RFK is just another gaping hole in DJT's 'stay-out-of-jail' boat imo. :smirk:

:cheer:

Not what I said. So either you can't read or your memory is a sieve. — Benkei

My apologies either way.

Imagine JD Vance doing this. — NOS4A2

Imagine JD sharing a platform with his non-verbal son, and having the presence of mind and care to pull that son aside when he was about to walk into a teleprompter screen?

I can't imagine JD being open and honest and caring at all. I can't imagine him wanting to show his mixed race family off to the maga racists anyway. But they better get used to a lot more disabled kids of all sorts as abortion becomes more rare.

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

In 2009, some residents of Royal Tunbridge Wells called the tag "inappropriate" and "stereotypical" and asked the town to drop association with it in favour of Delighted of Tunbridge Wells. However, there was opposition to this campaign by other residents, some of whom wrote to newspapers in the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style arguing they preferred Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Local merchants at the town's information centre pointed out that tourists were buying twice as many goods bearing Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells than with Delighted of Tunbridge Wells. — Wikipedia

Tunbridge Wells knows the value of brand equity. :lol:

:up: :up:

Vance already showed his family off with his wife giving an amazing speech, putting to bed your little race fantasy once again. As for abortion, now people can vote for the laws they want. I know people having more power is anathema to the authoritarian, but you’ll get used to it.

It’s just a messaging tactic! The proposals don’t actually matter because they won’t get through Congress. Why do Harris supporters love messaging, and not substance?

Hill Dems try to tamp down backlash to Harris’ grocery price gouging pitch

But such a bill has no chance of passing Congress anytime soon, even if Democrats win the White House and Congress this November, according to six Democratic lawmakers and five Democratic aides who were granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. These people said Democrats in Congress have privately been telling critics that this part of the Harris plan is not viable.

Rather, they’ve argued it’s a messaging tactic — a way to show that she understands food prices remain an economic burden for many Americans and to redirect voters’ anger about inflation to corporations, in a way that progressives in particular have cheered.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/25/harris-grocery-price-gouging-backlash-00176266

As for abortion, now people can vote for the laws they want. I know people having more power is anathema to the authoritarian, but you’ll get used to it. — NOS4A2

The women in many states don’t have the power to choose now. Aren’t you supposed to be some breed of libertarian?

I don’t think the feds should have any say in the matter. Do you?

Today in Trumpenfreude ...

NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

16August24 – $23.06 per share
(NASDAQ 17,631.72)

Loser The Clown's pump-n-dump scam is down 40% in five months. Not bad for an OG grifter who even 3x BANKRUPTED A CASINO. — 180 Proof

26August24 – $21.72 per share :down:
(NASDAQ 17,725.77) :up:

I don’t think the feds should have any say in the matter. — NOS4A2

You think that states should have the power to deny women their freedom to choose, right? If so, doesn't that make you a stinking statists?

I do not think that. Now women can vote for the policies they want. Isn’t that what you want?

So the freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose? Good we've got that cleared up. We can return to a lot of your previous positions and reassess them based on this.

The freedom to vote trumps the freedom to choose…I don’t even know what that means. I was saying people can now vote for the legislation they want in their own states rather than having zero opportunity to do so.

Nobody was forcing people who didn't want an abortion to have one so in fact we don't need regulation but freedom. Which Roe vs. Wade offered but was overturned by degenerate fossils wanting to return to the stone age.

Regardless of my own stance on the matter, I don't think there's anything particularly degenerate about pro-life stances, which usually focus on the value/protection of the unborn child.

It's degenerate because it flows from an archaic worldview that is essentially illiberal. Nobody having an abortion has every hurt anybody. Someone can be pro-life but that doesn't mean they have to enforce that stance on others. And "unborn child" is a logical contradiction. It's either a child or it isn't and it won't be a child unless it's born. Meanwhile, we can take the decision against or in favour or abortion very seriously under the particular circumstances in which they occur - and most people do. It's not like people like getting abortions.

Ascribing value to unborn life doesn't seem like something that could only be argued by unreasonable, illiberal or archaic people. It's not uncommon to hear such opinions from secular people for example.

And enforcing stances and opinions on others via the democratic process is (unfortunately) the normal way in which states function.

'Degenerate' is a strong term, and I think you're being unreasonable in its use.

There are still plenty of places in the country where it is legal to kill a fetus. In any case, it was a shaky legal precedent, not a right. Now everyone can go about it the right way.

Regime commissars don’t like when people talk amongst themselves.

Now women can vote for the policies they want. — NOS4A2

Is that true? According to polls in Texas, most favor some access to abortion, and as far as I can tell it hasn’t been on a ballot.

If you’re right then there is an opportunity for you or some other abortionist to run on such a platform.

Regime commissars don’t like when people talk amongst themselves. — NOS4A2

I think it's the typical way that actually BOTH Republicans and Democrats would do this:

When corporations ask for simple rules they ought to then adhere to (by legislation), naturally the political establishment doesn't give this (which actually would be their job). Why? Because there's Freedom of Speach, of course!

What the government wants is to have in secret a watchdog system where they will inform the corporations which isn't tolerated and who should be banned. And if the corporations themselves won't follow, it's be trouble for them. And as they are free companies, they can decide who to ban and who not!

And if you think that the Republicans are different, well, it's simply other issues than the progressive wokester's see inappropriate.

If you’re right then there is an opportunity for you or some other abortionist to run on such a platform. — NOS4A2

Yup, the people always have to fight for their liberty.

Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them.

Tulsi Gabbard endorses Trump. Meanwhile, neocons endorse Kamala. The realignment of the parties is almost complete.

Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them. — NOS4A2

UK isn't in the EU, btw.

Nikki Haley Says Donald Trump “Has My Strong Endorsement, Period” In Republican National Convention Speech

27August24

The Criminal Clown is running like a raped ape but he still can't hide ...

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4850566-superseding-indictment-trump-election-subversion-case/

Roevember is coming! :victory: :cool: