Kamala Harris Is Running on 'Freedom.' Does She Mean More Than Just Abortion?
Gov. Tim Walz, the vice presidential candidate, told Republicans to "mind your own damn business" about abortion policy. Perhaps they should apply that concept further.

With less than 100 days to go before the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic ticket has pivoted hard in the direction of "freedom" as a campaign strategy. But how serious are they about it, really?
Within 48 hours of President Joe Biden ending his reelection campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris locked up enough of his delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. Yesterday, Harris announced her choice for running mate: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a plain-speaking progressive who pioneered the strategy of calling Republicans "weird."
On Tuesday, at their first joint campaign rally in Philadelphia, Walz deployed some of the folksiness that apparently won him Harris' pick. On the topic of abortion rights, he offered some choice words for their opponents.
"Some of us are old enough to remember when it was Republicans who were talking about freedom. It turns out now, what they meant was, the government should be free to invade your doctor's office," he said. "In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and the personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there's a golden rule: mind your own damn business!" The crowd erupted in cheers and applause, and Walz said he heard chants of "mind your own damn business."
Walz: In Minnesota we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there's a golden rule, mind your own damn business. pic.twitter.com/TRQNlbySlE
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 6, 2024
In a fawning segment on his MSNBC show, Lawrence O'Donnell called Walz's turn of phrase "nothing less than the single best political message the Democrats have ever delivered about abortion and reproductive freedom."
Indeed, the message is striking—even downright libertarian. It fits well into Harris' campaign theme, in which she dropped Biden's focus on "democracy" in favor of "freedom." Within days of securing her party's presumptive nomination, Harris deployed her first campaign ad, which not only chose "freedom" as its theme but featured the Beyoncé song of the same name.
But Harris' ad, like Walz's declaration at the rally, is unfortunately limited in its view of what "freedom" truly means.
"We choose freedom," Harris intones in her ad, "the freedom not just to get by, but get ahead; the freedom to be safe from gun violence; the freedom to make decisions about your own body. We choose a future where no child lives in poverty, where we can all afford health care, where no one is above the law"—that last one delivered over an image of former President Donald Trump's mug shot taken last year in Georgia.
Libertarians may feel that much of this rhetoric stretches the definition of what freedom truly means. After all, "the freedom to be safe from gun violence" is a laudable goal, but in practice, it seems to run against the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. "Throughout her career, Harris has been a vocal advocate for reinstating a ban on assault weapons, the weapon of choice for mass shooters and extremists," touts a press release from the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. "As California Attorney General, Harris led the fight to pass a Red Flag law, becoming only the third state at the time to do so." Walz, as Minnesota's governor, similarly signed legislation to institute red flag laws.
If you truly believe in "the freedom not just to get by, but get ahead," then you should support making it as easy as possible for a person to earn a living.
Yet the Biden-Harris administration has favored tougher enforcement of tax laws in ways that would disadvantage people with lower incomes. While gig economy companies like Uber and Etsy were previously required to report users to the IRS who earn at least $20,000 on their platform, a provision in Biden's 2021 pandemic relief bill would have lowered the threshold to $600. And when the administration proposed hiring 87,000 new IRS agents, it suggested that the extra enforcement would allow the agency to monitor people's use of services like PayPal and Venmo, to make sure their transactions match their reported incomes.
The Harris ad's support for "the freedom to make decisions about your own body" is also commendable, as is Walz's exhortation for anti-abortion Republicans to "mind your own damn business." But that involves more than just abortion rights: It also includes the right to access experimental drug treatments that have not been officially sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MDMA, for example, shows great promise for treating mental health disorders like post-traumatic stress, but the FDA has yet to approve its use, and in June, an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly to recommend against approval.
True bodily autonomy would also include the right to take drugs that are approved in other countries but have not been sanctioned by the FDA. But the Right to Try Act of 2017 was introduced by a Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wis.), and signed into law by Trump, who bragged about the law in his speech at the Republican National Convention. But the FDA reported that in 2023, only four drugs were used under Right to Try.
"While more exceptions made more often would be an improvement on the status quo, the need for these exceptions and the extremely high stakes for obtaining them shows that there is something deeply wrong with the underlying process," Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward wrote in 2021 about the FDA.
In fairness, Harris and Walz have been liberty-friendly on other issues: Last year, Walz signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana in Minnesota. And despite a history of locking up marijuana users as a prosecutor in California, she has been a more forceful advocate of legalization than either Trump or Biden.
But if the Democratic presidential ticket is going to choose "freedom" as its rhetorical guiding light, the candidates should consider opening up their respective definitions of what that means and the numerous ways in which people can be free. "Mind your own damn business" makes a perfect rallying cry for more than just abortion and reproductive rights.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Returning it to the states is the most ‘mind your own damned business’ condition I can think of.
Only if states themselves can split apart if internally states themselves are imposing some tyranny. There are hundreds of examples where states have imposed some tyranny on their residents/citizens at the direct expense of those people's federal rights. Saying that a state split happened one time in US history (West Virginia) that involved a civil war - is basically admitting that states can't really do that.
Can you show me where the abortion clause is in the Constitution, you disingenuous gasbag.
JFree wants the right to sit on a squirming pile of dying late-term fetuses, biting into one of them like an apple to show how it's just a cLuMp oF cEllS inside.
It won't be true freedom if the fed's don't mandate this nation wide.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Yeah, mostly "shall not be infringed" gun rights.
But you leftists never bitch about that.
It's pretty easy to move to a new state if you don't like the one you live in. If you live near a state line, you might even be able to keep your current job. It's a lot harder to leave the country, and Canada and Mexico aren't exactly freer and safer than the USA.
It could be if that where Republican left the matter but there are plenty of indications that that is not what those controlling the party are thinks. Project 2025 has a lot to say about restricting abortion at a Federal level.
Yes, you and your fellow travelers have made a lot of representations about project 2025. Why don’t you try citing the actual document and offer some proof for a change?
Abortion is referenced 198 times in Project 2025. INlcuding taking it out of health plans and denying it to military service personnel. Why don't you try reading the document.
Why should the taxpayer or rate payer be liable for someone else's abortion?
Because they are liable for others health care and for women abortion is part of healthcare. Do you know an Obstetrics/Gynecological textbook that does not include abortion?
Talk to the Hyde amendment. Abortion can be healthcare. But it's usually just birth control. And I don't want to pay for that either.
Abortion isn’t ‘healthcare’. So try again.
But it’s not abortion any more. It’s “reproductive rights”.
And the only people trying to stop anyone from reproducing are the far-right types who are against in-vitro fertilization and contraception. Those fringe types aren't even popular in red states.
When does Healthcare stop - would something like haircuts count? Professional nailclipping?
Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.
Project 2025 is just as stupid as the 1619 project.
What's the WEF's Agenda 2030, chopped liver?
The stark difference being Agenda 2030 is actually happening, worldwide.
‘Abortion is referenced 198 times in Project 2025’
Cite? And I don’t mean the claim of one of your fellow travelers. Real proof.
Okay, a word search of the PDF copy provided in the link finds abortion 198 times.
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Even if that’s true, so?
(probably should have led with that…)
And Project 2025 is referenced 0 times in the Republican platform and the Trump campaign website.
Butbutbut, that doesn't count because gagjeff collectivist says so.
It talks about not spending taxpayer money on it and not forcing day after pill in plans you disingenuous fuck.
Well, how can you have true freedom to murder the weak and defenseless for your own convenience without the freedom to force everyone to pay for your bloody-fisted liberty?
More to the point - show us where Trump, Vance, or any other important Republican candidate has adopted Project 2025 as their platform? If you're going to demand Republicans take responsibility for the ravings of their lunatic fringe, please hold the Democrats responsible for Marx and Engel's _Communist Manifesto_. They follow that more closely than Trump follows anything.
Creating and taking another life, especially human lives, are the two most fundamentally not "your own damned business" acts I can possibly think of.
Yeah, men can't lose control of womens' reproductive tracts. What if they start refusing to make babies? Then we might die out!
I didn’t say anything about men. I was actually talking about the children, boys and girls. But if you really have to cut the baby in half and make sure it gets tossed out with the bathwater in order to see justice done and equality achieved, I guess even the slightest hint of morality or plain rationality isn’t really a consideration when you say things like “It takes a community…”.
