Do you believe Kamala Harris will have the Obama effect ?

NO

Yes I do. I’ve seen a lot of random “person on the street” interviews and lots of people said they will vote for Kamala simply because she’s a female POC. Her background doesn’t matter. Her policies and stance on the issues don’t matter. She’s getting votes just so she will become the first woman president ever. And being a POC is a bonus for the progressives.

I’m hoping the 3-5% of voters who were RFK supporters get firmly behind Trump. It may be the only thing that can save the country from disaster.

If Trump wins, I fear Jd Vance will confiscate every strip club couch in the US.

Vote Kamala to keep the government away from bedrooms and private rooms.

What do you mean by "the backing"?

The DNC is running the Obama playbook--relentless positivity, light on policy, heavy on buzzwords. The problem is, Harris is not Obama. In fact, until she got the nomination, they thought of her as a liability and were trying to drop her from the ticket. I never saw Obama's appeal but I have to admit he held his people rapt (some people say the same about Trump but I don't see that either) and ran the positivity playbook as well as anyone.

Then suddenly at the end of July, they reversed course and treated her like the Second Coming. All the talking heads parroted the marketing lines on cue--"weird," "joy." She couldn't have asked for a better last 30 days. But she's still only even with Trump in the betting odds, and BEHIND in the electoral college if you count any leads. Can it get much better for her?

Here's why I don't think so:

1. Harris is out of step with the mood of the country. I keep hearing joy, joy, joy, and in the next breath that if we don't elect her we're going to get The Handmaid's Tale. It's schizophrenic. Trump is unabashedly angry, and so is America. Angry at the 30% increase in groceries. Angry at tens of millions of illegal over the borders. Angry at the crime which persists despite goosed stats. And like 2016, angry at an economy that has left them behind.

2. The electoral college favors Republicans. The GOP has roughly a 2 point advantage, as in the Democrat needs to be 2 full points above the Republican for it to be even.

3. The "shy Trump voter" effect is real, and I think why Trump outperformed his polls in the last two elections. Trump is running 6 points ahead of where he was in 2020, and 8-9 over 2016.

4. All honeymoons end. Harris will need to stake out policy positions (and not just take Trump's sloppy seconds like taxes on tips) and face hostile audiences. She might be more articulate than Biden, but Trump knocked Biden out with his last debate, and Trump didn't hurt himself in 2016 or 2020 either.

5. Harris' positions are out of step with the country. She might be saying centrist things, but to believe those, you have to ignore her 20+ year record. Furthest left during her term in the Senate, choosing one of the furthest left (Newsom? Inslee?) governors in the country. Only 6-8% of the country are devoted progressives.

6. Harris can't run from the Biden administration. Vance said it best, Harris' Day 1 was 3.5 years ago. There's no running from the Biden record.

It only gets harder for Harris from here.

Love him or hate him everyone's mind is already made up about Trump. Kamala on the other hand most people know very little about. Despite this the current polling shows it being a very tight race. Some have Trump ahead, some have Kamala ahead but they're generally within 2-3 points.

All Trump needs to do is convince 1-2% of the people who are leaning Kamala to not vote for her and he most likely wins, possibly even in a land slide depending on which polls are correct. Kamala's camp knows this which is why they're doing their best to not allow her to answer questions. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by answering questions. We'll see how long she can keep it up before voters start demanding she starts giving us some policy proposals.

Everybody knows the couch thing is totally fake right? (Based on a supposed quote from his book that isn't in it.)

^ I love your points, but explain that to a Gen Z or Millennial that’s ready to cream in their pants just because this candidate isn’t “an old white dude.” I still think there’s a lot more Boomers and Gen Xr’s that will go out and vote over Gen Z and Millennials which I would certainly think would favor Trump.

The grooming starts in highschool or even middle school. How many kids think its cool to be a minority gangsta? Its only a matter of time before someone like kanye is seriously considered for president.

"Finally figured out how to start a discussion on here."

What the heck are you talking about?

You've started plenty of discussions on the front page and a few on the political page. This is not your first.

Harris has already shared a number of policy proposals and positions. Some of them Trump used to label her a communist.

It's looking like whoever wins Pennsylvania is going to win. Harris is making housing costs a big focus. It's a big issue nationally, but less so in PA. PA flipped from red to blue in 2020 because turnout increased by 5 percentage points. So it will probably be a question of enthusiasm of people who voted for Biden in 2020. Going to be tall order for Harris. Biden has personal connections to PA, that obviously Harris doesn't. But Pelosi has all her chips in for Harris, Harris wouldn't have elbowed out Biden without Pelosi. Pelosi's dad was mayor of Baltimore, close to and similar to Phillly. Pelosi may know the buttons to push and levers to pull to get a big turnout in Philly.

People will vote for Harris in Philly simply because Pelosi's dad was mayor of a city in another state? Doubtful. Furthermore, other than both having high crime rates, Philly and Baltimore are not similar. I've seen Philly and MD girls interact. They brawl with each other moreso than connect.

With respect to voting for someone because they are a woman....Clinton lost to Trump, and she has better name recognition than Harris.

America isn't ready for a woman president.

^^
I hope you’re right. But I’m far less confident than a lot of conservatives. I think she’s going to ride the honeymoon wave all the way until
November. And having this inept person as president scares the fuck out of me

Funontheside why do philly and Baltimore girls fight each other? Simply because they’re from different cities? Thats sad

Philly girls tend to be a bit more aggressive. When they go into DMV clubs, the DMV girls get annoyed they are on their turf, and it leads to confrontations and fights.

I am also concerned that people may vote for Cumala as a result of the honeymoon hype and illusions. Can a President even unilaterally provide $25k new home assistance, or implement price controls? Of course, if the Dems sweep the Presidency, House, and Senate, and especially if conservative members of the Supreme Court depart, it's game over, and I will live out my remaining days in bread lines.

Of Course, Harris will have the Obama effect. The only difference is that being smaller, her ass is tighter, so unlike Obama she will need extra lube when she bends over for the muslims.

I agree with puddys reason as to why this liability that polled at 2% in 2020 shouldn't be elected. Unfortunately, many aren't going to vote based on policy but rather emotion, skin color, etc as Motor head and shailyn mention. Funny how the dems claim to be for the working class but no one has been hurt more by their disaster in the past 3.5 years. If you're feeling the pinch now, you'll be decimated if the black one wins.

By what measure did Obama or Cumala bend over for the Moslems? Most American presidents tend to bend over for the Jews/Israelis. Theres no Moslem country that even holds any notable power besides Saudi Arabia. Theres no wealthy, or influential Moslems in the states besides what, maybe the founder of Chobani yogurt and a few athletes here and there like Kyrie irving, low level politicians like Tlaib and Omar. Obama continued, and I believe even increased aid for israel?

Has Cumala ever even stepped foot into a hood?

'By what measure did Obama or Cumala bend over for the Moslems?'


When nobama was elected one of the first things he did was go to the middle east and profusely apologize for American actions there.
Granted we did lots of meddling there over the years but we also spent our money, time, and manpower developing the means for those countries to get their oil out of the ground, oil that made then rich and they've since used to blackmail and gouge us.
To what degree we helped vs harmed them is debatable but the fact remains we weren't all bad and what he did showed weakness right from the start. Most people including arabs don't respect weakness.
I also seem to recall nobama bowing to the saudi king when they met. American presidents don't bow to anyone, I guess nobama missed that memo.

Obama claims to be black, yet was never told that you shouldn't say sorry, as it makes you look weak? I thought that wa a key mantra in the hood.

@fun - Obama looked piss ass weak throughout his term. Iran deal with no verification. The infamous "red line" in Syria. Offering the olive branch to North Korea. "More latitude after the election" to Russia, and they took Crimea. So did "minor incursion" Biden, restoring aid to Palestine (aka Hamas), letting a Chinese spy balloon circle military bases before shooting it down, begging to get us back into the Iran deal, now trying to have it both ways on Gaza to appease the Jew-hating caucus.

If Harris gets elected, buy Unilever stock--America's going to need a lot of Vaseline.

^Didnt trump do the same with north korea. Trump seems softer on NK and Russia than the democrat presidents. Also regarding Iran it seems like Bama and others want to attempt negotiation whereas the repubs seem to believe Iran are equivalent to mindless maniacs like isis and cant be negotiated with.
Giving aid to Hamas could simply be a result of lobbying from military contractors. A one sided war wouldn’t be as beneficial for them.

We don't know what wa said by Trump when he met with leaders. I suspect, though, that he made it clear that it they do something against what Trump wanted, there would be consequences.

Trump is a lot of things, but he does know how to game the system (good and bad).

More desperate talking points from the right wing propagandist Puddy Tat. The Chinese balloon story was entirely inconsequential, and the "minor excursion" quote means absolutely nothing. There is no question that the US didn't tolerate any Russian excursion into Ukraine.

Under Biden and Harris the US is still the undisputed world leader and defender of democracy.

What is really concerning is Trump's position on Ukraine - effectively signaling he is willing to negotiate a deal where Ukrainian land is ceded to Russia. If this happens, there will likely be a collapse in our relationships with our allies, and the US will live in shame for having given a win to Putin.

@RMD - Trump butters up dictators, which is bad optics, but it disarms them and backs them down. Democrats always say he loves them, but that's because they can't distinguish words from results (which you can also see in the leaders they put forward and the ).

Trump kept Putin at bay and got NATO paying. I'll take that over being liked in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. He called Iran's bluff and killed their top terrorist. Iran holds to an apocalyptic view of Islam. They are worse than Isis which just wants to bring the world under the banner of radical Islam. Trump knew you cannot bring the mullahs into line with the promise of McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

Obama thought that he could bring rogue states into line with economic considerations. But that won't work. Kim wants absolute power. Khameini wants to bring about the return of the Mahdi. He was supremely arrogant as evidenced by this comment:

"“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”"

Saying aid to Hamas is a result of lobbying military contractors is speculation without evidence. Another way Trump was superior in the Middle East was striking the Abraham Accords all around the Palestinians and showing them that if they don't want peace, Israel will strike peace deals all around them. Biden's own National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said it was the quietest Middle East in the last 20 years.

But at least we don't have mean tweets!

Lulz.

More rationalizing left wing failures from the blind wld4tatas.

Biden did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine, and only sent aid enough to get a stalemate. The country has been demographically decimated. The average Ukrainian soldier is a middle aged man. Unless something happens, and fast, Ukraine is going to strike a peace deal under less and less favorable terms. But of course mld4logic is more concerned with "shame" than victory. Leftists are concerned above all with looking virtuous to each other in DC and Davos soirees.

The Chinese balloon made us look weak, and Biden's "minor incursion" comment (and begging them not to hack our infrastructure) told us we'll accept a certain level of their nonsense.

And we haven't even gotten to Afghanistan.

Fitting for a party increasingly beholden to a hard left who wants to diminish our role in the world.

We need a president who will project strength. The only one of those in the race is Trump.

Telling the world you will negotiate with Putin, inevitably ceding foreign land to Russia, is projecting US weakness.

Harris wins on this one.

^ Biden (and Obama) actually DID let Putin take land. Trump wins ;)

This election is about the future. Biden and Harris are trying to stop Putin taking more territory, Trump will let Putin do it.

^ Yeah, I don't blame Harris for trying to pretend she didn't have a hand in the last 3.5 years.
I'll take a better record over words.

Okay guys. I think many of you need to get out more and talk to people outside the upper class bubble. We need someone to continue the economic buildup for this country and continue to provide welfare for those who need it. Kamala plan for price control is already practiced in some Republican heavy states, and that is probably our best path forward. Giving a tax break will not necessarily fix the actual problem with our country. The US has a spending problem, and social security is the heart of our biggest expense in this country. Factor in declining birthrates and you have a recipe for disaster.

Have faith in Kamala Harris. I believe that she can do a good job. She will focus on fixing our immigration problem via improving the process, not building a barrier that will become obsolete in 20 years after it's built (it will require multiple fixes and staffing when it's complete, these funds are going to come from the federal budget and they will be scrapped as soon as a Republican is no longer in the Oval Office.)

We can disagree in a civil way, but know this : Nobody will motivate the Democrats to vote more than Donald Trump.

^ Price controls = food lines.
Anyone with fifteen minutes in an economics classroom, or looked at the USSR or 70s America, or many liberal cities' experiments with rent control, knows this.

Even they know it's shit. Politico is usually left of center, and they're saying Dems are trying to calm people by saying "don't worry, it won't pass." Fucking liars.

Just like Obamacare, we have to elect her as president to find out what she actually stands for!

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/25…

Lulz

@ Puddy Tat, why are you so angry? You post about this stuff like it's personally hurts you on some level.

All I am trying to say is that Kamala Harris isn't a dictator. She seems pretty reasonable. And to be honest, I a very skeptical of any company that "Needs" to increase profits. Its amazing how I pay more for stuff but get absolutely no difference in quality.

I understand how economics work. I know when something has a natural increase and when something is just blatant price gouging. The other side of the coin is that people will just buy less of certain products. So you end up making profit similar to what you were already making because instead of the 100 lbs of meat you were used to selling per week, it drops to 65 lbs per week.

I can honestly say my money doesn't go as far as it used to and generally I live relatively frugal outside of this strip club hobby.

Companies' top priorities are to its investors/shareholders and employees. Certainly, customers play an important part in a company's success, but customers are secondary/tertiary to the other stakeholders.

However, failure to keep your customers happy negatively impacts investors and employees. It is this relationship which negates the need for government interference. If prices get out of control, customers will stop/reduce spending, and companies will react with better pricing.

With government interference over food prices, for example, a farmer may choose to lease his land to a solar/wind company, rather than toil away for minimal income. This leads to scarcity.

@ggofv - Angry? Not really, in fact I'd say I take politics a lot less seriously than a lot of people here (both left and right; you know who you are). You can just tell how much it raises their blood pressure because they get into scatological insults, or they act personally aggrieved. I am a bit bombastic and perhaps that's how it comes across, but I maintain a level of emotional detachment.

I do feel the need to call out penis-brained economics when I see them. One man's "natural increase" is another man's "blatant price gouging." Who determines it? It's like Bernie talking about the rich paying their "fair share," OK, who determines what's fair? Of course a senator who once literally got kicked off a commune for working too little, and made his entire brand on lack of economics knowledge, would act like he's wiser. Great economist Frederic Bastiat was right, government is the great fiction by which others would live at each other's expense.

It isn't anyone's place to tell people what "enough" profit is, either, except the market's. Unfortunately a lot of markets--thanks to rules and regulations--are biased towards the corporation, particularly the big one. Complexity rewards size, that's why Wal-Mart and Amazon thrived and mom-and-pop stored languished during the pandemic, what with all the money thrown in. Without the price signal, supply and demand get mismatched. It says something like in the link I posted that DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES are telling concerned people "don't worry, it won't pass." So do you believe it or not? OK, the one thing that makes me personally angry is when people insult my intelligence.

Her economic proposals veer off from there into the even more insane, like taxing unrealized gains (capital will fly out of America so fast it'll blow your hat off), but that's a topic for a different thread.

Regarding the notion that a wall doesn't work....

I agree that there are alternate methods to controlling the border, and Cubans mentioned some of those tactics in past. Her tactics don't seem to be working...of course, they would need to implement those items in order to be effective, which they haven't done.

It will depend on the details how Harris addresses corporate greed in the food industry. It's simply too early to say it won't work, except for propagandists with agendas.

Trump says he will "End inflation", but doesn't actually have a plan to do so. It's all bluster and bullshit. In fact, inflation has already come way down, but food prices are still elevated. Most Americans blame this on corporate greed. Harris has the right directional approach.

^ Rationalizing for Democrats. Again.

Yeah, corporations just became greedy to spite Democrats. Lulz

@ Puddy Tat, I see where you're coming from. I think the bigger economic issue (hence my price gouging comment) is that wages, in general terms, do not keep up with rates of inflation. I am sure you remember all the drama about $15 minimum wage? The truth is, when looking at inflation rates from over 30 years ago to the present, wages would actually be higher than $15 for minimum wage.

We can go all day with me posting links, you post links with commentary, etc. The key take away is that neither political side has a silver bullet solution to the disparity of wage vs inflation. I would even take a page from Reddit Black pill mindset, that this is a feature of a capitalist society and not a problem. These talks keep those with low economic potential in the same range while keeping the status quo wealthy because their engagement is at worst minimal compared to middle class slobs.

I don't agree with the unrealized gains tactic, and Harris probably doesn't actually have plans to enforce it. I am sure all the Democratic donors won't be harmed by this. This is red meat for the progressives, not sound economic policy.

@ggofv - First, thanks for keeping it civil and not taking anything I say personally. I really don't mean it that way, unlike some people who get a really sore asshole about it.

