Democrats Changed Candidates but Didn't Shift Their Message
Kamala Harris' closing pitch to voters is exactly the same one Joe Biden had been making.

When Vice President Kamala Harris delivers a speech on Tuesday from the National Mall in Washington, she'll be aiming to draw a direct parallel with former President Donald Trump, who stood on the same spot to address his supporters on January 6, 2020.
She might inadvertently underline her own struggles as the Democratic nominee.
The speech is being framed as Harris' "closing argument" to voters as the campaign rolls into its final week, but it will have a familiar ring to it. The Associated Press says Harris' campaign is hoping the speech will "crystalize for voters the fight between defending democracy and sowing political chaos." It will likely end up sounding a lot like the speech President Joe Biden delivered from Philadelphia in September 2022, which effectively served as the kickoff for his reelection bid.
Trump's threat to democracy became the dominant theme of Biden's campaign, until it came to a screeching halt this summer. When Harris ascended to the top of the ticket, Democrats made an attempt to differentiate her from Biden. Her campaign was about "joy," we were relentlessly informed during the Democratic National Convention. It was turning a page, not looking back, going forward.
Yet, here in the final stretch of the campaign, Harris finds herself not embracing joy but pushing fear. This reversion underlines Harris' inability to define herself and her campaign.
Of course, Trump's authoritarian impulses and his reaction to losing the 2020 election were always going to be a big part of any Democratic campaign against him. Trump's history of subverting the Constitution, and his threats to do so again if returned to the White House, ought to be taken both seriously and literally.
Still, making this Harris "closing pitch" seems telling. It's a choice that was already on display during a town hall event in Philadelphia last week, where Harris struggled to articulate her positions without veering into tangents about Trump's behavior.
"Would she expand the Supreme Court? Would people who make $500,000 see their taxes increase? Would Americans pay for benefits for migrants crossing the border?…Her answers boiled down to: Donald Trump would be worse," The New York Times summarized after the event.
Again, this says more about Harris than it does about Trump. She did not have the chance to run a typical campaign, it's true, but Harris has had months to stake out her positions. Instead, her campaign has spent much of that time backing away from unpopular stances she took during the 2020 primaries.
She's also failed to articulate any difference between herself and Biden. Asked directly about where she differs from him during an appearance on The View earlier this month, Harris appeared surprised by the very premise of the question.
Running as the continuation of the status quo might make sense if Biden had been forced to step down because of health issues despite being wildly popular and leading in the polls. But Biden's approval rating was underwater for most of his time in office and he seemed to be trailing Trump when he dropped out in July. Harris' campaign has reportedly sidelined Biden during this crucial final stage of the race, a sign that he's seen as a liability more than anything else.
And yet there's nothing she would do differently?
Think about this another way. Voters know what Trump wants to do—crack down harshly on immigration, raise barriers to trade, etc.—but what is it that Harris most wants to accomplish? How is it possible that Trump has become the more policy-centered candidate in this race?
It may also be a strategic mistake. If all the talk about Trump as a threat to democracy has not definitively swung the needle in Harris' favor yet, why would one more speech accomplish much? Voters have heard this argument for two years, and have presumably already made up their minds whether to vote against Trump on those grounds.
Yet, those grounds—literally and metaphorically—are where Harris will make her final pitch to voters. Having failed to make much of an affirmative case for herself, it's probably her best bet.
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
Will 60 Minutes be available to edit the crap that comes forth from her penis polishing organ?
Am reminded of when she bragged about wanting to jail parents of truant students:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDLANlZEicg
I believe she DID jail a few single parents for truancy.
Have a video but not a link to one that had a child in intensive care, hence the child’s absence from school.
Put a fork in her, she’s done.
Jeff Bezos certainly knows it.
