- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 54,970
- Reaction score
- 11,157
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Did you buy a copy?Not a very nice way to treat Tim Walz.
Real leaders standby their people, and they certainly don't throw them under the bus in order to make a for-profit memoir more spicy.
No, I make my own kindling.Did you buy a copy?
So, Kamala Harris says she thinks the best person for her VP job in 2024 was a gay man but, because she wanted to win, discriminating against him was the better option. Sounds like a law suit to me. We all know that if a business owner had thought the best person for the job was a gay man but they hired someone else because they didn't want to hire the gay man, the left would be all over it.
IMO, if winning in 2028 is the objective, then Democrats should worry less about the demographics of their candidates and more about the policies advocated by their candidates.I mean she's just objectively correct. Though she, as a black woman, never had a chance of winning in the first place.
We can only hope that Democrats will find some witty and familiar white guy to run in 2028, lest we all be cursed with the pestilence that is JD Vance.
Newsom is auditioning.We can only hope that Democrats will find some witty and familiar white guy to run in 2028
stand by in this case, not the waiting description standbyNot a very nice way to treat Tim Walz.
Real leaders standby their people, and they certainly don't throw them under the bus in order to make a for-profit memoir more spicy.
Yep, missed that. Thanks, and corrected.stand by in this case, not the waiting description standby
IMO, if winning in 2028 is the objective, then Democrats should worry less about the demographics of their candidates and more about the policies advocated by their candidates.
I do that sort of thing all the time and no one ever corrects me!Yep, missed that. Thanks, and corrected.
IMO, if winning in 2028 is the objective, then Democrats should worry less about the demographics of their candidates and more about the policies advocated by their candidates.
Are you able to address the fact that Kamala Harris discriminated against a gay man when your side is supposed to be against discriminating against gay men?So sorry you are offended by this politician evaluating an election in actual political terms.
I suppose you also believe that J.D. Vance was the most qualified candidate for the MAGA party...no political considerations taken into account? Of course we know for MAGA it had to be White and it had to be Male and it had to be Straight. So that made it easier.
Great reply!No, I make my own kindling.
Funny, most threads have left wing outrage. Trump, Kirk, Patel, etc.Kamala Harris was wrong. Period. No defense.
Hope she doesn't run for President in 2028.
Now, can we have a half dozen more Kamala Harris threads? After all, we seem to have run out of Joe Biden threads. Even Hunter Biden can't buy a thread anymore. So we must cue the outrage against SOMEBODY.
She's objectively correct in discriminating against a gay man? I don't think the left would agree with that if a CEO didn't hire someone solely based on the fact that that person was gay.I mean she's just objectively correct. Though she, as a black woman, never had a chance of winning in the first place.
We can only hope that Democrats will find some witty and familiar white guy to run in 2028, lest we all be cursed with the pestilence that is JD Vance.
Yes. It just came out in her book where she admits to discrimating against a gay man.Well…no shit?
This is supposed to be some sort of major, ground breaking, earth shattering revelation?
How did she discriminate?Yes. It just came out in her book where she admits to discrimating against a gay man.
She's objectively correct in discriminating against a gay man? I don't think the left would agree with that if a CEO didn't hire someone solely based on the fact that that person was gay.
LOL. Well, if it weren't for the electoral college, Hillary would have won. She won the popular vote. Therefore, Americans would vote a woman president. Why would women be any different than a black man winning the presidency? Lame excuse.Being women most certainly played a role in Clinton's and Harris's losses.
Explain how this rises to "discrimination"? She assessed the effect her choice would have at the polls. That is what politicians do. She also "discriminated" among other candidates that she felt would be less effective than Walz.. There were a couple dozen.....the Short List is...Are you able to address the fact that Kamala Harris discriminated against a gay man when your side is supposed to be against discriminating against gay men?
The OP's posts tend to be thin gruel; but he thinks he's deep.Well…no shit?
This is supposed to be some sort of major, ground breaking, earth shattering revelation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?