2024 Election Season

[B-Man]

9 minutes ago, Ann said:

 

 

 

That doesn’t quite jibe with her attempts at reframing herself as the “change” candidate, does it?

 

Man, she is clueless.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[Cinga]

23 minutes ago, Ann said:

 

 

 

They cut Starlink out of the project thanks to hatred of Musk and there are few if any reliable alternatives to connect parts of rural America so it is purely self-inflicted failure

[Hedge]

 

 

[Cinga]

3 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Pretty sad to see even after heavy editing this is the best of Kamala they could come up with isn't it?

[TtownBillsFan]

17 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

All you've done in this thread is deflect from the direct questions you've been asked. (Which is giveaway #1 that you're not here sincerely). 

 

Let's cut to the quick: Are you planning to vote for Harris?

NO ONE, who claims to be conservative, could ever consider voting for Harris (or Biden, or Shrillary, etc.), and expect anyone to believe that they were ever truly a conservative.  Having said that, I guess that tells you what I think of the Romneys, Cheneys, etc. of the world.

[Ann]

Doug Emhoff was a foul-mouthed 'a**hole' and 'misogynist' who hired a 'trophy secretary' because she was 'pretty' and 'retaliated against women who didn't flirt back' at LA law firm, ex-staff claim
 

 

Kamala Harris's husband was 'inappropriate' and 'misogynistic' at work, his former colleagues tell DailyMail.com.
 

Attorneys who worked with Doug Emhoff at his former firm Venable say he yelled expletives, held a men-only cocktail hour in the office, revoked work perks from women who didn't flirt with him, and took only young, attractive associates in a limousine to a ball.

 

A 2019 lawsuit also claimed sex discrimination by other partners in the LA office Emhoff ran, and that while engaged to Harris, he hired an 'unqualified' part-time model as a legal secretary 'because she was young, attractive and friendly with the powerful men in the office'.

 

 

</snip>

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

That doesn’t quite jibe with her attempts at reframing herself as the “change” candidate, does it?

 

Man, she is clueless.

 

 

 

.

 

 

no -

the sheeple that are going to blindly vote for her and her lies are clueless.

 

she is just lying and telling them what they want to hear

 

 

[devnull]

 

[devnull]

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 hours ago, JoshAllen said:

 

It appears you may be rationalizing the situation.

 

 

No. I educated myself deeply on the issue. And was ahead of the curve by 2 years, risked my career and personal freedom to expose truth - and have been proven right by every congressional hearing, trial, and IG report in the years since. 
 

You’re not only naive - but willfully so. That’s not just sad, it’s dangerous. And makes you an enemy of everything you THINK you’re defending. 
 

 

7 hours ago, JoshAllen said:

 

I intend to support the candidate whose policies align with maintaining and strengthening our democratic institutions.

So, you’re supporting the candidate who’s making it a campaign plank to remove the first amendment in the name of fighting “disinformation”? The candidate who wants to rip out the electoral college and turn us into a “true” democracy - literally the exact opposite of what the Founders intended. 
 

What a Patriot you are! What a noble American! Wait, did I say Patriot? I meant mindless simp who pines for serfdom and the complete destruction of a American liberties all so he can look in the mirror and think, “Yeah, the media would say I’m doing the right thing.” 
 

You’re not lost,  you’re a part of the problem and will face very difficult times ahead. History will lump you into the same pile as the “good Germans” who had no idea what those darn Nazis were up to. And before you say that’s extreme - remember what you’re defending:

 

* The same people who lied about WMD and foisted 20+ years of endless war on us, paid on a credit card, killing MILLIONS in the process.

 

* The same people who lied about the cause of the economic collapse while they bailed out their corporate donors and bankers.

 

* The same people who lied for years about an incoming president being a foreign asset - dividing the country more than ever, while crippling American hegemony on the world stage.

 

* The same people who’s entire policy set is designed to turn Americans against each other, asking us to view one another by our gender, race, or sexuality FIRST rather than as individuals, neighbors, and fellow Americans. 

 

* The same people who have profited and aligned with human traffickers and the cartels to exploit human suffering for profit and control. 
 

* The same people who once upon a time called Cheney a war criminal but now embrace his endorsement as if he were Moses speaking from the summit.  
 

You support the party of hate. Of war. The party that has more blood on its hands than any other in American history - and that’s saying something. 
 

And you support them because you’re too scared to think for yourself. A real man would be ashamed to be lining up behind this brand of evil. But not you! 
 

