J.D. Vance....good lord Orangeman, why did you double down on your radical base instead of locking down a swing state?
Kamala..."HOLD MY BEER...KHA HA HA AHA HA KHA HA HA"
Kamala holds Trump's beer....
Posts
Total:
68
-->
@Greyparrot
She made a great choice. Comparing the two is just sad. JD is the least popular VP nominee in modern history. He has done nothing but harm Trump's campaign and will continue to do so.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Most respected people on the left say the threw the election by not locking down Pennsylvania with Shapiro.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You do know that no matter who Trump picked the media was just going to lie and say a bunch of retarded shit about them. This guy basically said in a speech that having a kid gives you a different perspective in life and the leftist media lied and Said he claims that single people should not have the right to vote.
If Trump picked Obama these retards would say.
"OBAMA is a right-wing maniac too dangerous to be VP. He was literally drone attacking foreign civilians and weaponized the justice department to go after whistleblowers. He also is anti woman, which is why he married a man"
It's absurd dude
At least Walz's eyes are not upside down.
-->
@FLRW
Just like Pennsylvania.
-->
@Greyparrot
What did you do to TheUnderdog ?
-->
@FLRW
Pennsylvania is now upside down.
-->
@Greyparrot
Most respected people on the left say the threw the election by not locking down Pennsylvania with Shapiro.
I have heard literally no one say that. So I don't know who these people are.
and even if these hypothetical people said that, they are wrong. There's no evidence Shapiro would actually have secured pensnsylvania. And with his potential for controversy, he could have cost them way more than he brought them.
For example, he is super Pro-Israel and that is quite toxic given that Israel is carrying out a genocide at the moment. He also had a case when he was a district attorney where he knew the victim and the suspect, but his office confirmed it was a suicide even though the victim had 20 stab wounds. While it's certainly not clear that Shapiro actually did anything wrong in this case, it would have been poured over by news outlets for the next few months and been a huge distraction whether he did something wrong or not. Shapiro would have been a huge gift to trump and his conspiracy theory pushers.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It's on MSNBC, I'll scrounge around for a clip.
For example, he is super Pro-Israel and that is quite toxic given that Israel is carrying out a genocide at the moment.
That's always gonna be a problem as long as Harris is tied in to Biden's policies with Israel.
If she loses Pennsylvania, it won't matter whether or not she can lock down the Somali and Muslim vote. (which is still not a slam dunk)
-->
@WyIted
You do know that no matter who Trump picked the media was just going to lie and say a bunch of retarded shit about them.
for sure, people always try to bring down the "enemy" candidate. That's totally normal. But JD is a gold mine of horrible shit.
This guy basically said in a speech that having a kid gives you a different perspective in life and the leftist media lied and Said he claims that single people should not have the right to vote.
oh no, he said alot more than that. He said parents should be able to vote multiple times, once for themselves and once for each child. He said that people without children have no stake in the future of the country and therefore can't be trusted to be leaders. He accused 3 democratic leaders of being "childless cat ladies", 2 of the 3 have children. And one of the 3 was a gay man, who has children. And when he was rightly called out for this being bullshit and offensive, he apologized to the cats. I can't even imagine what he was thinking.
If Trump picked Obama these retards would say."OBAMA is a right-wing maniac too dangerous to be VP. He was literally drone attacking foreign civilians and weaponized the justice department to go after whistleblowers. He also is anti woman, which is why he married a man"
Obama ruled as a pretty right wing president. His signature health care policy was directly lifted from a right wing think tank. It was almost verbatim Mitt Romney's plan for healthcare. Obama does not have the sterling reputation you seem to think he does.
It's absurd dude
oh no. JD is terrible choice. He is pretty anti women, he is a theocrat who wants religion to be part of government, he is fully on board with project 2025 which is just pure evil and anti american. He is the most unpopular VP pick in modern history. Trump could have thrown a list of elected republicans in the air and grabbed one at random and almost certainly gotten a much better candidate. He must be furious with his idiot sons for pushing JD.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's on MSNBC, I'll scrounge around for a clip.
ohh, so you don't mean on the left. You mean or corporate centrist news. Yeah I totally buy you hearing it there. But those people are idiots. One of the main hosts on MSNBC is literally a republican elected official. To pretend like they are "the left" is kind of funny.
