9 Ways Trump Is Identical To Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMSFqUJ0JSwOMG Ken --I’m still laughing! But wasn’t the endorsement blurb actually reflecting what some of her supporters have on their pros list? LOL!
How about this one on surviving Kamala's term in office?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dlP4vITCu4
"I was for Trump the entire time... I failed to see what Trump really was."
Must Watch One minute Video
VideoLove it. No one does satire any better, or are as good at making sure......
we're smiling when we all go down...
LOL?Speaking of satire, SNL's cold open tonight was so spot on for their Trump portrayal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Funs6yyEwWell, that was very cute. Cutest Marxist president, here we come.
(Who can resist her now that she has joined Maya Rudolf with, "Live from New York its Saturday Night!")It was interesting to note how Kamala yielded to Maya's greater portrayal of authority. Maya for president?
Well, we don't know her policies ...
and if they "mirror" Kamala's, forget it.
By the way, the portrayal of Trump (AND Vance) was disgusting and unforgivable. I will never watch Saturday Night Live again. Finis.By the way, the portrayal of Trump (AND Vance) was disgusting and unforgivable.
It was president unworthy.
And as a president you have to understand that cameras are always on you all the time.
You shouldn't shoot the messenger.
Trump has himself is to blame by doing such weird pornographic movements.
These images go the world over.it was AI generated imagery. And not done very well.
That was great, it is nice to know that our next POTUS has a sense of humor. It reminds of Richard Nixon appearance on Rowan and Martin's laugh-in back in 1968 where he said "You gonna sock it to me"?
Utter defamation of character is never funny. Yes, both sides have gone too far in trying to be humorous, but the evil/pornographic way they portrayed Trump on the mic was way beyond the limit.
If Kamala gets in by hook and crook, I will get rid of my television sets. They will only be used for re-education, brainwashing and government propaganda."but the evil/pornographic way they portrayed Trump on the mic was way beyond the limit."
I think the actual footage of him and the mic was worse lol SNL'S portrayal was certainly not an exaggeration. He did what he did.SNL was simply doing a parody of reality...
https://x.com/ananavarro/status/1852687230063476779https://x.com/ananavarro/status/1852687230063476779
This TikTok video is AI imagery. So obvious!!!!!
Shameful!!!!!!
This use of the internet is the black pit of deception. It is total abuse of freedom of speech.
It is abuse of love, truth and everything of excellence and high integrity.Lol, sadly it is not AI . I'm sure one of the other maga forum members will speak up to authenticate the footage. I'm certain that many of them saw the rally in real time
I hate deception and trickery.
Thanks for NOTHINGThere is complete footage of the rally. Pick your preferred source and watch the whole thing for yourself
Saturday Night Live, the whole show was gross. Utterly gross.
Completely lacking in decency and taste. Worthless.
If a show like that reflects "reality", I'll pass.
I know, right? Its so awful one would think is fake.
When you find its true, would it change anything? No. No excellence, no integrity. Youll find a way to excuse it, huh.The whole speech, live from FOX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70-vxj7SNhg
The mic rant starts at about min 8 until min 10, then from minute 26 to minute 30.
No AI.
We see the same denial of reality from the MAGA supporters in these forums that we see from his supporters about most of his many lies. It's why sane Americans wouldn't trust MAGA to clean their toilets, let alone run the country. They are delusional.
In your opinion, why shouldn't delusional people be trusted to clean toilets?
The mic!
And the real thing was worse!
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8L1jrkx/
With the election just around the corner, it’s striking that there’s still little focus on Harris—her policies, qualifications, or job performance. It feels like a repeat of 2020 when discussions about Biden were similarly absent. It’s curious that some people are fixated on Trump yet seem hesitant to critique Harris. To me, that speaks volumes about the current mindset.
It is so hard to watch the destruction of America. I am so fed up with the evil, the corruption and the lack of respect for what is truly good and right, instead replacing it with perverted virtue.
A lack of education has produced what we see going on around us.
A lack of discipline and self-mastery.
A lack of value placed upon life, itself.
Got LIFE?Kathryn, as I suggested, watch the full C-SPAN clip to see that the X clip was altered. Save your energy—many here seem to thrive on this kind of drama. Rise above it; there’s nothing to be gained by giving such vile accusations any attention.
I am very alarmed that a nationally syndicated comedy show, Saturday Night Live, has joined forces with Tok Tok and other media outlets to influence voters. I agree, we citizens need to rise above such pervasive and ruthless tactics, but we must comprehend what they have done:
Deformation of character.
Slanderous fabrication.
Trickery on a pornographic level.
Corruption of the youth/teens who watch SNL.
If this alarm/true concern makes me seem "unintelligent" so be it.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you said here:
"This kind of slander should not be allowed, and Trump need not be defended regarding this newest ploy. Time to realize how sick these kinds of ploys are."
Thank you.
I think before anyone discusses the newest microphone bit please watch Cspan which has the full rally and nothing altered, one needs to see his gestures live audio problems at his rally in Milwaukee.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?539544-1/ … -milwaukee
I noted this morning some outlet removed the footage--- I would think due to having a look at the footage. What I saw is certainly different than the clip that was posted on X. He did nothing that could be construed as an inappropriate sex act.Tell us, Sharlee! What did YOU see?
It is IMPERATIVE to know that he did NOT do what was depicted
on TiK Tok.
The truth will set us free.
The truth in regards to any election fraud will also set us free.
Exposing the T R U T H is the ONLY thing that will save the nation.
It can start HERE!My comment was meant to encourage all to watch the video. I hope all will see what I saw which was nothing inappropriate.
I watched the rally live on CSpan. I saw none of what I saw on X. It was clear that the clip was altered. One only needs to watch the CSpan clip to see that particular clip on X was altered. I have also noted that some outlets have removed the video, and have been very careful with the content of their words.