It's why he just wrote a completely unprecedented open editorial speaking for himself in his own name, where he plainly acknowledges that rabid, detanged far left journalists have absolutely no credibility whatsoever with the broad American general public, he is a making a clear business decision to at least try to save his dying newspaper by moving it closer to the center, and allegedly he's even privately telling his angry far left employees in company meetings that if they don't like it, they can always quit and try to go get a job somewhere else.
"...he’s even privately telling his angry far left employees in company meetings that if they don’t like it, they can always quit and try to go get a job somewhere else."
The entire staff at WaPo will be interviewing at NYT.
Ok. That might be interesting.
Jennifer Rubin of Wall publishes article encouraging LA Times employees to quit over the LA Times not endorsing Kamala. Then Bezos pulls this.
Will she resign? Probably not, these people have no honor and certainly do not believe what they write. You do not hate the media enough.
He may also be trying to protect his other businesses as well.
If Harris needs to find "proof" that her and Biden's bullshit that "greedflation" is more the result of "price gouging" at the grocery store and less the result of the doubling of the size of the Fed Balance Sheet with 2 years of "Covid Relief" spending (which she's now taken to boasting the Dems in Congress largely forced trump and the GOP to accept), then Whole Foods would have to be the prime target for that "reform".
Not nearly enough people know what Erewhon is, and those who do are already well established in the Dem's donor class. Not only do they not need to be "brought over", they couldn't care less about overpaying for virtually anything (if they did, they wouldn't be sucking down a $17 smoothie every morning, or paying the $3 doordash fee to have it delivered).
Bitch belongs behind bars for her attempted murder of Kevin Cooper, but justice is rare in this world.
-jcr
The key difference between her and the vegetable-in-chief is that he has senile dementia, and she's just vapid.
-jcr
The actual difference between Biden and Harris.
About 3 IQ points.
"Trust me I'm a geriatric male puppet."
"Asked directly about where she differs from [Biden] during an appearance on The View earlier this month, Harris appeared surprised by the very premise of the question."
I still think she'll win. But if she loses, that jaw-droppingly terrible answer will be the perfect illustration of her campaign's incompetence.
And Exhibit B will be picking Walz over Shapiro.
If only they were more competent at pushing their progressivism, maaaaan....
You don't 'push' progressivism, you impose it.
Ideas so good they have to be mandated by force.
This is the best idea. Mandating good ideas by force needs to be mandated by force.
What are the OBL odds/percentages today?
Click here then swap the Trump and Harris percentages for my best guess.
Based on what? The sudden takeover of electionbettingodds.com by Trumpist trolls the last time you cited it to us, when it agreed with you?
Because, again, this feels an awful lot like a Chemjeff/SPBP2 style “When the source (sorta) agreed with me, we were both right and now that it disagrees with me I’m still right.” “honest assessment”.
What do you think changed about electionbettingodds.com that untethered it from the formerly correct depiction of public opinion that you agreed with? Is the entire gambling-as-predictive-model methodology now between suspect and junk science?
"Based on what?"
For the 10 billionth time: The reason I expect Harris to win is mainly because she's the Democrat. And in every election since I've been old enough to pay attention, the Democrat has either won, or just barely lost.
If the worst-case Democratic scenario is "narrow loss," and their opponent is a 78-year-old who was widely despised 8 years ago, that would likely be enough to push Harris (flawed as she is) over the finish line.
If Trump wins, I'll admit I was wrong. But you understand there are varying degrees of failed predictions, right? Like, predicting Harris will get 290 Electoral Votes, but actually she ends up with 250 ......... you understand that's not nearly as embarrassing as predicting Mueller would throw Trump out of office, right?
Didn't someone here make a prediction about the supreme court?
It's more you being a smug asshole who has been condescending to Trump supporters & saying he has no chance.
Fuck you Skankhunt42.
For the 10 billionth time: The reason I expect Harris to win is mainly because she’s the Democrat.