Wages vs inflation is a larger problem for which both parties have shown themselves not to be up to the job. Republicans think you give corporations money and they will bestow largesse upon their workers; Democrats think you can tax everyone and they won't either attempt to avoid it or pack up and leave.

One of the best things I've seen about it says that the conditions of the 50s through 70s were a happy accident of WW2. The rest of the world was either bombed to shit or just hadn't developed to the point of being able to manufacture yet. Both Democrats and Republicans want to go back to certain parts of it and it won't happen.

There is no silver bullet solution. Increasing the minimum wage might help some people, but as we can see with the California fast food law, a lot of restaurants are shutting down, or even going to robots. Might have been Thomas Sowell who said this but the true minimum wage is zero. Onshoring manufacturing has benefits, and that's something I'll actually give Biden credit for recognizing (the implementation hasn't lived up to that, though), not just providing American jobs but not placing ourselves in a position of dependence on American rivals. Re-skilling and trades have to be a big part of it as well--technology is already moving too fast for anyone to keep pace with and this will only accelerate. It's not just "learn to code," some people aren't suited to spend their lives at a computer (and those are the ones who got fucked hardest during COVID). It's not just "learn to make solar panels," the technology just isn't there to move the world to wind and solar, as Germany is learning the hard way.

Both sides have to tell certain constituencies to go fuck themselves. For Dems, that's the race-mongering immigrant activists who think any control is "racist." Supply and demand, surplus labor depresses wages. We can make a guest worker program even while we crack down on employers of illegal labor (we do that, we don't need a well). Also the radical greens, who seem more interested in penance for (and dismantling) western civilization than actually improving our standard of living. Republicans need to tell the Chamber of Commerce Republicans to go fuck themselves, the ones who just want tax breaks in the hopes that benefits trickle down to the people, as well as a number of "big business" lobbies that kvetch about antitrust and any kind of consumer protection. The government can set the boundaries around business and be an impartial referee, without favoring some over others. Unfortunately whenever we throw money into the economy, it lands on the rich. We need more direct stimulus and less corporate subsidies to favored industries.

Inequality is a feature of capitalism, but capitalism has still brought more people out of extreme poverty than any other economic ideology, ever. Socialism and Communism breed misery, enough that governments either reform away from it (like Deng's China) or get overthrown (like the USSR). We have to make it work for everyone.

If Harris doesn't have plans to enforce a tax on unrealized gains, she can explicitly abjure it. Until then, I'm assuming she's 100% for it. There are not enough rich, and not enough corporations, in existence, to finance their spending plans.

Progressives are only 15-20% of DEMOCRATS (6-8% of Americans) but they're driving that bus. Dems are in thrall to their radical activists (like race/gender/LGBTQ/enviro whackos) and need to cast them off.

^ Take a moment to watch Harris' DNC speech. It wasn't far left radical, and she made a forceful defense of Israel.

The far left progressives you mention do have some influence, but it's ridiculous to say they are driving the bus. This is a false right-wing narrative, inflated by right wing media like Fox News constantly having race/gender/LGBTQ related stories on their front pages. It's a distorted view of the Democrat party. It's a bit more true for the environmentalists, but issues like climate change and renewable energy have broader bipartisan support.

^ Take a moment to watch Harris' DNC speech. It wasn't far left radical, and she made a forceful defense of Israel.

The far left progressives you mention do have some influence, but it's ridiculous to say they are driving the bus. This is a false right-wing narrative, inflated by right wing media like Fox News constantly having race/gender/LGBTQ related stories on their front pages. It's a distorted view of the Democrat party. It's a bit more true for the environmentalists, but issues like climate change and renewable energy have broader bipartisan support.

Odd double post, sorry

@Puddy he didnt even have authorization to attack soleimani. And unfortunately the term “terrorist” particularly used by right wingers means a whole bunch of things. But to most of the world Iran is a legitimate country with a right to a military. The Qassem guy was part of irans official military.

But again to a right winger, terrorist includes any Moslem, anyone with nationality from a Moslem majority nation (so Pakistani Hindus/Christians, Palestinian/lebanese/other Christians, Iranian Jews etc), anyone who waves a palestinian flag, anyone who waves a blm flag, anyone who is anti israel, anyone who believes we should leave the middle east alone, anyone of middle eastern descent, probably even anyone visiting the middle east, etc.