Seriously, sarc what are you defending here? Kamala Harris? A federal definition of abortion? Women? Men? Clumps of cells? Reproductive freedom? The DNC platform? What?
I mean, FFS, even by their own terms it's *re*productive freedom from the "You didn't build that." party.
Never trust a prosecutor's use of the word freedom.
Usually it's something like if you want your freedom you must do something for me. (testify for the state)
and it usually comes with an ankle bracelet
^+1
Oh, hey, I like freedom! I'm voting for her!
You have been freed from the burden of voting.
The *FreDUMB candidate.
*Fre contains no actual freedom, it is a industrial byproduct from the processing of corn and unwanted clumps of cells.
“You have the freedom to do exactly as I say”
"Kamala Harris Is Running on 'Freedom.'
You misspelled "stupid."
Both Harris and Walz are confirmed communists. Their ideas of "freedom" do not coincide with yours or mine.
It probably doesn't even cover abortions, but they'll take "choice" until they can make them mandatory.
I thought she was running in "Fweedom"
Where's Joe?
Did they already shelve the old puppet?
Home hospice?
Locked in the basement with Kamalamamama.
Drafting up Supreme Court reorganization proposals, supposedly.
I can hear the cackling delivery now ....
The wonder of Freedom is the existence of Freedom.
Understanding Freedom requires understanding the use of Freedom.
Freedom is knowing when you can use Freedom."
Freedom does not mean you are free to do anything you want and we will tell you what you are free to do and that is that
It's just another word for nothing left to lose.
A wise man once said, Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose....
Harris/Walz are working on it.
two communists working hand in hand to destroy freedom.
This reminded me of the definition of "freedom" given by the surplus store owner in Falling Down...
"Mind your own damn business" makes a perfect rallying cry for more than just abortion and reproductive rights.
Yep. One hopes that utterance comes back to haunt them.
"“Mind your own damn business” makes a perfect rallying cry for ore than just abortion and reproductive rights.
Too bad that didn't apply to the fake COVID crisis when all the government Karens demanded you wear a mask and take the potentially lethal COVID shot.
Yeah there is an elephant in the room and Joe didn't notice. Weird.
“Mind your own damn business” makes a perfect rallying cry for more than just abortion and reproductive rights.
Ha, I remember when “reproductive freedom” was just weasel words for abortion. Now the fucking Democrats are treating them like two separate issues.
Such mendacity. Luckily their loyal constituency are dumb as rocks.
So is this the same Walz that encouraged Minnesotans to spy on each other and report COVID policy non-compliance?
I suppose he did promote the "leave people alone" philosophy when deciding what to do with arsonists, looters and vandals who ransacked Minneapolis though.
It’s very neighborly to allow your neighbors to riot, rape, burn, and murder without consequence.
But make sure you wear your mask while you drive home after the riot, I mean protest.
The same Walz who has made thirty trips to communist China.
A confirmed communist.
No, I think freedom just means abortion and weed to Democrats. Which is fine with me as far as that goes. But to claim that they are for freedom generally is pretty hilarious. Especially with the specific histories of the candidates.
“No, I think freedom just means abortion and weed to Democrats.”
Don’t forget bumsex and culturally enriching food trucks.
Democrats seem to be obsessed with butt sex. But I don't think food trucks are on their radar beyond taxes and regulations. Which they fully support.
aye
Whereas those other looters, the ones who shoot your dog, kill your woman and confiscate your property--THOSE looters unnerstan' tha REEL meaning of pretending to tell the truth, right?
I know right? Girl bulliers, dog bulliers, Comstock enthusiasts everywhere you look. But don't worry Hank. The Chase Oliver spoiler vote will ensure the rise of the Harris regime and it will immediately write the 1974 Libertarian Party platform into federal law.
Abortion, Mexicans, butt sex, and weed.
And no AR-15’s.
>>In fairness, Harris and Walz have been liberty-friendly on other issues
they. are. communists.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
The Orwell roadmap.
Yeah, Harris gave millions the freedom to cross the border without consequence.
Harris' entire political career has been close to and funded by known communists.