This isn’t the question I asked,
KammySandy. What do you think changed about electionbettingodds.com that untethered it from the formerly correct depiction of public opinion that you agreed with?Once again, I don’t have an issue with a difference of opinion. I can’t understand the continued insistence of your own unwavering moral and/or intellectual rectitude, even exceptionally from people like Chemjeff and SPBP, while committing the exact same reality-denying faux pas (if not flagrant dishonesty).
So again, to be clear, I completely understand that you’re in the bag for Harris. The way you were completely in the bag for DeSantis. I don’t expect nor am asking for an apology or accounting for any of that.
My question is, what do you think happened at electionbettingodds.com since the last time you cited it that suddenly makes them wrong and you right?
"So again, to be clear, I completely understand that you’re in the bag for Harris."
LOL
It's weird that my arguments are so feeble, yet you feel the need to grossly misrepresent them.
Over and over I've called Harris a vapid DEI postergirl who gives shockingly inept answers to questions she should've seen coming a mile away. Over and over I've said her 2-in-3 chance of winning is the result of the post-1980s map allowing Democrats to start with a FLOOR of 200 - 220 Electoral Votes, combined with Trump's boorish personality likely to push away enough swing voters in the purple states to get Harris over 270.
"My question is, what do you think happened at electionbettingodds.com since the last time you cited it that suddenly makes them wrong and you right?"
I've been clear for several weeks that I'm more bullish on Harris' chances than many of the oddsmakers including EBO.com. There has been no "sudden" transformation in my attitude.
You're still upset about the time I cited EBO to note the downward movement in real time of Trump's chances.
Do you remember what happened? It was the night Trump debated the vapid DEI postergirl ......... and he lost so decisively, his odds of victory plunged before the night was over.
I'll rephrase that. Harris sucks, she doesn't come across as intelligent, she's a poor communicator ......... and Trump still lost to her in their one and only debate. People who try to look at things objectively (like EBO, who I think underestimate Harris' built-in advantages) noticed how bad Trump lost. And they adjusted his odds of victory accordingly.
And you can stop bringing up DeSantis. Sure, I doubt he'd badly lose a debate to Harris. But I doubt *any* minimally competent politician would lose a debate to her. Trump can't even clear the bar of minimal competence: Don't lose a debate to the cackling unpopular VP who got dismantled by Tulsi Gabbard.
There has been no “sudden” transformation in my attitude.
Oh wow, suddenly you develop the same reading 3rd grade reading comprehension problem that sarc, chemjeff, and the rest of them carry around constantly.
What part of "I completely understand that you’re in the bag for Harris" and "what do you think happened at electionbettingodds.com" makes you think any change *you* have or haven't made is the issue?
You’re still upset about the time I cited EBO to note the downward movement in real time of Trump’s chances.
I'm not upset. Again, I don't give a shit if you've got a differing opinion or if you're just plain wrong. I'm trying to fathom how you think you're not making yourself look like just another chemjeff or mtrueman-imitating moron. Cherrypicking your spitting-tobacco numbers when they suit you and then telling people how obviously wrong they are when your own source on the spitting-tobacco numbers or rig counts are quoted back to you when they disagree.
Do you remember what happened? It was the night Trump debated the vapid DEI postergirl ……… and he lost so decisively, his odds of victory plunged before the night was over.
I know this is tough for you so I'll ask for a third time more directly so it's more clear: Do you think EBO was wrong when you cited them before, which would make them some meaningless, arbitrary indicator that just happened to conform to your preconceived notions, or do you they're wrong now that they conflict with your preconceived notions, making them the more constant and impartial indicator and relegating you to Chemjeff/sarcasmic ranting irrelevancy?
Or do you think there's something systemic to the gambling-as-prediction methodology that constantly biases it in favor of Trump or outsiders after debates or against Minority Female Vice Presidents further from debates and closer to elections or something?
Because the fact that his odds dipped a couple of percentage points before the night was over is how real-time betting works, especially at/in the 48-52 range. As does the progressive weeks-long indicators that both his popular lead and the EC split both at EBO.com and elsewhere are and have been disagreeing with you.