Trump took out soleimani because it was israels request. It’s basically doing israels dirty work for them. And its concerning if trump, or anyone else, would kill someone just to appease israel or anyone else. Anyone who is willing to kill just to appease a man or woman or country etc is dangerous. Of course trumps not the only one willing to do that.

Apparently isis celebrated soleimanis killing claiming it helps them. Which lends even more credence to isis being an undercover israeli group. In addition to being treated in Israeli hospitals, never attacking israel despite supposedly being Islamic extremists. Its in like with israels strategy for the king david bombing, lavon affair, uss liberty incident, possibly and likely 9/11, etc.


How is Iran worse than Isis? And what does their apocalyptic view of Islam or the Mahdi have to do with anything? Im curious what you mean by those and what relevance they have. If isis wants to forcibly convert the world, and is a violent terrorist group, that seems a much bigger problem than Iran who appears to have little issue with anyone besides israel.

The aid to Hamas is likely also to assist israel as well. We know that for every israeli hamas kills, israel is given permission to kill thousands of Palestinians plus steal millions worth of property. So, merely funding Hamas alone actually assists israel in their goals.


One thing to point out, it’s ironic that when it comes to persian or turkish or arabian jews, they are groups israel itself would probably welcome into their country, but your average right winger would consider them to be terrorists by default.

Unfortunately, I do. The press is already giving her and stolen valor a free pass with no fact-checking, no interviews even softball ones, and erasing the past four years plus a good chunk of 2016. The press is completely derelict in their responsibilities, 100% in the bag fornthe democrat party, and wholly committed propelling her to an election victory -stolen or otherwise. Low information moderates and undecided will accept the media's lies and vote for her just because she's the DEI candidate.

@RMD - Soleimani's death would be the right decision if he relied on a Magic 8-Ball. The rest of what you wrote is unfounded opinions and Protocols of the Elders of Zion racist shit just like over PM where you trash Jews, Indians, and blacks.

@wld4tatas - Thanks for a reasoned response. I didn't watch the speech (I don't watch anything political in real time) and yeah, she's said some moderate things, but I'll go off 20 years of her career rather than a month and an hour of speech. And I know you're going to say she's evolved on this but actions speak louder than words. I know you'll say I'm repeating right-wing talking points but just look at her 2019-2020 campaign remarks to see what I'm talking about.

Her Israel remarks, like most of the Democratic party's, were an attempt to placate both sides. "I will always standup for Israel's right to defend itself," OK, will you kowtow to your left and stop giving them arms? She also talks about the Palestinian right to self-determination. OK, when has there been a Palestinian people? A senior PLO leader said there's no such thing, the "Palestinian people" are just an attempt to unite Arabs against Israel. Why has all the aid to them gone towards terror tunnels, rockets, and their senior leaders' pockets? Ismail Haniyeh was worth $5 billion. Khaled Meshaal is worth a few billion also, living in luxury in Qatar. In short, it's a whole lot of nothing. If she said the simple truth that if Hamas laid down their arms and released the hostages, there could be a ceasefire tomorrow, I could respect that. If she said that Yahya Sinwar will need eyes in the back of his head for the rest of his hopefully short life, I would respect that. Even if she told Netanyahu to knock it the fuck off in the West Bank (where Israel really ARE the bad guys) and stop bulldozing settlements and stand the fuck up to Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, I would respect that.

As for the far left, they make a disproportionate number of the Democratic party's donors and activists.
When will Biden or Harris or Walz say that we need an "all of the above" approach to energy, natural gas really is the fuel of right now, we need non-carbon baseload power, and "green" industry might not be as green as we think?
When will they say that gender transitioning kids (see the Cass study coming out of Europe) is not OK? Biden said it was the "civil rights issue of the day" and that opposing it was "a sin." (Can the devout Catholic square that with church teachings?)
When will they acknowledge the destructive effects of price controls everywhere they've been tried? Or unrealized gains taxes? I know you might disagree but I have history on my side...I can't see ANY "particulars" or "nuance" that could make them work. See my link above on how Team Blue is trying to say "don't worry, they won't pass?"
When will they acknowledge that hard work, being on time, and book learning isn't racist? (Like the Smithsonian Museum of AA History) And that removing gifted programs in the name of "equity" is putting us even further behind in education?