Take a bow. 

Edited October 8 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

5 hours ago, JoshAllen said:

 

As a conservative, I hold the rule of law as paramount. Our democratic institutions and values are too crucial to be compromised.

Which is why you’re throwing yourself behind a woman who openly is campaigning in ripping away the first, second, fourth amendments and the EC. 
 

Funny. A true conservative would draw the line after one of those - let alone all of them 

 

You’re either too stupid to breathe with your mouth closed, or lying about your values. I’m guessing the latter. 

[JoshAllen]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

No. I educated myself deeply on the issue. And was ahead of the curve by 2 years, risked my career and personal freedom to expose truth - and have been proven right by every congressional hearing, trial, and IG report in the years since. 
 

You’re not only naive - but willfully so. That’s not just sad, it’s dangerous. And makes you an enemy of everything you THINK you’re defending. 
 

 

So, you’re supporting the candidate who’s making it a campaign plank to remove the first amendment in the name of fighting “disinformation”? The candidate who wants to rip out the electoral college and turn us into a “true” democracy - literally the exact opposite of what the Founders intended. 
 

What a Patriot you are! What a noble American! Wait, did I say Patriot? I meant mindless simp who pines for serfdom and the complete destruction of a American liberties all so he can look in the mirror and think, “Yeah, the media would say I’m doing the right thing.” 
 

You’re not lost,  you’re a part of the problem and will face very difficult times ahead. History will lump you into the same pile as the “good Germans” who had no idea what those darn Nazis were up to. And before you say that’s extreme - remember what you’re defending:

 

* The same people who lied about WMD and foisted 20+ years of endless war on us, paid on a credit card, killing MILLIONS in the process.

 

* The same people who lied about the cause of the economic collapse while they bailed out their corporate donors and bankers.

 

* The same people who lied for years about an incoming president being a foreign asset - dividing the country more than ever, while crippling American hegemony on the world stage.

 

* The same people who’s entire policy set is designed to turn Americans against each other, asking us to view one another by our gender, race, or sexuality FIRST rather than as individuals, neighbors, and fellow Americans. 

 

* The same people who have profited and aligned with human traffickers and the cartels to exploit human suffering for profit and control. 
 

* The same people who once upon a time called Cheney a war criminal but now embrace his endorsement as if he were Moses speaking from the summit.  
 

You support the party of hate. Of war. The party that has more blood on its hands than any other in American history - and that’s saying something. 
 

And you support them because you’re too scared to think for yourself. A real man would be ashamed to be lining up behind this brand of evil. But not you! 
 

Take a bow. 

 

I appreciate your passion, but it feels like I'm still hearing justifications rather than answers.

 

My original question was straightforward: Why was Trump able to pass tax cuts but not achieve immigration reform?

 

 

[JoshAllen]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Which is why you’re throwing yourself behind a woman who openly is campaigning in ripping away the first, second, fourth amendments and the EC. 
 

Funny. A true conservative would draw the line after one of those - let alone all of them 

 

You’re either too stupid to breathe with your mouth closed, or lying about your values. I’m guessing the latter. 

 

The irony of discussing rights being taken away is striking.

 

Can you intellectually acknowledge the recent overturning of Roe, over 50 years of precedent, by an extremely conservative Supreme Court, eliminated rights for women in this country?

 

Furthermore, can you address, with intellectual consistency, the former President's advocacy for terminating all rules, regulations, and articles, including those in the Constitution? 

 

The events of January 6 have unequivocally demonstrated Trump's unfitness for office. His actions and decisions revealed a profound inability to uphold the responsibilities and maintain the integrity demanded by the nation's highest office.

 

 

[Foxx]

23 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

I appreciate your passion, but it feels like I'm still hearing justifications rather than answers.

 

My original question was straightforward: Why was Trump able to pass tax cuts but not achieve immigration reform?

 

 

 

The President doesn't pass anything, congress does. Therein lies your answer.

[Uncle Joe]

52 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

The irony of discussing rights being taken away is striking.

 

Can you intellectually acknowledge the recent overturning of Roe, over 50 years of precedent, by an extremely conservative Supreme Court, eliminated rights for women in this country?

The Supreme Court just made a decision to let the states decide the legality of issues surrounding abortion. States rights are imbedded in the  Constitution. Roe v Wade was a constitutional decision as was the decision to rescind it. Want to make it law put it in the Constitution with an amendment. However, this will never happen as this is a controversial issue.