And you can stop bringing up DeSantis.
Or else what? You'll continue to lambast SPBP2 about his SCOTUS idiocy some more while you cheerlead for Harris? Is it fair to remember other people's retarded predictions and political leanings and favoritism, but not others? Explain how.
"Do you think EBO was wrong when you cited them before, which would make them some meaningless, arbitrary indicator that just happened to conform to your preconceived notions, or do you they’re wrong now"
I can hold the following two thoughts in my brain simultaneously.
1. I believe in general EBO underestimates Harris. Specifically they underestimate the boost she gets purely by being a Democrat.
2. I believe the real-time debate-night fluctuation on EBO is noteworthy. It suggested observers saw Trump decisively lose a debate to an unpopular DEI posterchild.
1 and 2 are not contradictory. Unless you embrace a childish black-or-white view in which I have to treat EBO as either the infallible Word of God, or completely worthless.
"You’ll continue to lambast SPBP2 about his SCOTUS idiocy"
This is not the first time I've had to correct you on this. And for someone who's downright obsessed with my posting history, it's astonishing you could mess this up.
It was Kirkland, not Buttplug, who made the laughably idiotic prediction that Biden would pack the Court in his first 6 months.
"Is it fair to remember other people’s retarded predictions and political leanings and favoritism, but not others? Explain how."
Perhaps a sports analogy will help you understand that not all failed predictions are equally deserving of ridicule.
Say you have two friends Fred and Jim. Fred is a Mets fan who predicted they'd win the 2024 World Series. Jim is a White Sox fan who predicted they'd win the 2024 World Series.
Can you understand that Jim's prediction looks much, MUCH dumber? Can you understand that Fred, whose prediction also failed, is nonetheless perfectly justified making fun of Jim?
Can you understand that Jim’s prediction looks much, MUCH dumber?
Right. Not a “dumb vs. not dumb” or “self-respecting woman vs. propaganda whores at Reason” dichotomy. Just varying degrees of dumb with the conditions and demands of “I’m not a cheap whore!” and “Are you going to keep bringing up my support for DeSantis?” after having her “Without boots on the ground in Ukraine, Biden will win.” prediction ‘graciously’ overlooked.
I believe the real-time debate-night fluctuation on EBO is noteworthy.
Right. You didn't cite any other source saying Harris came away with a 25 point lead after the debate, you chose the odds that fluctuate in real time, naturally because that's what the system does, to make a statement about a 6-point difference two months out even though that would be transparently stupid, and now that the system actually shows a 25 point spread, you're sure it's biased.
A stopped clock is right twice a day but you would read it decide whether you agree with it and then just tell everyone what time you think it is. When someone asks "The clock seems to be keeping some sort of time. Why did you agree with the clock before and not with the clock now?" rather than explaining mechanistically what's wrong with the clock, you'd reply with "The clock is clearly biased but it was biased the right way for about 60s."
Did you put your money where your mouth is?
Of course she didn't. Nothing but hot air and bullshit.
Don’t forget TEH FEELZ.
She can’t explain what changed over at ebo.com to clarify why they were right before and why they’re wrong now except that she just really feels like Kamala Harris is going to win.
And this isn’t some completely irrational, hackneyed, disinformative and dishonest partisan feeling like SPBP2 or one of the strategic and reluctant Reason Editors would have about rig counts or the price of spitting tobacco or the inevitability of court packing or tariffs bringing the global economy to a halt. This is a totally real feeling that people can witness and grasp and understand independently for themselves. Just like her other predictions about Biden beating Trump as long as there were no boots on the ground in Ukraine and DeSantis being a clearly/vastly superior candidate to Trump.
Thanks. I see (the impact of) things differently than you but appreciate your thoughtful perspective.
>>And Exhibit B will be picking Walz over Shapiro.
nobody was going to let Shapiro destroy his career yet. Tim & KH are politically used up.
We only need to read her tweetsdiring her campaign for the 2020 election.
Harris' campaign is hoping the speech will "crystalize for voters the fight between defending democracy and sowing political chaos."
First the speech must "crystalize" which Team is "defending democracy" and which is "sowing political chaos."
All she needs to say is "I'm not Trump" and leave it at that.
Well, for you that’s all it would take. And if she posts “Jesse sux!!!1!” she’d have your heart forever.
My point was that when she says anything else it ends up being something really stupid because she's got no coherent message or agenda other than "I'm not Trump" and ends up sounding like an idiot. You know, like you.
My point was that for you that's all it would take.
My point was that she sounds like an idiot like you.
Holy smokes, if I'm an idiot next to Kamala, where does that put our favorite perma-drunk fetal alcohol baby?
I didn't say you're an idiot compared to her. I said you're both idiots. Do you put maple whine on your cereal or something?
Such a sad little drunk.
Sad little drunk whose little dad likely sunk.
(I'm sorry)
“dO yoU pUt mApLE wHiNe oN yOuR cEreAL”
I live 2,100 miles from the nearest sugar maple, while Maine is smack dab in the middle of them. so if I’m using it, you’re providing it.
Sarc, you’re the dummy here, not any of us.
sounding like an idiot.
Can you review again for us the distinction between a lottery, a raffle, and a sweepstakes?
I'd like him to explain the definition of laws and legislation again.
Just put up a picture of Goldstein for two minutes and then send everyone to the polls.
These days they use a picture of Elon Musk instead, except maybe in West Coast Tech areas, where they might still be using Peter Thiel.
Well this is a fun bookmark.
"All she needs to say is “I’m not Trump” and leave it at that."
Babylon Bee agrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sOqlzkMwH4
Of course, Trump's authoritarian impulses and his reaction to losing the 2020 election were always going to be a big part of any Democratic campaign against him. Trump's history of subverting the Constitution, and his threats to do so again if returned to the White House, ought to be taken both seriously and literally.
Eric Boehm
shouldn't beisn't taken seriously at all.When did he "subvert" the Constitution?
Because we know that the guy who followed him did so. Several times.
"Well he would have if he had a second term!!! Worse than Biden even."
Democrats Changed Candidates but Didn't Shift Their Message
Bite the pillow, bitter clingers, we're going in dry?
Lol
Biden is a dementia addled Full Retard.
What is her excuse?
"crystalize for voters the fight between defending democracy and sowing political chaos."
"Trump's history of subverting the Constitution" ... You made this claim now back it up with something. Anything. Else you are making-up sh*t.
2nd - 'democracy' and 'the Constitution' are mutually exclusive beyond the Constitutional Amendment process.
I'm left to assume he's referring to the bumpstock ban which oddly doesn't get a mention in the Democratic Platform.
"Democrats Changed Candidates but Didn't Shift Their Message"
Well, "orange man bad" has a certain ring to it.
I will point out that her handlers(because she ain't choosing shit) are between a rock and a hard place regarding her messaging. If her message were to break from Biden, the only direction she could possibly go without completely destroying the current Dem coalition would be further left. The problem with doing that is twofold. Firstly, it would give credence to the attack line that she still believes in all her 2019 policy positions, which let's face it she almost certainly does but has been using Biden's policies to run cover for that fact, thus scaring off the independent vote faster than it's leaving now. Secondly, it would piss off the remainders of Biden's camp enough to shift from their current petty passive-aggressiveness to outright attacks and significantly more detailed leaks about her behavior as VP.
Of course the message hasn't changed; the handlers are the same people.
Yep. Only difference is that Harris has two holes for Obama to shove his fist into when making her his puppet, Joe only had the one.
You don't vote for the pitch; you vote for the bitch.
>Kamala Harris' closing pitch to voters is exactly the same one Joe Biden had been making.