He didn’t appear to be mimicking any sexual act at all. It’s disgusting how low some people will go. I’m done wasting my time engaging with this type. I would suggest Kathryn avoid giving them attention—it’s time to stop bothering. We risk coming across as unintelligent by continuing this conversation. Cut off their air Kathryn. This kind of slander should not be allowed, and Trump need not be defended regarding this newest ploy. Time to realize how sick these kinds of ploys are.
If you want to see something truly concerning, check out Biden’s speech from yesterday. There’s no need to read between the lines; what was clear was a very confused individual at the microphone—our current president.
Yet it seems no one hears has posted this very embarrassing speech. Where he sputters, becomes visibly angry, and claims he would like to "slap in the ass Trump" Odd when visualized.
One more thing to consider—previously, some have claimed Trump is too macho, and now they’re portraying him as homosexual. It’s interesting to see how perceptions shift in the narrative surrounding him.Low information voters... the majority sadly...
Misinformation media... the majority by a large margin...
And a well-organized cabal within the government that feels it is superior, knows better, for Americans... for the world... now corrupted by a "woke mind virus" and a very dedicated "warmongering" click (aka neocons) that have sold their souls to serve the MIC (military industrial complex) and the American Hegemony (aka International Oligarchy)...
With the usual suspects trying to meddle in American affairs from Soros' Open Society to China... from the Koch brothers to rogue Alphabet Agency agendas gone awry.We are exposing the truth. The truth will set us free. This the reality I have faith in.
Okay I watched the actual video. Thank You island Bites. As Sharlee said: "He didn’t appear to be mimicking any sexual act at all." In fact, HE WAS NOT. He was explaining that the mic was not working very well and complaining bitterly about it being too low. I am so done with anyone thinking this action was intentionally done for effect on a sexual level. Dirty minds with evil intentions is what we have here.
It's quite curious that many were
so incredibly offended and disgusted by SNL's skit last night but when you see the video of Trump in action, it's no biggie. ...
"By the way, the portrayal of Trump (AND Vance) was disgusting and unforgivable."
Disgusting when SNL does it but not trump?
"but the evil/pornographic way they portrayed Trump on the mic was way beyond the limit."
They portrayed exactly what he did. Is it pornographic and evil or not?
Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
Former President Donald Trump said that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would have a “big role in the administration” if he wins on Tuesday, telling NBC News in a phone interview that he was open to some of his more controversial ideas.
Kennedy, who ran for president as an independent this year before dropping his bid and endorsing Trump, has long spread conspiracies and falsehoods about vaccines and other public health matters. He has, for example, frequently claimed that vaccines are linked to autism, even though for decades, studies have debunked this theory.
Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out.
“Well I’m going to talk to [Kennedy] and talk to other people, and I’ll make a decision, but he’s a very talented guy and has strong views,” Trump said.
Trump declined to talk about specific roles Kennedy might play in his administration, but in recent public appearances, Trump has made clear that he is envisioning a prominent role for him.
“He can do anything he wants,” Trump said during an event Thursday in Arizona.
The Trump team has embraced Kennedy and some of his fringe views in recent days.
Last week, Howard Lutnick, the co-chair of the Trump transition team, praised Kennedy and questioned whether vaccines were “fine.”
On an episode of the “The Joe Rogan Experience” last week, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, also spoke about his own experience with the Covid vaccine, expressing skepticism about it.Now your children and grandchildren's lives are at stake. Will that make a difference?????????????
I do hope you are being funny....
Sometimes its hard to tell who gets the humor in the insanity... and who is mired in it.
But no.... seriously.... I've read it three times now and broke out laughing...
You are way to serious on here usually... so...
Its a tough call... are you serious in your level of concern, or are you in on the joke?
“I shouldn’t have left, I mean, honestly.” - Trump
He keeps saying the quiet part out loud... MAGA do not care.Trump in North Carolina, telling the crowd they have a great guy running for office in Dave McCormick. Only problem, McCormick is running in Pennsylvania. Trump has zero clue which state he is in.
It's okay... I'ts okay. America, go and vote for youq candidate of choice tomorrow.
Related Discussions
- 86
Democrats, are we in a circular firing squad?
by Credence2 5 months ago
I can’t believe it, we have allowed the aura or stench of Trumpism to affect our own party with insiders leading the way.We are actually ready to throw President Biden under the bus for one poor debate performance?While, Trump has broken every rule in the book as a convicted felon and he gets...
- 123
Trump may well win, my greatest fears realized.....
by Credence2 6 weeks ago
A contemporary "Reign of Terror" when Trump wins, buckle up.Bill Maher, and many forum participants on the left and Right has said that Harris would win. Some have directed me to look at the outrage against women and their reproductive rights promoted by Trump and the Republicans.I don't...
- 23
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
by H C Palting 8 years ago
What do you think is good and/or bad about Donald Trump running for President?
- 16
If Trump & Clinton are so despised then why not vote third party?
by ptosis 8 years ago
If Trump & Clinton are so despised then why not vote third party?The Founding Fathers were vehemently against a national party (faction) system, especially a two-party model. 2016 3rd party Prez candidates; Darrell Castle, Gary Johnson, Chris Keniston and Jill Stein. Sanders...
- 483
The 2024 Presidential Election
by Scott Belford 5 days ago
I am sure many are going to disagree, but I predict Vice President Kamala Harris will win - by a lot!That is a feeling, not backed up by polling. The polling leans toward he winning - by a little as well as flipping the House and a slim chance of keeping the Senate.
- 92
Biden Picks Harris For VP
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I think Kamala Harris was his best choice. I think she will probably put him over the top with a lot of swing voters.GA