Well, if Democrats can call Republicans "weird" (when everyone knows which party is the party of weird), I suppose they can call centralized authoritarian rule "freedom."
I cannot help but think that the idea of “freedom” will work because it can be juxtaposed not just against abortion, but against a great deal of what the Republican platform and Project 2025 have put forward. How much freedom will be sacrificed for Republican Platform points 2,5,10,11, and 18?
To paraphrase President Biden, "Don't compare Harris/Waltz vision of freedom to the perfect, but rather to the alternative.
I listen to both looter parties screeching at each other, then compare that to Libertarian Candidate Chase Oliver. Of course my libertarian spoiler vote packs an order of magnitude more law-changing clout than a vote wasted on some lying looter who hasn't read his own gang's platform. But that's extra icing on the cake.
Yeah Hank your vote for Oliver will save the world.
You’re in Texas. Your LP vote doesn’t mean shit you senile old pinko.
Too bad you can't vote ranked choice because I think Chase Oliver might do well in that voting scheme.
You really think he'd finish second and then they would vote again. He'd finish in the same 4th or fifth spot he will now without crappy ranked voting.
You are allowed to educate yourself instead of solely relying on MSNBC talking points.
People are, in my case I just when to the web because both the Republican Platform and Project 2025 are on the web and can be read by anyone, even yourself if you chose to do so.
what the Republican platform and Project 2025 have put forward.
Oh, they started Agenda 2030 early, eh?
“Don’t compare Harris/Waltz vision of freedom to the perfect, but rather to the alternative.
LOL, talk about making the case for Trump, or anyone else for that matter, you stupid shitlib.
Mind your own damn business?! From the fucknut that set up a snitch hotline? That’s just plain weird, man.
Cry louder. The one noise MAGAts make that is soothing is sobbing and snivelling...
That five year old in your son's basement isn't actually a "MAGAt", Hank. Hope that the cops catch you guys one day.
Also sobbing and sniveling are two things...
True bodily autonomy would also include the right to take drugs that are approved in other countries but have not been sanctioned by the FDA.
This reads like you need government approval to attain “true” bodily autonomy.
NOT bullying and enslaving women is freedom God's Own Prohibitionists are NOT offering. The GOP pines for the good old days of coathanger abortions, but also for ten years in the slammer over plant leaves plus being hounded by probation officers looking for excuses to lock you up some more. Everyone knows that laws against trade and production cause crashes. People also know that weed is harmless and that women are individuals, but knowledge is not what gets the fanatic vote out to stomp all over people.
Somebody explain to Joe that freedom is the absence of coercion. Free people do not initiate coercion for that would make them aggressors. But checking someone's papers at the border to screen for terrorists is no more coercion than insisting they wipe their feet before entering your home. Accept no counterfeit anarco-communist shibboleths, equivocations or idiocy and everything becomes hunky-dory over time. The Dems learned a hard lesson from those 4 million LP spoiler votes that ousted Hillary. Mystical MAGAts, not so much.
It's too late to explain anything to Joe. It probably was too late 3 years ago - and every Democrat that met him during those years and failed to call for the 25th Amendment to be invoked put their own power over the good of the country and should _never_ hold any office again.
So when Kween Kamala comes to take my gun, I can tell her to "mind your own damn business"?
I have my doubts.
Remember, remember, the 5th of November.
Wrong country, they have strict guns laws.
Then they aren’t free.
They also cannot defend themselves from third world savages who stab and murder young children.
But if you say anything about it....you go to jail.
Time for another civil war in jolly olde England
True bodily autonomy would also include the right to take drugs that are approved in other countries but have not been sanctioned by the FDA.
Is it to much to expect Reason to present the libertarian case?
True bodily autonomy is the natural right of an emancipated adult to consume any motherfucking intoxicant on the planet. True bodily autonomy is the right to buy and sell sexual services. True bodily autonomy is the right to buy and sell body parts. These two scumbags are happy for the government to abstain from minding its own damn business and sanction anyone taking their bodily autonomy across those lines and many more.
Not just intoxicants but anything at all. If I want to inhale an ammonia and bleach cocktail that is between me and the keeper if the afterlife. Now, intoxicants may be more fun and repeatable but it's not the true litmus test.