Why wouldn't it be, Boehm?
She replaced Biden (without a single vote) totally because Biden was completely up for the job and president during America's best economy but us dumb proles couldn't understand that - which is why she says she 'can't think of a thing' when asked what she would do differently.
Now, go vote - reluctantly, but strategically.
It really boggles the mind that Democrats just keep voting for “running off the cliff” like a line of brainless sheeple. Something about Urbanite Group-thinking as a single brain.
Pretty sure Eric put that Harris / Walz sign on his lawn reluctantly.
>Of course, Trump's authoritarian impulses
Yes, he famously said that if Congress doesn't do what he wants, well, he 'has a pen and a phone'.
No, wait, that was Obama.
Well, there was the attempt to lock down the whole country and, multiple times, do an end-run around the US Supreme Court.
No, wait, that was Biden.
Remind me Boehm, what has Trump done that was authoritarian? Banning bump stocks?
Or when he said the 1st amendment was an "obstacle" that needed to be "removed?"
Oh wait. That was John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Xiden's "Disinformation Governance Board."
Or when he said the 2nd amendment was "outdated?"
Oh wait that was every commie Democrat ever.
Trump is just an obnoxious egomaniac. He has no loyalty to the constitution but his opponents are actively hostile and want to gut it entirely. He just wants praise and something functional that makes him look good, and isn't too concerned about the particulars.
>Trump's history of subverting the Constitution, and his threats to do so again if returned to the White House, ought to be taken both seriously and literally.
What subversions?
That was my first thought, thinking of all the SCOTUS losses Obama and Biden suffered trying to subvert the Constitution.
She did not have the chance to run a typical campaign
Speaking of subverting.
Uhm, she was 'nominated' without an election and, uh, didn't she lie and cover up for Biden's incapability and that his staff was taking on authorities that the constitution doesn't grant them? That *we* didn't grant them?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/10/24/its-unhinged-to-compare-trump-to-hitler/
It seems the empty ‘joyous’ vibe that initially characterised Harris’s campaign has now given way to dystopian fear-mongering about the return of fascism. Harris is now reviving the core message of Joe Biden’s campaign – that Trump poses an existential, fascist-like threat to American democracy. It’s desperate stuff.
Trump is far from a blameless saint, of course. In a sense, he is the architect of his own media misfortunes, given his undisciplined, bombastic speaking style and terrible taste in upper management. But are we really to believe that Trump – a man with Jewish grandchildren – wants to emulate Hitler? It seems fanciful, to say the least. Equally, Trump’s policy platform is hardly Nazi-adjacent. It boils down to a right-wing populism of the protectionist and anti-mass-migration variety. If this is fascism, and an existential threat to democracy, then we really are through the looking glass.
The Trump is Hitler delirium is unlikely to bother everyday Americans, though. They will see this for what it is – yet more embittered political propaganda from an increasingly panicked establishment.
>How is it possible that Trump has become the more policy-centered candidate in this race?
I don't know, but you'd think a guy who is nominally libertarian, writing for a libertarian magazine, might have been, you know, *paying attention* to the last 8 years and then would have actually seen the policy-chops of Trump during his first term - and then been able to compare that performance to the performance of the *Biden-Harris* administration.
And not just accept, without question, so he can stay in good with the cocktail set.
>If all the talk about Trump as a threat to democracy has not definitively swung the needle in Harris' favor yet, why would one more speech accomplish much?
Because, bubie, they *can't let you know* what their real agenda is - they don't have power secured yet. When they're sufficiently entrenched to feel confident you won't be able to resist, then they'll let you know what their plans for your life are.
The US Constitution is a threat to democracy.
The leftard pitch is treasonous from it’s onset.
Nothing. Nadda. Zippo. of ‘democracy’ ensures any Individual Liberty or Justice. It is just [WE] majority-gang RULES you absolutely. Always has been; always will be.
