MelissaWV
Member

Absolutely. Democrats vote for authority, consensus and power. They never vote for candidates who play victim cards. Republicans vote for people who can stand up against adversity. They never vote for candidates who don't have victim cards to play. Behold the debate where the moderators fact-checked one candidate and let the other lie her ass off (and lied when fact checking him). Behold the debate designed to change nobody's mind, but rather to leave literally everyone even more entrenched than before: It doesn't even matter what these two mental midgets say at this point. It only matters how they get treated by the media.

Democrats vote for authority, consensus and power. They never vote for candidates who play victim cards. Republicans vote for people who can stand up against adversity. They never vote for candidates who don't have victim cards to play. Behold the debate where the moderators fact-checked one candidate and let the other lie her ass off (and lied when fact checking him). Behold the debate designed to change nobody's mind, but rather to leave literally everyone even more entrenched than before:

Indirectly, 9/11 brought me here.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue for a Kamala Harris win. That said... God grant me the courage to change the things I can change....the serenity to accept the things I can't change...and the wisdom to know the difference. I will sleep like a baby on November 5th.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1833539331505770508 1833539331505770508

Sounds like he tried but went too far: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxl15ppvzgo Trump reiterated that he supports exceptions for cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. At one point Trump claimed that some babies were being subjected to “executions” after birth. One of the ABC moderators interceded to fact-check him, saying: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” That is an unproven claim that I've tried to verify for years. And that's were people get into trouble, missing the opportunity to do a layup while going for a 360 slam dunk. Here's the layup. Washington DC's abortion law: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/7/chapters/20D The District shall recognize the right of every individual who becomes pregnant to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth, or to have an abortion.

Trump offered to shake Kamala's hand and she accepted with her typical smirk. According to the BBC It was the first handshake in a presidential debate in eight years. How long before hand shaking is declared sexist or racist? Biggest lie I saw from the highlights. (Again, didn't watch the debate).

..

Meh....I'm not nearly as bothered by the "voting / not voting" cultists as I am by the "My preferred candidate is Jesus and the other guy is Satan" cultists and sadly I end up interacting with both. "Trump went against abortion and God is guiding him hallelujah! How dare you compare him to Kamala or Biden" versus "Trump is a womanizer (true) and convicted rapist (not really)! How dare you compare him to Kamala or Biden?" With the former group, bring up that Trump said he doesn't even apologize to God and they lose their minds. With the latter bring up Bill Clinton's infidelity, Joe Biden's rape accusation and Kamala Harris being the other woman, and they lose their minds. I shouldn't say lose because part of their minds may be gone already. This is all I know. I will sleep like a baby on the night of November 5th knowing I haven't voted for the next despot to further destroy the Republic. For those who go out and vote enjoy! I slept fine the past few election cycles knowing that my 3rd party candidate wouldn't win anyway, but this year I'm like "meh." RFK Jr. lost me with his full throated support of Israel. I disagree with Jill Stein and Cornell West on economics (though I'm encouraging my liberal friends who don't like Kamala to vote for one of them), the libertarian candidate sounds like a fruitcake, and the Constitutionalist candidate is too hard core on abortion for me. I could "write in Ron Paul" but that won't even count. So I'm staying home.

I doubt that anybody on planet earth didn't think Taylor Swift had already endorsed Kamala Harris. Mandela effect for sure.

So...I didn't watch the debate. But ^3 minutes in to that he's talking about "Maybe Kamala was fed the questions?" Ummm....okay. We know Hillary was fed the questions for debating Bernie which means she was probably fed the questions for debating Trump. Personally....I think the questions should be posted online for everybody a week before the debate. And if you want spontenaity, let each candidate bring to the debate some additional questions of their own. In the famous "Lincoln / Douglas debates" there was no national medial to provide questions. It was strictly what the two candidates said to and asked of each other. The Candace Owens / Rabbie Schmuley debate was a real debate for example.

In 2016 Trump lost the 1st debate against Hillary by being nice. In the second debate he crushed her by bringing the women Bill Clinton messed over.

This was a GOP passed bill that actually makes abstentee voting harder than it was under COVID. https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/bill-requiring-application-to-claim-indefinitely-confined-status-for-voting-headed-to-evers/ Voters seeking to claim indefinitely confined status would now have to apply for the designation rather than simply signing a statement under legislation the Senate approved. The bill, which now heads to Gov. Tony Evers, was born out of GOP complaints over the number of people who claimed indefinitely confined status during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a Legislative Audit Bureau review of the 2020 election, 220,404 voters claimed that status for the November election that year. That includes 169,901 individuals who claimed that status for the first time in 2020. It passed 22-11 Tuesday along party lines.

