Official Biden / Harris Administration Thread

181,359 Views | 2462 Replies | Last: 52 min ago by SBGold
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
25 Days and No Interviews said:

bearister said:


"Suddenly, she seems matched to the moment: a former prosecutor running against a convicted felon, a defender of abortion rights running against the man who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a next-generation Democrat running against a 78-year-old Republican."
-Time Magazine



C'mon... she's still working with her people to figure out her best possible positions on the issues. Less than two months ago, she had no idea she was going to be in this position, so how was she supposed to know what her positions were?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Vice President Harris' position is that America is, and will remain, a democratic republic.
"The rules were that you were not going to fact check"
MAGA
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For 3.5 years, not sure what she was preparing to do, sell hot dogs?

She's the VP to a crooked man with dementia, she should have bolted out of the gate like Hershel Walker, not Pee Wee Herman.
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

25 Days and No Interviews said:

bearister said:


"Suddenly, she seems matched to the moment: a former prosecutor running against a convicted felon, a defender of abortion rights running against the man who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a next-generation Democrat running against a 78-year-old Republican."
-Time Magazine



C'mon... she's still working with her people to figure out her best possible positions on the issues. Less than two months ago, she had no idea she was going to be in this position, so how was she supposed to know what her positions were?
"C'mon, man."
LOL
"Just win, baby."
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

For 3.5 years, not sure what she was preparing to do, sell hot dogs?

She's the VP to a crooked man with dementia, she should have bolted out of the gate like Hershel Walker, not Pee Wee Herman.

Yeah, for those who didn't catch it, I was actually criticizing her.

If I thought for two seconds that something I wrote on this pissant forum would ever flow uphill into the arms of the powers that be, believe me I would be towing the Democratic company line. Heck though, Trump has highly paid political advisors telling him stuff to his face and he either isn't listening or is incapable of changing his behavior.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The media astroturf around Kamala Harris took a big hit yesterday when Harris held a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina.

No big-name music star to bring the crowds, not hundreds of black sorority sisters in attendance.

Only a few dozen supporters showed up to hear the preliminary economic plan of Kamala Harris.

Attendance was 109 people, including media.

- Harris has pledged price controls for groceries, which will drive up groceries.
- She pledged $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, including illegal immigrants, which will drive up the price of housing.
- Harris has pledged to use taxpayer funds to build 5 million residential housing units for illegal aliens.

Marxism fails. Even CNN sees the folly.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even CNN? Are you like the last guy in the room to have figured out CNN is now controlled by your crew?

The changes at CNN look politically motivated. That should concern us all


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/24/the-changes-at-cnn-look-politically-motivated-that-should-concern-us-all?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

The media astroturf around Kamala Harris took a big hit yesterday when Harris held a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina.

No big-name music star to bring the crowds, not hundreds of black sorority sisters in attendance.

Only a few dozen supporters showed up to hear the preliminary economic plan of Kamala Harris.

Attendance was 109 people, including media.

- Harris has pledged price controls for groceries, which will drive up groceries.
- She pledged $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, including illegal immigrants, which will drive up the price of housing.
- Harris has pledged to use taxpayer funds to build 5 million residential housing units for illegal aliens.

Marxism fails. Even CNN sees the folly.




Both candidates (sides) will say anything to get elected even though the few intelligent people left know that they don't work. More government intervention causes more problems. We've hit and are passed the tipping point.
graguna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harris is winning. she should keep doing what's she's doing. and if she is no longer winning, she should change course.
and when the fat, comb over, lying, felon rapist gets beat by a black chick from Oakland, maybe he'll bless by going the **** away. Only Magats want to watch an 8 year old reality TV rerun.

Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

I suspect why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.

This is not to say all Democrats are actively, consciously traitorous Red Communists. But the far leftists, including actual socialists, actual Communists, and actual anarchists, have made a cancerous niche for themselves under the veil of liberal Democrats within the party. So the AOCs and others of the far Left play ball and cooperate, for now, with the majority of the Democrats, while, in the meantime preparing the battlefield for the Red revolution. We need the balance of liberalism, but we do not need nihilistic, anti-American agent provocateurs being unchecked and unchallenged within a long-standing and respected party, such as the Democratic Party.