I would kill for a Sister Souljah moment on any of these, but it needs to be loud and unequivocal. None of this "we hear you" on inflation. Tell them straight up to fuck themselves.

Bill Clinton might be a bad human being but he was the last president to govern from a relative center position.

@Puddy nothing in my post had to do with Jews, blacks or indians. Also the statement of “palestinians dont exist” is pure semantics. There is someone living there, the term used to describe them is irrelevant. That argument is often used to attempt to justify killing them or robbing.


Its a bit hypocritical as a way republican to say Palestine or Palestinians dont exist. Specifically because they want to ban Palestinians from entering the country. How can you ban something that doesnt exist? Also justin amash, a literal right winger, is palestinian, bro. I mean im sure 70%+ of the party wants to ban/beat his ass, but it still is a bad look to claim palestine doesnt exist when a famous republican is one

@RMD - I was referring to the repeated white supremacist comments that you've made in PMs. I've posted them publicly and will continue to.

No such thing as a Palestinian people says it's made up to give them a nationalistic excuse to attack Israel. Gaza can be Egypt, West Bank can be Jordan, and I'm sure Israel would be all too happy to have them off their hands. But no one wants the Palestinians for a reason; they have one of the most fucked up cultures in world, literally raising their kids to glorify killing Americans and Jews. They can join the civilized world, or keep using the west's (and even Israel's) aid money to lob rockets into Israel. If Mexico or Canada acted towards America like Gaza does to Israel, everyone here would want a wall. They'd have their state if they wanted one; instead, they'd rather attack Israel. World's smallest violin.

And yes, I don't want terrorists in America, no matter what nation they're from. Merit-based immigration all the way, baybay.

'Bill Clinton might be a bad human being but he was the last president to govern from a relative center position.'


I have to disagree with that. Not the bad human part, the govern from the center part.
slick willy's agenda was his wife's agenda, they tried and would have passed as many leftist policies that they could squeeze through. What stopped them in their tracks was gingrich's 'contract with america' pact after the midterms.

The slickster was forced to sign bills he despised because he couldn't veto them so being the slick fraud that he always was he took credit for them and the adoring media went along with him.

The msm promoting and covering for leftist politicians isn't a recent phenomenon, it's existed for as far back as I can remember.

@Puddy how exactly did you gain this insight into their culture and how they think about Israelis and Americans?

Also, your post is unclear. You seem to be losing yourself. You claimed palestine/palestinians didnt exist, yet here you are again, claiming they do exist now.

I mean, the Mexico/canada comparison is completely irrelevant, because it ignores the fact israel stole land from the previous inhabitants. They call it the nakba day, and this was long before hamas even existed.

Even if you were to transfer the Palestinian land to jordan/egypt, israel would just start issue with those countries and try to take the land that way. I mean theyve already done it before, with all their neighboring countries.

Btw the king david hotel incident, lavon affair, uss liberty incident are well documented historical events. You can google them or look them up on Wikipedia.

I am curious about your comments as far as Irans apocalyptic views and the Mahdi. What exactly are those and how do they relate to iran and israel or iran and the US?

@Puddy,

Theres anywhere from 170k to 400k+ Palestinians in the US. Do you believe theyre involved in terrorism? It seems like you do, so why not report it?
Some of the more famous ones include DJ khaled, the YouTuber fouseytube, gigi and bella hadid, and of course rashida tlaib and justin amash.

IMO youre too afraid to put your money where your mouth is and formally accuse them of terrorism. Because you know youll get sued into oblivion for defamation among other things.

You and your israeli friend appear to be all bark, no bite. You say 75% of palestinians are terrorists, yet you apparently dont find it concerning or worth reporting the hundreds of thousands of palestinians here in the US.

I think more people will vote for Trump just because he's a white man going up against a biracial woman.

Bil Clinton is and always has been a bad human being. Period. Ful stop. He only governed from the center after he worked with congress to take away our second amendment rights and got his ass handed to him in the midterms. Also, he only governed from the center be cause all of his decisions were based on polling. Using polling (of all likely voters) as a basis for his decision-making, in an attempt to maintain power in the White House and avoid further losses in Congress, is the only reason we were not subjected by him to a far worse and radical agenda.