Wrong. That's all that I"m talking about. How many actual prosecutions can actually be brought by a Trump appointed prosecutor in a very red state where the AG is eager to prosecute as many illegal immigrants as possible. Those are actual facts. So far the answer is one. There maybe more. If there is I'll post them. If you were actually looking for the facts you would have done this for me and I wouldn't have had to do it. I mean, you do want these people prosecuted right? And as for your nebulous claim of "the government" the Albama AG that put toghether the 3,000 "alien voting list" that you're quoting from is part of "the government." And guess what part of his job is? That's right. Recommending people for prosecution! So...you accept facts from "the government" when they agree with you and reject facts from "the government" when they don't or when you think that they don't. That's called mental gymnastics. As the AG of Alabama he has more local resources available to actually get to the bottom of how many of these 3,000+ voters are illegally voting than the federal prosecutor. He is clearly interested in this. Why do a press release about the 3,000 potentially illegal immigrant voters if you have no plan to pursue the issue? Nobody wants egg on their face. So far he's come up with 1 illegal voter and there's been 1 false positive.

Not that they'd let just anyone in. She'd get shot for real. Amazing how even when you tell the truth your "evidence" is amazingly easy to refute.

And.......that video has now been taken down.

I haven't forgotten who financed the creation of The Jab. No confidence.

My introduction to James Earl Jones. You old African! I've found you! The second movie I saw him in.

They're just trying to convince people the GOP is now suddenly friendly to humans. The DNC is committing suicide. The GOP will soon be the only face of the Uniparty. Opposition? Criminal. Soon everyone will pay lip service to the GOP. We won't have a choice. Yeah, Harris is worse. By design. The only person who could possibly be worse than Trump would have to be paid, because that takes a lot of work and self-humiliation.

That and in a way it doesn't matter who's president, democrat or republican, because they don't actually run anything. Kind of the opposite point PAF seems to think was being made. Glenn Greenwald isn't close to being a republican.

Oh look. We have another case of someone who hates actual facts even when they aren't actually against the position he is trying to advance, that there are some cases of illegal immigrants voting, but they don't go bat guano crazy as what he would prefer. The Trump appointed AG in the Northern District of Aalbama actually got one indictment and rather than be happy about that you want to bitch about it. Typical. There are illegal votes, just not proof of millions of them. And there is reason to be careful in moving forward because white people who have been here for generations have been falsely put on the list.

When the GOP -- and especially the RNC -- hands you a "monkey wrench" on a silver salver and says, "Here, chuck this in The Machine™ with our compliments!" you know what will be on that platter. Not worth getting upset over either way. There are about a million better ways to introduce wrenches into the system than voting in this farcical psyop masquerading as an election.

Are you sure about that?

The last time we talked about this I landed on "He should have just Spartan kicked her." There's really no such thing as a "good shooting" in my book because something has gone wrong to get to that point. (I guess shooting a deer when you're hungry is a good shooting but that's besides the point). I think there should have been a trial of the officer who should Ashley Babbit or at the very a public adversarial hearing where he had to explain himself. I don't buy the "It's obviously murder" argument that Tucker Carlson and others gave who seem to always want due process and "wait for all of the facts" for every other officier involved shooting. (I'm not sure what Tucker has to say for the officer who has now admitted he shot Sonya Massie in the face because he took "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" to be a threat.) As for the point of the Babylon Bee sketch, I get it. I'm just making a counter point. It's misleading. And everytime I've seen Fox News cover January 6th being "peaceful" the only show the peaceful parts. CNN only shows the violent parts. Same in reverse for the BLM protests. Dr.3D hit the nail on the head. There were two sets of protestors on January 6th. There were two sets of protestors for the BLM protests. Both sides have people who can honestly say that the protests they were involved in were peaceful. And I'm certain there were government provecetures who inflitrated both groups. And in both groups there were people who were not with the government who got carried away with the violence because they were gullible and impressionable. And that is how you divide and conquer. Go all the way back to the Tea Party protests which were followed by the Occupy Wallstreet protests. Both groups were made about the same thing yet both groups saw the other group as the problem. There is an old video that I can't find now of a Sarah Palin supporter who just couldn't believe Palin supported the banker bailouts. We're so easily manipulated it's not even funny.

The Lesser Evil Gambit works very well.