ThreePointTakedown

Listening to it, it was pretty garbled. But I understand his 'deplorables-esque' reference. Because at this point, they are. They are ok with a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ignoramus that doesn't understand business, healthcare, or tariffs. The current president, that is not up for reelection made a faux pas by telling the truth. I'll agree its not advantageous to Harris because the party of constant victimhood will never miss an opportunity to play the victim. Despite privilege beyond measure. Could that be a religious hold over? Probably, considering a vast majority of those that support this party are religious zealots. Zealots = people of religion that preaches a morality they don't abide by, but insist others do, but punish them through political processes, if they don't. Sum up. Joe was right. But it doesn't help his VP from winning the race, necessarily. Not that there is any chance that KH loses, it just doesn't help. Again, sucks to suck!

For someone that is obviously racist. Why offer to pay them for the opportunity to watch a racist film about a racist if you are not, racist-adjacent, yourself? Being 'curious' and not 'bought in', would bring you absolutely nothing. I get the 'listen to the opposing side argument before coming to a conclusion' but you don't have to pay a racist to understand their argument if you have any kind of imagination. They're racist, its not hard to understand why they might hold that opinion. Taught to them at an early age. They have emotional ties to maintaining the belief. Changing it would mean addressing a whole lot of other opinions they can't justify. See, as a non-racist I just did it. Racism is much like religion. They get you young. Plant the seed deep. Tie a whole lot of emotional baggage to the 'truth'. Then tell you that you shouldn't ask or look for any answer that isn't already provided by the truth that has been provided to you. It'll be interesting to see the responses defending religion and/or racism. Seeing as they, typically, are one and the same. Does Dog have a preferred people? Isn't that racism?

"The Georgia Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling that several controversial new election rules are “illegal, unconstitutional, and void.” The rules would have made election certification discretionary, required hand-counting the number of ballots, made drop boxes harder to use, and expanded the role of poll watchers. The appeal will proceed on a normal schedule, which means the state supreme court will fully consider the challenge against the rules over the next few months." They tried to rig the election a few weeks before hand but got b* slapped by their own, conservative, Supreme Court.

Sucks to suck

Hope this helps some people out there. Answers some important questions.

Did you follow up to see if that was true? I'll bet dollars to donuts you didn't. But at least you were able to share a source and make a point. Get that dope-a-mine!

like the economy each D prez inherited after the last two GOP presidents. Kansas pretty much ran the conservative playbook to the letter for a few years. Did all the things they wished would happen nation wide. What happened? I'd say they admitted failure but we all know they'd never actually do that. What they did was reverse a lot of the policies that led to the horrendous hole they found themselves in. Who did they have to complain about? No one but themselves. I'll bet there can be found a few people that tried to blame it on those lousy liberals. Conservative policies are not popular because they don't do any of the things y'all hope they would. Its because they aren't born out of empathy or compassion. Just self righteousness and toxic survivalist mentality that just makes you look and sound like a toddler thought it up. Y'all are gonna lose NC. Maybe TX and if that happens, that's the game folks. You've never been less popular and those numbers are not trending upward. The more we learn the less appealing conservatism is. Enjoy the last few weeks your party and ideology is relevant.

Is the use of this term simply to try to halt a conversation? If not I fail to see the benefit of typing it. Are you just trying to phantom flex on someone by trying to guilt them into not expressing their thoughts? Granted some people just like to read their own words but that sentiment can be expressed in a less aggressive way. Is 'virtue signaling' in the same boat as calling someone 'racist'? You feel the intent of the statement as dishonest and bias.

I guess it would be a problem of priorities. Ivy League has no need to fund scholarships. So all the $ that comes in goes to operating budget, gear, facilities, and other perks. If you were Duke and you started getting a boat load of $ like Princeton. Would you start with scholarships for athletes, operations, gear, facilities, or misc? I would start with scholarships. That would put you apart from the Ivies right off the bat. Then start working on the others. Its a long game. If Lanham wasn't or hasn't been working to do that or something similar, not saying he hasn't, that Duke should probably find someone who can/will. For the sake of their future alumni. Or at least put together a big pot of $ for NIL if nothing else.