Know when I officially confirmed Democratic voters do not care about anything other than abortion?
That longtime suspicion became undeniable to me in 2020. When they nominated a mediocre white male with a dismal academic record, who voted for the Iraq War and has the endorsement of neocon warmongers, who supports the "genocidal apartheid state" Israel, who pushed "racist" tough-on-crime policies, who's funded by "millionaires and billionaires," who promised rich people nothing would fundamentally change when he's President, and who has a history of racially insensitive comments and inappropriately touching women and girls.
Seriously it's like Biden was designed in a lab to represent everything Democrats pretend to hate. (Key word: "pretend")
That was why they supported Clinton. It didn't matter that he was a poonhound and his wife was a white collar criminal who probably had people killed to protect her. What ultimately mattered was that he represented their interests.
GOP voters watched and eventually applied that lesson to their support of Trump, who's also a poonhound but at least has a wife who has been fairly low-key since they got married and never acted like a President in all but name like Hillary did. What matters is that he represents their actual interests.
When you get your power from child sacrifice, you don't want to see it reduced.
If you are stupid enough to believe that Kamala/Walz care about your freedom, you will get what you deserve good and hard. For democrats, freedom means not having to make any decisions because the government will do it for you.
Freedom, Canadian style.
Kamala and Walz similar to Lenin and Trotsky or Stalin and Mao.
"mind your own damn business"
Riiiight. Democrats will let you "mind your own damn business" - as long as you say and do *exactly* what they want you to. Whatever the Party line (literally, the democrat party line) happens to be, this week.
Otherwise, you are just a racist insurrectionist who should be locked up, censored, and taxed into non existence.
But you will still be able to have unlimited abortions and gender transitions, and, for now anyway, smoke all the weed you want.
Libertarians may feel that much of this rhetoric stretches the definition of what freedom truly means. After all, “the freedom to be safe from gun violence” is a laudable goal, but in practice, it seems to run against the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.
If Joe Lancaster is right about what libertarians think about freedom, that the Harris/Walz view of freedom is stretching the definition, then I would consider an alternate view.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
I am particularly struck by the choice of language there. They did not say that government must always be restrained from violating our inalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence says that one of several self-evident truths about the human condition is that governments “are instituted” to “secure” our inalienable rights. It is when the form of government is “destructive of these ends” that it is within the power of the people to change the form of government, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Being safe from violence of any kind is one of the rights we all hold that we charge government with providing. This must be balanced against our other rights and with the practical abilities of government to provide it, but our physical safety is a core government responsibility. We cannot dismiss the concerns of people that fear violence as if it is not our problem. Nor can we simply refuse to enact policies that might reduce violence that threaten others. Public safety is everyone’s responsibility. We all have a duty to debate policy with that in mind.
Being safe from violence of any kind is one of the rights we all hold
Nonsense. We make collective efforts to improve our personal safety because it’s a good idea, but there is no RIGHT to be safe, other than from the government acting without due process. There are only rights to secure our property and defend ourselves against aggression.
We have a right to not be physically harmed by another person, correct? That is a right to be safe from harm caused by other people, as far as I am concerned.
What you didn't seem to understand from what I said, as well as what the Declaration of Independence was saying, is that it is the purpose of government to ensure our rights. People often worry so much about things like free speech needing to be protected from government that they don't realize that anyone with more power than us can infringe on that right. The same is true of our property rights, privacy rights, and anything else that we would consider the "pursuit of happiness."
The government can't practically protect us from every possible harm, but it is a duty of a just government that has the "consent of the governed" to do as much as the people want it to do, within the limitations of not infringing on our rights itself.
^ This is the slimy pile of shit who supports government murder of the un-armed for, well, the shit-bag isn't sure:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
FOAD, asshole.
Being safe from violence of any kind is one of the rights we all hold that we charge government with providing.
Safety is not a right, but I agree that providing safety is one of the basic responsibilities of government.
And Democrats are failing miserably at that basic responsibility.
Safety is not a right, but I agree that providing safety is one of the basic responsibilities of government.