The USA is a *Constitutional* Union of Republican States.
And the consequences of the Democracy-propagandized 'Revolutionized' nation shows up in Truck Loads. It's the very reason the POWER wasn't LIMITED and the very reason there is so much party-division, chaos, and collapsing economy. The USA cannot survive when nobody cares what a USA is.
Anyone who actually read about the founding of America knows that the Founders did everything they could think of to prevent America from becoming a "democracy". They had seen what some states had done under the Articles of Confederation. When it was "discovered" that there were more borrowers than lenders, they issued fiat paper so that debtors could pay off their debts at a rate of 10 cents on the dollar thoroughly screwing the lenders.
The Constitution's Article 4 section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"
It wasn't just monarchy that the Constitution was designed to stop.
>>She's also failed to articulate any difference between herself and Biden.
expecting a difference is a tell of your political competence.
Because there is none. Both are sock-puppets.
Right now, things are going well. The economy is doing good, markets high, unemployment low. American is leading the world. We are helping Ukraine without American boots on the ground. We working to contain the violence in the Middle East. Do I want a radical change, no. I want Harris as President checked by a Republican controlled Congress, at least on House.
Wow, is the sky blue in your version of reality?
Is my Sky Blue America reality any less real than your Garbage Can America?
It is certainly a lower-freedom version of the future, in virtually every dimension.
During the last Trump admin, for the first time ever, several Middle East countries recognized Israel. This has turned to a mess under this admin, with identical policies to the last admin you describe.
The issues between Ukraine and Russian began under the last Obama term, when he placed a West-puppet ruler in the Ukraine. Now we have a war.
Nothing is better in the Middle East. Nothing is better in the Ukraine. You have TDS.
Mod would rather the Israelis be exterminated.
We working to contain the violence in the Middle East
The largest pogrom in history since the holocaust occurred during this administration...
Now if only you could make that bankrupt part of the nation go away.
I guess ignorance is next best thing.
I can always tell when I'm talking to a Woman.
they moved the headstones but they didn't move the bodies!
Why don't you or most journalists ever mention Biden, Harris, and Walz's authoritarianism? It is as though you all think time stopped on Jan 6 and that the last four years the Biden/Harris administration hasn't assaulted the Constitution nor Harris/Walz being openly hostile to freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms. Those are also authoritarianism. I see no difference in authoritarians, though you seem to.
Yes: more taxes, more government power, more politically-correct social rules and First Amendment intrusion, defang and destroy the Second Amendment, weaponize government ... did I mention more government power?
Less Freedom, in virtually every dimension, period. No Libertarian can support these policies.
I would like to politely suggest that, regardless of who wins the 2024 election, that anyone who goes bananas in the streets over it even slightly just be immediately shot.
We'll be a healthier nation for it, I promise.
^ Get aload of Daniel Perry over here.
Look, let’s not kid ourselves – neither side knows how to behave itself when they don’t get their way. Democrats burn down entire city blocks (…of their own neighborhoods, weird) in their mostly peaceful violent riots; Republicans scale the walls and smash windows of the Capitol building, murder AOC, and conquer Nancy Pelosi’s office for about an hour.
I’m just saying – whichever ones start that nonsense in a week, just start gunning them down. We missed the opportunity with BLM. We missed the opportunity with J6. Let’s not miss it again. They’re the unhinged ultra-partisan fanatics. They’re really more problem than they are solution to this whole “United” States thing.
If it makes you feel better, we've already replaced them with a border jumper who may or may not rape/kill a random coed or take over an apartment complex.
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Actual acts of crimes can be prosecuted with a 1st Amendment.
Painting all "grievances" as a crime is wildly dangerous and precisely what Democrats mostly pulled off during the J6 grievances.
You're overthinking it, TJ. I'm frankly just sick of the baboons in the street throwing their feces every which way anytime they don't get their way.
It's baboon season. Time to cull the rampaging primates.