Thanks for trying to diminish the scope of my opinion. Lots of people agree with me. More than I think you are comfortable admitting. More than 50% of the population if I had to guess. Likely you as well. Find some community that help you to grow out of your bad ideas. Or at least challenge you. Its too easy to blow off an anonymous poster on a thread when I challenge you because there are no ramifications. I'll bet you don't have anyone you respect that would disagree with you despite you being quite wrong. Its comforting having like minded people around you but not great to foster out of the box thinking. Good luck

Not true. Supporters of 45 have been up in arms for nearly a decade threatening and intimidating everyone that would oppose 45 at every turn. Judges, poll workers, state attorneys general, Arlington National Cemetery employees recently(person decided they didn't want to press charges, which they could have easily done, because they didn't want the back lash of 45 supporters coming down on them). This is a cudgel that 45 and others wield indiscriminately. Now they have descended onto a small town in Ohio. There are nuts on both sides. One side revs them up and sets them loose by LYING CONSTANTLY about people they don't like. Not going to ask you your opinion on who, its the GOP. That's it. At no point do they tamp their rhetoric to be sure without a shadow of doubt that they denounce anyone using violence as a means to an end. They are children, skirting the law by using coded language that is often racist that seeks the very results we are seeing. "See how things are falling apart in Springfield, OH. This administration isn't doing anything to stop it." Despite 45 and JD being the cause of it. and lest be forget who the savior of conservatism said when pressed on where the information came from. 45 said, 'I SAW IT ON TV' What a ducking moron! I do not condone violence, politically or otherwise. But the party that talks out the side of their mouth using phrases like 'second amendment solutions' and 'S-hole countries' are now up in arms when violence is visited upon them. I think is wrong and people should be punished, but I have no sympathy for them.

I'm long winded but I'm good. Thanks for the concern and your attempt to gas light. Always the hallmark of a losing side. Since you have no other points on this topic that you care to discuss and nothing to back them up I'll just take this well deserved W and hit the showers. I would hate to infringe on you any more than is necessary.

I don't believe you're reading that correctly. Roe vs Wade set out parameters for abortion in each trimester. Are there exceptions? Yes. That does not mean no restrictions. There are still hoops to jump through. Those are called restrictions. But I feel there should be no restrictions on abortion. I would think and it has been born out in the data that has been collected that there are no 9th month abortions for 'eh, I just don't want a baby' reasons that conservatives roll out every time their ass is in a vise. It doesn't happen and you know it doesn't happen because they have not examples of it happening. Unlike when the enact a draconian ban in Ohio, that would force a 10 year old girl to carry a baby to term. Late term abortion is rare and happens under horrendous circumstances often devastating to the parents and sometimes physically dangerous for the pregnant person. 45 lied. LIED about 9th month abortions. Straight up lied. Has told this lie multiple times. Baby executions?! How is saying something that is such an obvious and ridiculous lie not make him unfit for office? This has always been a moral debate and you can't convince enough people to see it your way so you try to legislate it. It always backfires and it will again. Too many people want the freedom to end a pregnancy if and when they want to.

Having labels on a bathroom based on gender or sex and wanting those enforced when there has never been a law to do so, yes, is segregation. Do you think predators don't use bathrooms, of theirs or another gender, already? Like I said, the issue of using the bathroom is moot. They have and will continue to do it anyway and there is no enforcement mechanism other than not wanting to rock the boat in a public or private venue. However comfortable someone is to use the bathroom they feel best represents them and having the support of the community is what we are talking about. The support. That's all. There has been nothing offered to show that trans people using the bathroom or locker room they prefer would jeopardize anyone to a higher extent than not. Could some people be more demure and mindful about showing youngish kids some anatomy that they might not otherwise be familiar with? Yes. I'm on board with that. Again, its the making of waves that people are bothered with and how uncomfortable it makes them feel. Sorry but protecting your comfort is not something that should be legislated.

They don't have a right more than anyone else. There is no right. There are no laws saying bathrooms have to be used by certain genders or sexes and there are no mechanisms, that anyone should or would be comfortable with to determine who qualifies. You aren't going to stop them from doing it. What it comes down to is the argument itself and what opposing this issue represents. The argument perpetuates a stigma that trans people are more dangerous or abnormal than anyone else that you might meet. They aren't. This stereotype is DANGEROUS. It leads to people, having a propensity towards violence, to act upon it if they feel threatened. By offering trans people as a possible target you are putting a vulnerable population in jeopardy of harm from others or by ostracizing them, self harm. Its the same argument for segregation or against the civil rights act. The founding documents allowed all those freedoms from the jump but we had racist institutions(judges and other authorities) that would not validate those rights. And organizations that would terrorize populations into submission. Until the Civil War and again the Civil Rights Act. Neither of which should have been needed at all, considering 'All Men Are Created Equal' appears on a signed document somewhere. But we still had to fight against our worst demons to fix these things because certain people with an interest, be it idealogical or financial, in maintaining the status quo kept making the same arguments that are being used to justify denying trans people their rights. They were bogus then and they are still bogus. People are uncomfortable with change. That is not news. What makes it news is when people tell lies in order to demonize a segment of the population for the political gain of another. They might not know they are lying but should try to be better informed before arguing in such a way that would have put you on the wrong side of slavery and civil rights if not for a few decades of time.