It all comes down to how much government we want in our lives. Yes, we want a government that will protect us from enemies without, but within as well. Every time we ask for a government hand out, ask the government to do something, ask the government to fix something, we must give up something in return. And it's like feeding a tiger, you can't stop once you start, lest the tiger should be forced to decide you are the meal. JFK tried to stop feeding the tiger and the tiger turned on him.

There's no free lunch.

The Democratic Party is worth saving. My wife and her entire family were and are Democrats, but she and they recognize some of the hard left shifts ongoing in the Party. She might vote for Kamala Harris, but not until she answers to her track record, here, in California and finally tells us, as a Presidential candidate, all that she stands for. Harris' father is a professor emeritus at Furd (Stanford…Go Bears!) and his Marxist influences seem to show in her. I get that Democrats want their party to prevail, but how? I know the vast majority of the unelected bureaucracy are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of media members are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of college faculty vote Democrat. Is the Democratic Party being, unwittingly, used by powerful, dominant forces to create a single party system, here, in the USA? Do ordinary Democrats strive to become a single party of a single party system?

Opportunistically, the vast majority of corporate oligarchs support both sides, not for valid convictions, but to buy favor with whomever is in power. Where are our anti-trust laws? The corporate oligarchs are international and skirt our laws, so, now, as a result of their machinations, about 3 mega, multinational corporations own nearly all corporations. To be clear, most career politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. Do we pretend not to notice that politicians somehow become rich on the relatively meager salaries they are granted in their office? Follow the money.

The Central Banks gladly print more money as our government hands them ever increasing ownership over the peasantry- that would be us. The Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy love war, because war, strife, problems to solve, give them more money and power, but they sell it to us as Patriotic duty, a benefit to get our economy going (even though it's on borrowed money). So, all three, the Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy systemically, maybe not even consciously, drive us to events that benefit them as entities more than the people they are meant to serve.

Do we just raise up our hands in a Cobra Surrender posture and say that's how things are? Do we continue an endless cycle of preventable, tragic, anti-human events, such as man-made viruses, crippling government debt, endless wars, and bitter internal conflict? I may add internal conflict so toxic and unwholesome as to make otherwise decent humans lament the failed assassination of another human of the opposing party. Do you not hear how we are in the early stages of an Orwellian dystopia?

Yes, the "Blue" party, but I like to remember it as the party of JFK's Camelot. The party of JFK, who wanted to create a currency separate from and meant to make the Central Bank obsolete. The party of JFK that recognized the corruption of three-letter agencies, such as the FBI and CIA, and wanted to smash them into tiny pieces. Now, remind me, what happened to him? Are we really so naive as to think Oswald acted alone? What do you see in Kamal Harris, her track record, her rhetoric, her stances that remind you of JFK? Of Camelot? What will the "Blue" Party do to see and challenge these systemic issues that JFK recognized and took on so many years ago? What happened to the Blue Party that wanted to strive for a USA free and less burdened?

Now, I imagine that instead of answering the call, the rhetoric will focus on the intolerability of Republicans. They don't care about the poor and middle class. They are anti-intellectual and of questionable intelligence. They are the party of the rich. All things that may have been true at various points in history and in debateable degrees, but the mere name-calling has been a favored tactic, I will agree, lamentably, by both sides. So, do we simple see which side shouts the loudest? Or do we strive to recognize our common problems and address them, lest we all perish? What would "Blue" voters agree upon as minor premises that challenge us all? If we continue sophomoric fighting, I fear for our future as a nation conquered by enmity and blindness.

Where is the Party of JFK?
A party that could be, without shame, be designated by any color, without evoking an accusation of treason.
We need you.

#MakeOrwellFictionAgain
"Just win, baby."
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some argue JFK would be a Republican today.

Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Some argue JFK would be a Republican today.


Or a viable third party candidate.
"Just win, baby."
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad said:

movielover said:

The media astroturf around Kamala Harris took a big hit yesterday when Harris held a campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina.

No big-name music star to bring the crowds, not hundreds of black sorority sisters in attendance.

Only a few dozen supporters showed up to hear the preliminary economic plan of Kamala Harris.

Attendance was 109 people, including media.

- Harris has pledged price controls for groceries, which will drive up groceries.
- She pledged $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, including illegal immigrants, which will drive up the price of housing.
- Harris has pledged to use taxpayer funds to build 5 million residential housing units for illegal aliens.

Marxism fails. Even CNN sees the folly.




Both candidates (sides) will say anything to get elected even though the few intelligent people left know that they don't work. More government intervention causes more problems. We've hit and are passed the tipping point.
The national debt has been run up to a point where we are very, very close to insolvency.
Oh, and we have let the CCP own most of the debt.
"Just win, baby."
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bingo. On top of that, our cities are a mess, medical system corrupt, schools failing, military gutted.

Ex CIA Larry Johnson suggests closing 50% of our worldwide military bases, which would be about 200.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlesman80 said:

bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

We all know why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Go back and watch newscasts of Presidential elections prior to 2000. The networks used to mix red and blue (and sometimes yellow) as colors to designate the parties on the electoral map.

The designation of red meaning Republican and blue meaning Democratic is entirely a random accident of history, because the 2000 election was so hotly contested after election night and it solidified in the public's mind the concept of "red" and "blue" states and the networks locked that in for good after that. It has nothing to do with any decisions made by the parties themselves. It's entirely a media creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you making part of my point.
Name calling is the default argumentation.
It's not important how the color evolved.
It just seems to be euphemistic, now.


But thank you for reading some or all of my long dumb essay.
"Just win, baby."
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. I have no problem with moderate Republicans and I actually agree with them on a lot of issues, which is why Yogi considers me a Republican (look at my posts in The Town thread);

2. The problem with the Republican Party is that they let a career carnival barker, adjudicated sexual abuser and business fraud, convicted felon and traitor with the intellect and emotional maturity of a 10 year old castrate them and store their gnat nards in a jar on a shelf under his portrait in that tennis outfit (see Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, etc.);

3. The AOC's have no power. The ones to watch out for are the Lefties that are the Anti anti tRumpers that have joined forces with the tRumpists* to smash moderate Democrats and are using the moron to pave the way for their revolution. If tRump didn't own the balls of the Republicans, and they ran a moderate non insane candidate, he/she would win by a landslide.

*Matt Taibbi, Left-Wingers for Trump Remain Deeply Confused

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/matt-taibbi-why-republican-trump-left-wing.html

4. I'm hoping that you have a problem with the Right Wing trolls on this site with their ridiculous twitter feeds, hack sources and Q caliber conspiracy theories. They are so over the top that they saw fit to pollute the Olympics thread with their spew.

If that crew, the incel Shaman and his J6 posse of dumbf@ucks and the a$$h@les running around in the backwoods of Shasta County, Idaho and Montana in their camo clutching their AR-15's represent the New Republican Party,
then Republicans are in a lot bigger world of hurt and have more house cleaning to do than the Democrats.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

1. I have no problem with moderate Republicans and I actually agree with them on a lot of issues, which is why Yogi considers me a Republican (look at my posts in The Town thread);

2. The problem with the Republican Party is that they let a career carnival barker, adjudicated sexual abuser and business fraud, convicted felon and traitor with the intellect and emotional maturity of a 10 year old castrate them and store their gnat nards in a jar on a shelf under his portrait in that tennis outfit (see Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, etc.);

3. The AOC's have no power. The ones to watch out for are the Lefties that are the Anti anti tRumpers that have joined forces with the tRumpists* to smash moderate Democrats and are using the moron to pave the way for their revolution. If tRump didn't own the balls of the Republicans, and they ran a moderate non insane candidate, he/she would win by a landslide.

*Matt Taibbi, Left-Wingers for Trump Remain Deeply Confused

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/matt-taibbi-why-republican-trump-left-wing.html

4. I'm hoping that you have a problem with the Right Wing trolls on this site with their ridiculous twitter feeds, hack sources and Q caliber conspiracy theories. They are so over the top that they saw fit to pollute the Olympics thread with their spew.

If that crew, the incel Shaman and his J6 posse of dumbf@ucks and the a$$h@les running around in the backwoods of Shasta County, Idaho and Montana in their camo clutching their AR-15's represent the New Republican Party,
then Republicans are in a lot bigger world of hurt and have more house cleaning to do than the Democrats.
So, what's the common ground? How do we prevent bankruptcy and World War III? Do we agree that there's a fentanyl crisis? Without name calling and blame casting, what are problems and solutions we all can agree upon?

