Eh.. Kamala has one person to blame and thank. We know her personality or accomplishments didn't put together anything.
So you're only a conspiracy theory nut if you are on the opposition? Since you believe this, are you a conspiracy theory nut too? Wait a minute, do you have inside information nobody else is privy to? Shall we find some fake photo ops from Kamala? I guarantee they exist. Just be fair and honest with yourself. It's really not hard to not be hypocritical. Just give the same energy and critique of both candidates.
Evidence? Since when we all have to start backing statements up with facts and evidence now. Tsk, Tsk, City.
Harris didn’t do it. She didn’t have to and hasn’t lifted a finger. The media did it all for her. They were initially successful in portraying her as successful. All she had to do was smile, stop cackling, pick a good VP candidate, and stick to the script. She has been so bad at it that the media can’t even cover for her anymore with a straight face.
BS in Mechanical Engineering and an MBA. That is not the crowd that I have any interest in impressing nor would I want their applause. But you all go with your conservatives are knuckle dragging high school drop outs shtick.
It's fun to say "sexual predator" and "rapist." Now, provide citations of criminal adjudications of same - should be easy since you say it's "clear." If you want to emphasize court rulings of civil liability, then be truthful about it and there can be debate on the standards of proof in those cases and whether sufficient facts supported an award of damages. That's not what you and other scream however. You say "sexual predator" and "rapist." Words have meanings and the words you used declare criminal behavior and conviction. Exaggerating or cheering a civil ruling (debated or not) is one thing. Identifying someone as a criminally convicted "sexual predator" or "rapist" when that person has not been so convicted is defamation per se. I don't know you and you could probably avoid civil liability for defamation by convincing a judge (especially if you're in NY) you just didn't understand what you were saying or that there is an interpretation from a civil proceeding that sexual misconduct may have occurred (note the case you are likely relying upon was a defamation case, not a criminal or abuse case), but, yes, your blatant lie about someone being a convicted sexual criminal is defamation. I know you will completely ignore this post and continue your (and all the Left's) mantra about rapist, racist, sexist, etc. as long as you can. Enjoy your pretend sanctimony but know that people who actually discern meaning from words and events can only smile at your petulance.
Looks familiar, like where all your posts come from… The libbie talking points trash pile. Well done.
This has already been adjudicated in federal court. It did not, in any way, match your claims. https://www.npr.org/2023/08/07/1192526887/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed So why do you think that a federal judge is ruling that Trump/your identical claims are false/lack merit?
Why would we say she's unqualified when she is clearly qualified based on her resume, experience and accomplishments. "Put a respectable Republican with decent ideas up there and Harris would still be labelled the savior." Too bad the GQP was bullied into nominating Trump again.
Blancmange. I just wanted to post the most basic thing I can think of to see if you can keep up your 'Come on Man!' streak today. Does it make you feel better?
Wowsers, you wrote about 8 paragraphs (although strangely without breaks) just to defend your adjudicated sexual abuser from the scurrilous accusations on a political message board. Fascinating! We can also presume from your screenname that you are legally trained? And......putting that training to use defending the honor of a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual abuser who also enacted a criminal conspiracy to overturn an election? Fascinating, laughable and sad!! So, Mr. Lawyer, I inadvertently slipped up when referring to the legal findings against the pretty obvious rapist that you dearly support. And yes, the judge said that technically he was a rapist. As did many, most or all of those other approximately 20 (or more) women who've accused him of sex crimes. Big deal, my mistake. You still not only support, but actively shill for and defend, one of the most vile serial adulterers, adjudicated sexual abusers in the history of modern American politics. And that's something to feel a lot worse about than my occasional lapse as to the precise legal findings against your sex criminal. You must be proud.
It made sense to me. Granted she could have made the point with 80-90% less words. She at times does venture into the world of gobbledygook and that was one of my bigger fears with her going in. But i would say this case it doesn’t really apply. The thing though is while I agree with what she is saying I don’t think this registers the most Americans. It’s too abstract.