She answered that question. Not directly but KH agreed with the stipulations of Roe vs Wade. Which is tiered based on the viability of the fetus and varying conditions and the severity of those conditions as the pregnancy moves along. That 45 didn't get the sound bite they were hoping for is not the result of moderators or anything else when the question was already answered. BTW, the majority of Americans agree that depending on the conditions of the fetus and the effects on the pregnant person that late term abortions should be an available option. Again, answering in the affirmative to the conditions held up in Roe vs Wade, she did answer the question. That the people who wanted a more gruesome answer didn't get it is not the responsibility of the moderator. Also this is another example of moving the goal posts. Y'all are never happy with the answers that you get and offer up few if any actual answers. Dems always need more detail in their responses and y'all never ask for additional detail from your own candidates. Where is the health care plan 45 promised before the end of the term? You don't care about that. Or any details about the 'concepts of a plan' 45 has kicking around some where. Why isn't it front and center as an alternative to what is currently available? Wouldn't that make it obvious who has a better plan for the country, in how to help people have better and healthier lives? Infrastructure plan? Why can't you just be honest? That you don't like dems or liberals or marxists or people with sympathy/empathy to their fellow humans or bleeding hearts or whatever you call them. That you see them as weak for caring about others and that they can take their stupid head emotional feelings and victim blaming and get out. Leaving this country to the tough ones that want a strong military and religion to run all the important services(which is where the SCOTUS is leaning towards giving them) but only to those who can afford it, of course. Because we don't like freeloaders.

Lots of factors likely played into those outcomes other than the debates.

Your argument boils down to. I'm uncomfortable in this situation and my opinion should be taken into account in denying people equal rights. I'll repeat what I've said before. Tough. You lose on this situation with that argument. Thankfully. You always will and again, thankfully. So you agree that you have no rights to be 'comfortable' in public. Because at no point has it been proven that anyone is in danger if trans people are allowed to use the bathroom that they choose. And again, they already do that, and you have had no problem with it for years until the point was brought up specifically so that it would trigger you and people like you to fear them and in so doing making you easily manipulated to vote against the interests of your fellow humans in giving them equal rights for 'fear' of you and your family being uncomfortable in a place you have no RIGHT to be anyway. So no rights at all. Let alone any being infringed. Got it. Thank you. Glad you weren't interested in changing my mind with that weak ass argument. If you just want to deny equal rights to certain people. Just come out and say it. You've all but done that already.

I don't know about that. Keep in mind 45 ran for president before '16 and we all had forgotten it by then. Getting a tv show, being a birther, and having a lot more racists scared of brown people allowed 45 to tap into that energy. Along with a FBI director that blatantly violated their own protocols just two weeks before an election didn't hurt either. What I'm saying is that because the field was so crowded and it was her first national campaign. She shouldn't be judged on that performance alone. Biden didn't do so hot when he first entered. Only after SC did he get the momentum. If you go back to watch KH grill witnesses in the senate hearings. Its pretty compelling stuff. Granted they are well researched and done for the cameras but those are questions and positions that are hard to walk back. I feel they represent her intentions and motivations as to the problems we face and solutions to fix them.

I think that's a bit too cynical. Some voters will be swayed one way or the other through the debates. I'll bet they were at the last one. So this one too. How many, is the question. Probably far fewer than will be in actuality. But that is the power of hope. 'I was convinced by this person and I'm not an idiot. Surely others will see the light and support my candidate too.' That 'logic' swings both ways and often not for the best reasons. Flawed thinkers, we are.

This didn't age well.

Death of every ethnic culture is inevitable. Culture changes. You can read about the 'culture' of America from 100 years ago and how its vastly different to today. If you want to preserve a culture in its pure form there can be no mixing in of any outside genetics or influence. You get awfully close to practicing a form of Eugenics if you go too far down that road. Not ideal. Its going to happen whether you want it or like it or not. No amount of birth rate or fertility rates will change it. People will move away. Others will move in. That 'culture' as you put it will eventually disappear as it currently stands. To be replaced with a similar but different one. Hopefully, having excised any negative aspects and gained more positive influences to that which makes up the 'culture'. We only get better when we mix.

Why do you have to do that? You have not made your point very clear in my opinion. I am offering you an opportunity to do that. Can you? Do you want? Is it even possible? Or are you happier to make snide remarks rather than expand on your thought?

Good. Oil is a hugely profitable and hugely subsidized industry. If its going to die. Let it. The bike industry will take off for a minute then electricity will and nuclear power will finally have their day and the planet can stop choking to death. Why are people that are against citizens getting welfare not against oil getting it too?

Exactly what cowards say when they know they've lost