That's always gonna be a problem as long as Harris is tied in to Biden's policies with Israel.
no, it really isn't. The VP has no power over foreign policy. And when war criminal BB showed up to give a speech, she walked out. I don't think there is any issue there. But there probably would have been with Shapiro.
If she loses Pennsylvania, it won't matter whether or not she can lock down the Somali and Muslim vote. (which is still not a slam dunk)
Like I said, there's no evidence she would have been better off with Shapiro in Pennsylvania. He has alot of baggage. He could have harmed her more than he helped her. Shapiro is popular in Pennsylvania, but alot of that could just be sugar high. He ran unopposed in the primary and ran against a super unpopular republican candidate. It's easy to like someone relatively normal when the other option is mastriano. That doesn't necessarily mean you'd change your vote for president because he is on the ticket.
Besides, Wals is also well liked, respected and has a great record. He could also help turnout in Pennsylvania.
-->
@HistoryBuff
He said parents should be able to vote multiple times, once for themselves and once for each child. He said that people without children have no stake in the future of the country and therefore can't be trusted to be leaders.
I think the right argues that since children are counted in the census for representation, their interests should also be directly represented in elections. Parents voting on behalf of their children could help ensure that policies affecting children are given due consideration. Kind of like when slave owners got extra representation. Either allow parents to vote, or stop counting kids. Same with illegal invaders. Let them vote, or stop counting them.
Children will inherit the future shaped by today's policies. Allowing parents to vote on their behalf ensures that decisions that the children will have to pay for are made with long-term considerations for the future welfare of those children.
It's a hell of a lot easier for a cat lady to vote for global war when she, nor anyone she knows, will have to fight it.
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the right argues that since children are counted in the census for representation, their interests should also be directly represented in elections. Parents voting on behalf of their children could help ensure that policies affecting children are given due consideration. Kind of like when slave owners got extra representation. Either allow parents to vote, or stop counting kids.
You know how people keep saying republicans are weird. All of that is weird. Normal people don't think like that. Normal people don't want to be compared to slave owners. But you want to gain political power because you have guardianship of other humans. That's super weird man. Doubly so to people who don't have children.
Children will inherit the future shaped by today's policies. Allowing parents to vote on their behalf ensures that decisions that the children will have to pay for are made with long-term considerations for the future welfare of those children.
lol no. It just gives more power to a specific subset of people and republicans are guessing that would increase their power. Parents don't have any idea what will benefit their children. How could they possibly know what policy today will make the world better for them in 20 or 30 years? Parents already vote for policies that screw over their children and have for decades. This is just a shameless attempted power grab. And it's a pretty obvious one. Vance and his pro-natalist bullshit is a huge drag on the ticket.
-->
@HistoryBuff
he is fully on board with project 2025
This is how I know you are a partisan hack. He most certainly is not going to ban porn should trump die and he takes over. Nor does he want to genocide women or would have people vote for their children.
It's also common sense that if you have no children, there is no reason to think in a long time horizon. For example I have kids, so the policies I support I have to be concerned about their impact 100 years down the road, meanwhile cat ladies can focus on what types of free gibs they can get in the short term.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So then you are saying it's weird to count kids that can't select that power. If that policy was reversed, you would have less representation in the anti-cat lady populations. (pro family with lots of kids)
Slave owners and maga moms shouldn't get extra representatives.
If the 1800 Republicans demanded 3/5 of the slaves get to vote, the Democrats would never have agreed to the extra representation.
-->
@WyIted
This is how I know you are a partisan hack. He most certainly is not going to ban porn should trump die and he takes over. Nor does he want to genocide women or would have people vote for their children.
How would you know that? He is a big backer of project 2025. Will he do every single point in it? Maybe not. But most of it is hugely unpopular. So being tied to it at all is a huge problem. And he definitely has ties to it. That will be used against trump.
It's also common sense that if you have no children, there is no reason to think in a long time horizon.
common sense doesn't mean it actually makes sense. Most people don't think long time horizon whether they have children or not. Having children doesn't change that.
For example I have kids, so the policies I support I have to be concerned about their impact 100 years down the road
well, you support republican policies which are all about gutting the middle class. So either you're lying, you really hate your children, you're an idiot, or you're a millionaire and are cheering on the destruction of 95% of the population to fund your lavish lifestyle. So you would seem like a perfect example of how parents don't actually know what would be good for their children.
meanwhile cat ladies can focus on what types of free gibs they can get in the short term.
this doesn't even make sense.