"Just win, baby."
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

1. I have no problem with moderate Republicans and I actually agree with them on a lot of issues, which is why Yogi considers me a Republican (look at my posts in The Town thread);

2. The problem with the Republican Party is that they let a career carnival barker, adjudicated sexual abuser and business fraud, convicted felon and traitor with the intellect and emotional maturity of a 10 year old castrate them and store their gnat nards in a jar on a shelf under his portrait in that tennis outfit (see Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, etc.);

3. The AOC's have no power. The ones to watch out for are the Lefties that are the Anti anti tRumpers that have joined forces with the tRumpists* to smash moderate Democrats and are using the moron to pave the way for their revolution. If tRump didn't own the balls of the Republicans, and they ran a moderate non insane candidate, he/she would win by a landslide.

*Matt Taibbi, Left-Wingers for Trump Remain Deeply Confused

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/matt-taibbi-why-republican-trump-left-wing.html

4. I'm hoping that you have a problem with the Right Wing trolls on this site with their ridiculous twitter feeds, hack sources and Q caliber conspiracy theories. They are so over the top that they saw fit to pollute the Olympics thread with their spew.

If that crew, the incel Shaman and his J6 posse of dumbf@ucks and the a$$h@les running around in the backwoods of Shasta County, Idaho and Montana in their camo clutching their AR-15's represent the New Republican Party,
then Republicans are in a lot bigger world of hurt and have more house cleaning to do than the Democrats.


You're right about the Republicans following Trump. Unbelievably horrific. Dems following Biden/Harris equally dumb. Both sides are doing what they think they need to do to get elected by a dumber and dumber electorate. Then they'll figure it out...sure they will. I will vote for anyone new who seems to at least have common sense ideas. And definitely address the debt. I don't even know if this is a possibility anymore.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"You're right about the Republicans following Trump. Unbelievably horrific. Dems following Biden/Harris equally dumb."

I understand people not liking Biden/Harris but I think you are making a false equivalence argument that normalizes tRump. Biden/Harris do substantially better in a line item by line item compare and contrast analysis vs tRump and his inner circle. Any volunteers here for that exercise?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Harris vs. Trump: America's mood-swing election


https://www.axios.com/2024/08/10/harris-walz-joy-trump-revenge

bearister, they're targeting you. Don't fall for the government psyop.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Bowlesman80 said:

bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

We all know why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Go back and watch newscasts of Presidential elections prior to 2000. The networks used to mix red and blue (and sometimes yellow) as colors to designate the parties on the electoral map.

The designation of red meaning Republican and blue meaning Democratic is entirely a random accident of history, because the 2000 election was so hotly contested after election night and it solidified in the public's mind the concept of "red" and "blue" states and the networks locked that in for good after that. It has nothing to do with any decisions made by the parties themselves. It's entirely a media creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

I dunno. The story I always heard was that the Dems chose blue in order to be thought of as the good guys. Like Cal.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:


bearister, they're targeting you. Don't fall for the government psyop.


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"You're right about the Republicans following Trump. Unbelievably horrific. Dems following Biden/Harris equally dumb."

I understand people not liking Biden/Harris but I think you are making a false equivalence argument that normalizes tRump. Biden/Harris do substantially better in a line item by line item compare and contrast analysis vs tRump and his inner circle. Any volunteers here for that exercise?

Agree. Biden is basically a moderate who makes some progressive noises to placate that wing of his party. Harris has no defined ideology except to go with, short term, whatever seems like it might help her win (and what that means, to me, is that she will veer towards the center... not a bad thing).
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"In her first major policy address, Harris unveiled an economic agenda that includes a $6,000 child tax credit for families during the first year of a newborn's life.

Within hours, a Trump campaign official told Semafor that Trump would "consider a significant expansion of the child tax credit," citing Sen. JD Vance's (R-Ohio) recent advocacy for a $5,000 credit."
-Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

Bowlesman80 said:

bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

We all know why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board. Go back and watch newscasts of Presidential elections prior to 2000. The networks used to mix red and blue (and sometimes yellow) as colors to designate the parties on the electoral map.

