uncle bernard

This does not outlaw taxes...obviously. We already do this btw. They're called property taxes.

Pelosi was rich before she entered office. That's actually how she got the gig. She hosted the best fundraisers in San Francisco and became close with the congresswoman she eventually replaced when she got sick. Her husband is a very rich venture capitalist. Feinstein was married to Richard Blum, who founded Blum Capital. It manages billions of dollars. That's where her money comes from. Being rich is one of the pre-requisites for running for office in this country. It's very hard to run if you aren't extremely wealthy and have wealthy connections. There are outliers (Sanders, AOC, etc...), but not many. It's always funny when conservatives call Dems communists. These are some of the most elite capitalists in the country.

The comment section of every viral post is filled with porn bots.

you guys just believe anything you see on twitter lol

you live in an alternate reality

Wait, you mean the two public school teachers aren't worth hundreds of millions of dollars???

Yeah and 25x that died of Covid in the USA. A slightly more dangerous situation, don't you think?

Old and sick people don't matter is a bold stance for the "pro-life" party to take.

Idk, a few million people died of it worldwide.

Okay, so you admit he doesn't actually get things done better than anybody else?

not from @mspart there were a million posts condemning hamas - including mine - and it wasn't enough for them then either.

1. Executive order and legislation existed his last term and he failed. What's different this time around? 2A) I don't think illegal immigration is near the top of this country's problems. 2B) A wall doesn't solve illegal immigration. They'll find ways around it and it does nothing to address people here on expired visas which is about half of the country's illegal immigrants. 3) What's his biggest achievement? All of the problems he said he'd fix are the same problems that exist today. 4) What's the biggest impact he had on the country? Didn't build a wall. Economy grew around the same rate as Obama until the pandemic. Certainly didn't stop the pandemic from ruining the economy. Deported less people than Obama. Failed to repeal ObamaCare. The Swamp is still there. So, what's the big achievement? A tax cut? I think most Republicans could have gotten that tax bill passed under the same circumstances. 5) Your number 1 thing on here is "personal accountability" and Trump is one of the least accountable people I've ever seen. Everything is always someone else's fault.

Okay, so where are all your threads complaining about Trump's lies? I was told that in order to complain about one thing, you have to have threads complaining about every instance of that misdeed ever or you clearly support those instances....

Okay, so how is he going to get things done this time? Throw out the constitution? I'm glad he didn't build a wall. It's stupid and a waste of money. The reason for pointing it out is because the whole premise of this thread is that he "gets things done," which he doesn't. He's subject to the same partisan gridlock that Biden was and he will be subject to it again. He didn't "get things done" better than any other potential candidate. In fact, I think it's more likely a non-Trump Republican would be able to get more done because more conservative dems would be willing to sign onto things that weren't directly tied to him. You like Trump because he scratches your itches with his rhetoric, not because he's actually an effective President.

He did a great job with the wall....oh wait. What did he actually get done? He's running on the exact same platform he ran on in 2016. Seems like all the issues he promised to fix are still there, no?

It's a joke you moron. He's using a joke to point out that if you build a wall, they'll just find a way around it and there needs to be a better solution. Which is why he ends the sentence with "That won't stop this." "Can anyone ever just admit when someone says something stupid regardless if they support them politically or not instead of trying to use mental gymnastics and word play to deflect away from what they said...sheesh " CORRECT. Tim Walz clearly did not say he wanted to build ladders for illegal immigrants to climb a wall. Just admit it.

this didn’t age well lol

no he said he would *invest* in the ladder company. a normal functioning person understands that joke, but i’ll explain it to you guys. he invests in the ladder company to make money because they’ll be selling so many ladders to climb over the wall. this is so bad, man. you guys can barely speak english.

he also filed to run for congress before he found out his unit *might* get deployed.

@Husker_Du "supported George Floyd riots" another great opportunity to change your opinion when confronted with new facts

1) He literally called in the national guard. 2) not what he said. basic reading comp failure on your part here. 3) bad idea, but not seeing anything showing any significant action tied to this. people weren't getting their neighbors arrested for not wearing masks. but yeah, bad idea. 4) When? 5) This one is iffy, but on him. He was promoted to the rank he claimed, but retired before he finished the necessary training, which resulted in him being demoted at retirement 6) He retired to run for office, specifically on an anti-war message. He didn't believe in Iraq and put his money where his mouth was and voted against the war when elected. And guess what? He was right!

Well, it's not actually what happened to start. Pedophiles are not protected for their "sexual orientation" by the bill. I assume the trans lawmaker wanted to take it out because 1) it's unnecessary. pedophilia is already illegal. and this language already exists elsewhere in minnesota law. 2) people unfairly accuse trans people of being pedophiles. they don't want the word anywhere near language that is ostensibly about them. And I'm now reading that another amendment was added putting the language back in place, so this whole thing is about nothing. And Tim Walz had nothing to do with it anyway.

that's possible, but i don't see how you can say it's a given. at what point would you start to reconsider if Kamala's numbers are still good? october?

So if Kamala enters election day with a significant lead across all polls, you would still say she has a 0% chance of winning?

what would you have to see to change your mind?