-->
@Greyparrot
So then you are saying it's weird to count kids that can't select that power.
yes. of course it is. They are part of the population, so of course they are counted as part of the population. They are not capable of voting, so of course they shouldn't have the power of voting. That is pretty basic logic.
If that policy was reversed, you would have less representation in the anti-cat lady populations. (pro family with lots of kids)
That is why people like vance are doing this. They know their ideas are unpopular. Their goal is try to ram their ideas down people's throats even though most of their policies get like 40% support. Many of them get less than that. And finding ways to get their supporters to vote multiple times is one of the only ways they can think of try to get votes even though their "ideas" are terrible.
Slave owners and maga moms shouldn't get extra representatives.
lol, in this scenario vance wants parents to be the slave owners. They want to be able to have political power on behalf of their children.
-->
@Greyparrot
Allowing parents to vote on their behalf ensures that decisions that the children will have to pay for are made with long-term considerations for the future welfare of those children.
Okay, thats a funny lie to believe in. I guess we all say funny lies sometimes.
-->
@WyIted
It's also common sense that if you have no children, there is no reason to think in a long time horizon. For example I have kids, so the policies I support I have to be concerned about their impact 100 years down the road
Usually when people say "its common sense", it just means they cant prove it lol
-->
@Best.Korea
-->
@HistoryBuff
How would you know that? He is a big backer of project 2025
Citation needed and some left-wing media source does not cut it. Actually find a clip of him saying it.
common sense doesn't mean it actually makes sense. Most people don't think long time horizon whether they have children or not. Having children doesn't change that.
Okay so we are talking in generalities here. In general you will find more people with children that care what the world will look like after they are dead than people who will not even exist in that world or have children 100 years from now.
well, you support republican policies which are all about gutting the middle class.
Wrong, the economic freedom index which tracks how republican a countries economic policies are, finds a direct correlation between economic freedom and quality of life.
I would suggest you go to mises.org to learn about economics or just consider shit like when you have more people to jobs or when you push out over regulation or when you have high taxes on companies than you get the same exact results you always get when that happens. It is bad for industry.
So you would seem like a perfect example of how parents don't actually know what would be good for their children.
I am literally trying to prevent my kids from living in the economic interventionist states that have the same policies you support such as Venezuela, North Korea, South Africa or Nazi Germany.
this doesn't even make sense.
It doesn't make sense that people vote democrat for free shit, at the expense of the future and even at the expense of the economy where if we rejected welfare people would not need it because of how prosperous society would be.
So why do you oppose prosperity, reduced poverty and support cutting the dicks off of children?
-->
@Best.Korea
Usually when people say "its common sense", it just means they cant prove it lol
No it means you would have to be a retard to disagree. It's like asking to prove that when you flip a light switch a light usually comes on
If you guys think the common sense statement that people that are invested In the future care more about the future is wrong than please sterilize yourself because IQ has a genetic component
-->
@WyIted
No it means you would have to be a retard to disagree
So no proof?
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes here is a study that showed married women with children care more about the future than single women without children
Oh my God I just guessed but how could I guess correctly that people with a stake in the future care more about the future than those with no stake in the future. Surprised Pikachu face
God you are a retard for needing a study to prove those with a stake in the future care more about the future than those without a stake in the future
-->
@WyIted
A study?
I dont see any decision making comparison being mentioned in that study.
Can you show us a study which says that women with children cast better votes than women without children?
-->
@WyIted
Here, I found a study which says that having more kids makes you have lower IQ:
"There is evidence that, on a population level, measures of intelligence such as educational attainment and literacy are negatively correlated with fertility rate in some contexts."
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont see any decision making comparison being mentioned in that study.
The study measures impulsiveness. That's a decision to be impulsive or patient.
Here, I found a study which says that having more kids makes you have lower IQ:
No you didn't , those are Wikipedia articles and following their sources leads to global studies that show people in countries like Afghanistan where education is low as it is and we're literacy is already low and where women are discouraged from schooling, thay in those areas women have lower education and therefore lower literacy. It doesn't show IQ tests and doesn't mention whether they operate with a long time horizon or a short time horizon.
I literally want to point out that you needed evidence for the statement that people with a stake in the future have more interest in that future than those without a stake in the future.
It's like saying that Amazon employees care as much about Walmart as Walmart employees.
No, you would have to be a complete retard to actually think that a study needs to be conducted to determine that Walmart employees care more about Walmart than Amazon employees do