The designation of red meaning Republican and blue meaning Democratic is entirely a random accident of history, because the 2000 election was so hotly contested after election night and it solidified in the public's mind the concept of "red" and "blue" states and the networks locked that in for good after that. It has nothing to do with any decisions made by the parties themselves. It's entirely a media creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

I dunno. The story I always heard was that the Dems chose blue in order to be thought of as the good guys. Like Cal.
Go Bears, Blue and Gold, indeed.

Is everybody watching the FSU v GT game in Ireland?

Very excited.

BTW-Why not joint practices, like the NFL, with local teams, Furd, SJ State, UC Davis, even Fresno?
"Just win, baby."
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

movielover said:

MAGA / President Trump isn't a RINO, GOPe, or UniParty.

MAGA has many similarities to Democrats from the 1980s. Anti war, pro America, pro worker party.

The Democrats now support endless wars, the elite, and illegal immigrants.


Donold is anti union, pro corporate power, against regulations that help workers. Donold is a neoliberal who supports low taxes on the rich and low regulation.

Biden / Harris support unions, smart regulations, anti- trust that benefits employee competitiveness.

You guys are all talk, no substance.

The Biden/Harris campaigns have garnered less support from unions than before while they still maintain an overwhelming amount of financial support from the rich. The Democrats could have reduced taxes for the middle class these last four years but they didn't.

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlesman80 said:

bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

We all know why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.

This is not to say all Democrats are actively, consciously traitorous Red Communists. But the far leftists, including actual socialists, actual Communists, and actual anarchists, have made a cancerous niche for themselves under the veil of liberal Democrats within the party. So the AOCs and others of the far Left play ball and cooperate, for now, with the majority of the Democrats, while, in the meantime preparing the battlefield for the Red revolution. We need the balance of liberalism, but we do not need nihilistic, anti-American agent provocateurs being unchecked and unchallenged within a long-standing and respected party, such as the Democratic Party.

It all comes down to how much government we want in our lives. Yes, we want a government that will protect us from enemies without, but within as well. Every time we ask for a government hand out, ask the government to do something, ask the government to fix something, we must give up something in return. And it's like feeding a tiger, you can't stop once you start, lest the tiger should be forced to decide you are the meal. JFK tried to stop feeding the tiger and the tiger turned on him.

There's no free lunch.

The Democratic Party is worth saving. My wife and her entire family were and are Democrats, but she and they recognize some of the hard left shifts ongoing in the Party. She might vote for Kamala Harris, but not until she answers to her track record, here, in California and finally tells us, as a Presidential candidate, all that she stands for. Harris' father is a professor emeritus at Furd (Stanford…Go Bears!) and his Marxist influences seem to show in her. I get that Democrats want their party to prevail, but how? I know the vast majority of the unelected bureaucracy are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of media members are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of college faculty vote Democrat. Is the Democratic Party being, unwittingly, used by powerful, dominant forces to create a single party system, here, in the USA? Do ordinary Democrats strive to become a single party of a single party system?

Opportunistically, the vast majority of corporate oligarchs support both sides, not for valid convictions, but to buy favor with whomever is in power. Where are our anti-trust laws? The corporate oligarchs are international and skirt our laws, so, now, as a result of their machinations, about 3 mega, multinational corporations own nearly all corporations. To be clear, most career politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. Do we pretend not to notice that politicians somehow become rich on the relatively meager salaries they are granted in their office? Follow the money.

The Central Banks gladly print more money as our government hands them ever increasing ownership over the peasantry- that would be us. The Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy love war, because war, strife, problems to solve, give them more money and power, but they sell it to us as Patriotic duty, a benefit to get our economy going (even though it's on borrowed money). So, all three, the Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy systemically, maybe not even consciously, drive us to events that benefit them as entities more than the people they are meant to serve.

Do we just raise up our hands in a Cobra Surrender posture and say that's how things are? Do we continue an endless cycle of preventable, tragic, anti-human events, such as man-made viruses, crippling government debt, endless wars, and bitter internal conflict? I may add internal conflict so toxic and unwholesome as to make otherwise decent humans lament the failed assassination of another human of the opposing party. Do you not hear how we are in the early stages of an Orwellian dystopia?