In the meantime both sides will find the extreme cases to prove their point where most people want something in the middle.

BTW, you said you are conservative but have a problem with Trump's conservative court???

[Deranged Rhino]

51 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

The irony of discussing rights being taken away is striking.

 

Another dodge. A sign that you're losing and a desperate attempt to deflect from your own position's shortcomings. Note, you still have YET to answer a question directly. Not one. Not even who you're voting for. 

 

51 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

Can you intellectually acknowledge the recent overturning of Roe, over 50 years of precedent, by an extremely conservative Supreme Court, eliminated rights for women in this country?

 

It did no such thing. And conflating abortion rights with the First Amendment is not only intellectually vapid and cowardly, it's a non starter.

 

The Founders intended States Rights to trump that of the Union's because their goal was to protect the rights of the biggest minority - the individual. The court returning the matter to the states is not stripping away anyone's rights. It's fundamentally aligned with the principles inherent in the founding documents.

 

54 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

Furthermore, can you address, with intellectual consistency, the former President's advocacy for terminating all rules, regulations, and articles, including those in the Constitution? 

 

The nameless, faceless, and unaccountable bureaucratic state is the Founders' nightmares coming to fruition. I want a federal government small enough to drown in a bathtub, not one that can derail a small business with a stroke of a pen a thousand miles away.

 

But of course, this is a nonsense response to begin with. Show me one direct source of Trump saying he's going to terminate the Constitution or anything therein. Go ahead... Just one. 

 

And if that was his goal? Why didn't he do it in his first four years when you claim he had "ultimate power"? If he's such a threat, why didn't all those bad things happen 4 years ago? Instead of a dictator and WW3, we got the first 4 year stretch in nearly 20 years without a new war. The moment he's gone, we have 2. 

 

That's not a bug, it's a feature of what you're supporting. You're on the ide of the war machine. The side of the Intelligence Complex that has done nothing but strip away our civil liberties in the name of keeping us safe since the towers fell. That's the side you're on. The side of the oppressor. 

 

And you think you're being noble and high minded because the guy on TV says so?

 

... Still waiting. Did you find that Trump quote yet? Or do you just want to admit that you're regurgitating propaganda without basis in reality?  

 

56 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

The events of January 6 have unequivocally demonstrated Trump's unfitness for office. His actions and decisions revealed a profound inability to uphold the responsibilities and maintain the integrity demanded by the nation's highest office.

 

More proof that you're a mindless, brainless simp for the people who have had their boots on your throat since before you were even born. 

 

You're such a staunch "conservative" and defender of our "democratic institutions" that you're willing to support a candidate who has made stripping away first amendment rights in the name of fighting "misinformation" - while you spout proven disinformation as if it were fact. That's not irony, that's weapon's grade stupidity. 

 

Now, I've answered your questions while you've done nothing but dodge so here's your chance to prove you're not a worthless troll. 

 

Please defend Kamala's position on First Amendment protections needing to be "looked at" in the name of fighting disinformation. Tell me why you, a "conservative" support this position. 

 

Then tell me who you would be comfortable determining what is, and what is not, "misinformation"? The federal government? The state government? A nameless, unaccountable federal commission comprised of unelected academics and bureaucrats? 

 

This will be fun to watch you deflect and dodge (again).

[JoshAllen]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Note, you still have YET to answer a question directly. Not one. Not even who you're voting for. 

 

Please review the previous messages.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

Please review the previous messages.

 

 

 

Another dodge. 

 

Scorecard: Not one direct question answered, only dodges. 

 

Troll confirmed. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllen said:

 

Please review the previous messages.

 

 

Now, I've answered your questions while you've done nothing but dodge so here's your chance to prove you're not a worthless troll. 

 

Please defend Kamala's position on First Amendment protections needing to be "looked at" in the name of fighting disinformation. Tell me why you, a "conservative" support this position. 

 

Then tell me who you would be comfortable determining what is, and what is not, "misinformation"? The federal government? The state government? A nameless, unaccountable federal commission comprised of unelected academics and bureaucrats? 

 

This will be fun to watch you deflect and dodge (again).

[bdutton]

1 hour ago, JoshAllen said:

 

I appreciate your passion, but it feels like I'm still hearing justifications rather than answers.

 

My original question was straightforward: Why was Trump able to pass tax cuts but not achieve immigration reform?

 

 

 

 

did Trump not significantly reduce illegal border crossings during his term???