How could it be a responsibility of government to provide it if it is not a right of the citizens? It may seem like these are just questions of semantics, but what words we choose to use reflects how we view the role of government on a fundamental level. Although, I think that it is a good thing that people will disagree about that. Uniformity of thought is a sign of a lack of deep, critical thinking among a large group of people, in my opinion. When I said that I was struck by how the Declaration worded its view on the role of government, it was because I hadn't realized the implication of that word choice, despite having read that opening paragraph many, many times.
How to go about securing our rights, including our safety, is the policy debate. We can even choose, with a large, geographically diverse supermajority, to limit the majority will in how to accomplish this by putting those limits in the Constitution, meaning that an equally large supermajority is required to remove those limits. I just want to be sure that we recognize that having that policy debate is important and healthy, not a sign that our freedoms are at risk.
Rights don't place obligations on others. A right to safety such as you describe would oblige governments to do all kinds of things that would require taking people's money and likely trample on many other rights. I would say that we don't have a right to safety, rather we have a right to defend ourselves against the aggressions of others. Government's role isn't to keep everyone safe all the time. It's to punish those who unreasonably aggress against others.
Rights don’t place obligations on others...I would say that we don’t have a right to safety, rather we have a right to defend ourselves against the aggressions of others.
That sounds fair, but then it implies that you only have those rights that you can personally defend. To say that our inalienable rights are only protected against the government leaves them open to attack by anyone that isn't restrained by government from attacking them. That doesn't just mean personal safety either. It includes all rights.
I see libertarians take particular interest in property rights. Consider what would happen if a right to own a home was only taken to mean that government could not take it without just compensation and due process. We would then have to think about how we would protect our right to that property from any private actor or group that would want to take it from us. Think Old West scenarios common in fiction (and maybe in real history), where the lone homesteader is trying to keep from being driven off their land by the local big rancher that has bought off the sheriff to look the other way. I wouldn't say that I have a right to my property if someone else with greater force than I can defend against can take it from me while no one else, including my government, will help. Or, I might still say that I have that right, but it wouldn't have any practical meaning to say it.
This is why we have government, just as it is stated in the Declaration. Having to defend our rights with only our own means is what happens when there is anarchy instead of government.
Today in Newsweek:
Donald Trump's Health Is of Increasing Concern to Voters
You can't make this shit up.
The democrats are so fucking desperate.
But they just did make it up.
They weren't that worried about his health when he was nearly killed. "Just a scratch," or "staged" or "fake" or "false flag" are what many on the left were calling it.
Wait, Joe is stupid enough to believe that the woman that kept freed people imprisoned to use for free labor (you know, good old fashioned slavery) actually stands for any kind of freedom beyond her own? Tell me he's not that retarded.
Well, after all, he is only an ASSISTANT editor - - - - - - - - - -
Do you mean assistant to the editor.
Keeping slaves for hard labor is a family tradition for Harris.
Literally.
Her Wikipedia entry said her grandfather "owned land" in Jamaica, without mentioning what kind of land it was, or if the window treatments included plantation shutters. That was a few weeks ago. Now it doesn't mention it at all.
Jamaican slavery was banned by law in 1833, so I’m not sure if her grandfather would have been old enough to have had slaves.
Anyway, why can't we mind our own business concerning her Jamaican ancestors' private domestic arrangements and the social institutions they availed themselves of?
Because turnabout is fair play
"...Anyway, why can’t we mind our own business concerning her Jamaican ancestors’ private domestic arrangements and the social institutions they availed themselves of?"
B/C calling politicians on their hypocrisy is everywhere and always a good thing
Lot's of freedom coming to the US.
We will be free to choose:
which electric car we buy
the police station where we turn in our guns
which arm we get the next mandated vaccine in
which union dominated public school our kids get transitioned in
which democrat we vote for in the future (RCV)
etc.
Almost too much freedom to handle
What I see is a lot of democrats getting composted in the foreseeable future.
We will also be free to choose from a broad line of electric home appliances, including cooktops, stoves, water heaters, dryers, and heaters. And they will all be incredibly reliable and climate-safe, being powered by green, renewable wind and solar energy. And don't worry about being stuck at home in the cold when the power's out and you can't leave in your electric car, or stuck at home when a forest fire is approaching and you can't charge up your vehicle, because there won't be any more forest fires once we stop using natural gas for home appliances.