Yes, the "Blue" party, but I like to remember it as the party of JFK's Camelot. The party of JFK, who wanted to create a currency separate from and meant to make the Central Bank obsolete. The party of JFK that recognized the corruption of three-letter agencies, such as the FBI and CIA, and wanted to smash them into tiny pieces. Now, remind me, what happened to him? Are we really so naive as to think Oswald acted alone? What do you see in Kamal Harris, her track record, her rhetoric, her stances that remind you of JFK? Of Camelot? What will the "Blue" Party do to see and challenge these systemic issues that JFK recognized and took on so many years ago? What happened to the Blue Party that wanted to strive for a USA free and less burdened?

Now, I imagine that instead of answering the call, the rhetoric will focus on the intolerability of Republicans. They don't care about the poor and middle class. They are anti-intellectual and of questionable intelligence. They are the party of the rich. All things that may have been true at various points in history and in debateable degrees, but the mere name-calling has been a favored tactic, I will agree, lamentably, by both sides. So, do we simple see which side shouts the loudest? Or do we strive to recognize our common problems and address them, lest we all perish? What would "Blue" voters agree upon as minor premises that challenge us all? If we continue sophomoric fighting, I fear for our future as a nation conquered by enmity and blindness.

Where is the Party of JFK?
A party that could be, without shame, be designated by any color, without evoking an accusation of treason.
We need you.

#MakeOrwellFictionAgain



Weird
"The rules were that you were not going to fact check"
MAGA
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlesman80 said:

Thank you making part of my point.
Name calling is the default argumentation.
It's not important how the color evolved.
It just seems to be euphemistic, now.


But thank you for reading some or all of my long dumb essay.

Oh I didn't read the whole thing. Kind of gave up after that dumb claim about why the color is blue instead of red.
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Bowlesman80 said:

bearister said:


The Party of JFK?

We all know why blue was decided on as the color for Democrats, right?

Because red would be too much, on the mark, too easily associated with global Communism that has infected the left side of the Democratic Party.

This is not to say all Democrats are actively, consciously traitorous Red Communists. But the far leftists, including actual socialists, actual Communists, and actual anarchists, have made a cancerous niche for themselves under the veil of liberal Democrats within the party. So the AOCs and others of the far Left play ball and cooperate, for now, with the majority of the Democrats, while, in the meantime preparing the battlefield for the Red revolution. We need the balance of liberalism, but we do not need nihilistic, anti-American agent provocateurs being unchecked and unchallenged within a long-standing and respected party, such as the Democratic Party.

It all comes down to how much government we want in our lives. Yes, we want a government that will protect us from enemies without, but within as well. Every time we ask for a government hand out, ask the government to do something, ask the government to fix something, we must give up something in return. And it's like feeding a tiger, you can't stop once you start, lest the tiger should be forced to decide you are the meal. JFK tried to stop feeding the tiger and the tiger turned on him.

There's no free lunch.

The Democratic Party is worth saving. My wife and her entire family were and are Democrats, but she and they recognize some of the hard left shifts ongoing in the Party. She might vote for Kamala Harris, but not until she answers to her track record, here, in California and finally tells us, as a Presidential candidate, all that she stands for. Harris' father is a professor emeritus at Furd (Stanford…Go Bears!) and his Marxist influences seem to show in her. I get that Democrats want their party to prevail, but how? I know the vast majority of the unelected bureaucracy are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of media members are Democrat voters. I know the vast majority of college faculty vote Democrat. Is the Democratic Party being, unwittingly, used by powerful, dominant forces to create a single party system, here, in the USA? Do ordinary Democrats strive to become a single party of a single party system?

Opportunistically, the vast majority of corporate oligarchs support both sides, not for valid convictions, but to buy favor with whomever is in power. Where are our anti-trust laws? The corporate oligarchs are international and skirt our laws, so, now, as a result of their machinations, about 3 mega, multinational corporations own nearly all corporations. To be clear, most career politicians on both sides are bought and paid for. Do we pretend not to notice that politicians somehow become rich on the relatively meager salaries they are granted in their office? Follow the money.

The Central Banks gladly print more money as our government hands them ever increasing ownership over the peasantry- that would be us. The Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy love war, because war, strife, problems to solve, give them more money and power, but they sell it to us as Patriotic duty, a benefit to get our economy going (even though it's on borrowed money). So, all three, the Central Banks, the corporate oligarchs, and the government bureaucracy systemically, maybe not even consciously, drive us to events that benefit them as entities more than the people they are meant to serve.

Do we just raise up our hands in a Cobra Surrender posture and say that's how things are? Do we continue an endless cycle of preventable, tragic, anti-human events, such as man-made viruses, crippling government debt, endless wars, and bitter internal conflict? I may add internal conflict so toxic and unwholesome as to make otherwise decent humans lament the failed assassination of another human of the opposing party. Do you not hear how we are in the early stages of an Orwellian dystopia?

Yes, the "Blue" party, but I like to remember it as the party of JFK's Camelot. The party of JFK, who wanted to create a currency separate from and meant to make the Central Bank obsolete. The party of JFK that recognized the corruption of three-letter agencies, such as the FBI and CIA, and wanted to smash them into tiny pieces. Now, remind me, what happened to him? Are we really so naive as to think Oswald acted alone? What do you see in Kamal Harris, her track record, her rhetoric, her stances that remind you of JFK? Of Camelot? What will the "Blue" Party do to see and challenge these systemic issues that JFK recognized and took on so many years ago? What happened to the Blue Party that wanted to strive for a USA free and less burdened?

Now, I imagine that instead of answering the call, the rhetoric will focus on the intolerability of Republicans. They don't care about the poor and middle class. They are anti-intellectual and of questionable intelligence. They are the party of the rich. All things that may have been true at various points in history and in debateable degrees, but the mere name-calling has been a favored tactic, I will agree, lamentably, by both sides. So, do we simple see which side shouts the loudest? Or do we strive to recognize our common problems and address them, lest we all perish? What would "Blue" voters agree upon as minor premises that challenge us all? If we continue sophomoric fighting, I fear for our future as a nation conquered by enmity and blindness.

Where is the Party of JFK?
A party that could be, without shame, be designated by any color, without evoking an accusation of treason.
We need you.

#MakeOrwellFictionAgain



Weird
Best rebuttal, right there. LOL
"Just win, baby."
Bowlesman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Bowlesman80 said:

Thank you making part of my point.
Name calling is the default argumentation.
It's not important how the color evolved.
It just seems to be euphemistic, now.


But thank you for reading some or all of my long dumb essay.

Oh I didn't read the whole thing. Kind of gave up after that dumb claim about why the color is blue instead of red.
There's no shame in that.
There's lots of "blue" voters that could be considered Low information voters.
You keep trying.
Bless your heart.
Spoiler alert: it wasn't really about the color and it's origin.
"Just win, baby."
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlesman80 said:

sycasey said:

Bowlesman80 said:

Thank you making part of my point.
Name calling is the default argumentation.
It's not important how the color evolved.
It just seems to be euphemistic, now.


But thank you for reading some or all of my long dumb essay.

Oh I didn't read the whole thing. Kind of gave up after that dumb claim about why the color is blue instead of red.
There's no shame in that.
There's lots of "blue" voters that could be considered Low information voters.
You keep trying.
Bless your heart.
Spoiler alert: it wasn't really about the color and it's origin.

If that's not what it's about, then don't lead with such an obviously false claim.
calpoly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"You're right about the Republicans following Trump. Unbelievably horrific. Dems following Biden/Harris equally dumb."

I understand people not liking Biden/Harris but I think you are making a false equivalence argument that normalizes tRump. Biden/Harris do substantially better in a line item by line item compare and contrast analysis vs tRump and his inner circle. Any volunteers here for that exercise?
Well said!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bowlesman80 said:

The national debt has been run up to a point where we are very, very close to insolvency.
Oh, and we have let the CCP own most of the debt.


Permanently Extending the Trump Tax Cuts Would Cost $4 Trillion Over the Next Decade - Center for American Progress


https://www.americanprogress.org/article/permanently-extending-the-trump-tax-cuts-would-cost-4-trillion-over-the-next-decade/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.