And your chocolate ration will be increased from 30 grams per week to 20 grams per week.
Oh yes, the electricity will be turned on for a full hour this month.
She's just lying.
That's the easiest conclusion. Walz too.
Both said Biden was sharp as a tack and fit to serve.
What else are they lying about?
Behold, the dumbest, most obtuse statement from a True and Honest Conservative you'll ever see in support of Harris:
Kamala did some lefty stuff in a lefty place. I doubt she would do the same things as President. I’ll give her a chance, just like I went against the sage advice of our host, and gave Trump a chance by voting for him in 2016.
norcal (070ad3) — 8/7/2024 @ 5:14 pm
Gonna bet that was BS from beginning to end; false flag.
The entire blue dog working class mid-western “I voted for Trump in 2016 and regretted it” bit was always suss. Unless they mean they were cancelled by the corporation or union they worked for.
What's even dumber about that statement is that there's absolutely no indication from her time as VP that she wouldn't tack to the left. That moron basically discounted the last four years as if it didn't even exist.
Spoiler Alert: NO
Residents of many states already have
There are just a few simple steps:
(1) Don't join a gang or associate with gang members,
(2) Don't engage in the illegal drug trade as a buyer or a seller,
(3) Don't engage in criminal activities, and
(4) Carry a firearm in most places should violence threaten you. This one will also offer you some freedom from knife violence, rock violence, and fist violence.
In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and the personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there's a golden rule: mind your own damn business!
Did you forget about "Folsky Dad's" Covid hotline? Surely you could have found plenty of other soundbites from his time as Governor? Surely.
Freedom is not a word Leftists understand.
They understand using their concept of freedom as a dialectical inverse of actual freedom in order to sublate us all into the New Freedom will work on cultist retards.
Here in the People's Republic of Michigan, Atty. Gen. Nessel wants us to turn each other in for speaking truths.
Here's a truth: Nessel is an alcoholic, drunken lesbian and she's ugly too.
Waiting for the article roundly condemning the use of a terror watchlist by the current regime to harass a political commentator who criticized the regime.
Free to Kill, Free to Maim should be the slogan for Harris/Walz.
It is interesting that Freedom for many Democrats appears to be retaining the right to reduce the population by actively promoting abortions and to retain the right to sterilize the youth by mutilating them.
It is apparent that Pro Choice is not the honest term, but rather Pro Abortion reflects the truth. Long gone is the notion of having a choice or rather the choice is only a choice if the choice is an abortion.
It is also apparent that some Anti Abortion people are just as bad. Striking down the law by the supreme court and sending it back to the states is the proper ruling. Some states have gone overboard with super restrictive or super lax laws and both are wrong.
In truth a compromise will eventually shake out and my gut is that it will end up being somewhere in the 12 to 18 week range and not 6 weeks when the woman may not be aware that she is pregnant or 40 weeks where the decision can be made after the birth.
I don't even want to talk about the promotion for the sexual mutilation and chemically destruction of minors, how disgusting and how much of a violation it is of the rights of the minor who are not capable of giving consent.
Freedom or Freedumb? Just what does their platform actually mean? With Tampon Tim on it you can bet there will be nothing so wild as he wouldn't support it including forced trans for children.
The Gods! What a pair. You couldn't make this up. If those two land in the White House we're terminally screwed. America for all intents and purposes will cease to exist. Kamala the communist along with Tampon Tim, another communist, will do to the nation what Tampon Tim did to Minnesota and Minneapolis.
These two must be prevented from getting into the White House.
"...In Minnesota we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make..."
Unless that's over a flu, in which case you're asked to spy on your neighbors:
"..Minnesota governor Tim Walz has been tapped to run alongside Vice President Kamala Harris and several of his pandemic-era response policies are being thrust into the spotlight, including a hotline to report social distancing violations..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/walz-s-covid-hotline-could-become-point-of-attack-for-trump/ar-AA1oprrT
Harris is a bait and switch candidate, just like Biden was in 2020.
She's saying what voters want to hear, not what she will do.