I guess Tiger Woods doesn't qualify as being part black either since his mom is Asian.

---

Trump did talk about that at the NABJ event, yet the untruthful MSM dreck that you so eagerly gobble up fixates on his statements about Harris, which were correct. 

You don’t want the truth, Marty. You want to hear and read what confirms your hate.

What he said about her racial identity is news.  That's why it gets reported.  

Do you really think that was wise for him to do that?  Don't you think he stepped on his own message with that one?  I know you don't like the MSM, but he served it up on a silver platter.  They can't ignore it.  

First question was from ABC News, and his answer was to attack ABC News.  He's an idiot.  He has winning issues.  He needs to stick to the winning issues no matter what.  But he can't do that because he has no self-discipline.  Any other person running on those exact same issues would win in a landslide.  You are obviously an intelligent person, and I don't know why you can't see him for what he is.

---

Harris doesn't even have to speak.  Trump will say enough stupid [BLEEP] coming into the election that he'll alienate enough people to push her into office...just like 2020.  And who wants that?

Good grief we need some actual presidential candidates.  This is worse than trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

I totally agree.  I think that's why she didn't go to the NABJ.  She doesn't need to answer questions.  She just needs to smile and wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What he said about her racial identity is news.  That's why it gets reported.  

Do you really think that was wise for him to do that?  Don't you think he stepped on his own message with that one?  I know you don't like the MSM, but he served it up on a silver platter.  They can't ignore it.  

First question was from ABC News, and his answer was to attack ABC News.  He's an idiot.  He has winning issues.  He needs to stick to the winning issues no matter what.  But he can't do that because he has no self-discipline.  Any other person running on those exact same issues would win in a landslide.  You are obviously an intelligent person, and I don't know why you can't see him for what he is.

---

I totally agree.  I think that's why she didn't go to the NABJ.  She doesn't need to answer questions.  She just needs to smile and wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

I think they had to do it for several reasons.  First, if they had dumped her, they would have had a lot of trouble with black voters, and secondly, there was a very short time before the convention, and a contested nomination could have split the party.  Was she the best choice?  Not as far as I'm concerned, but of course I am not a Democrat, and I'm not a liberal, so I obviously would have selected someone more conservative.  But keep in mind, no matter what process they followed, it would have been up to the delegates to vote on a nominee, as it still is now.  You call it an "un-democratic appointment," but what other process could they have followed?  She lined up support, and no one else jumped in to contest it.  The delegates still have to make the decision.  

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Not much that I can tell.  But that's not unusual for Presidential candidates.  

Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  

Not that I recall. 

Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?  

I think it would be a pretty straightforward question.  A good politician would take such a question, evade answering, and pivot to their talking points.  Trump can't seem to do that.  He's too thin-skinned to be a politician. 

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Yes.  As I said, all she has to do is smile, wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.  Which is exactly what has happened so far.  She has smiled, waved, given canned speeches, and the polls say she is pulling ahead.  If the Republicans had nominated anyone else, and they had run on the exact same issues, they would be winning easily.

Kamala Harris Carves Open Huge Polling Lead Over Donald Trump - Newsweek

---

What he said about her racial identity is news.  That's why it gets reported.  

Do you really think that was wise for him to do that?  Don't you think he stepped on his own message with that one?  I know you don't like the MSM, but he served it up on a silver platter.  They can't ignore it.  

First question was from ABC News, and his answer was to attack ABC News.  He's an idiot.  He has winning issues.  He needs to stick to the winning issues no matter what.  But he can't do that because he has no self-discipline.  Any other person running on those exact same issues would win in a landslide.  You are obviously an intelligent person, and I don't know why you can't see him for what he is.

---

I totally agree.  I think that's why she didn't go to the NABJ.  She doesn't need to answer questions.  She just needs to smile and wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

(1) Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

(2) What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  (3) Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

(1) With the primary contests over, yes, consolidating around Kamala without any public dissent was the best choice.  While it was possible for the delegates and donors to pick someone else, or set up a floor contest, neither group wants to expose the extent of their influence that way.  These people like being relatively anonymous and worry that they would lose both their access and their influence if they ever became more well known.  They would have loved to have the voters decide, but there was no time for that.

(2) Vice presidents and senators rarely accomplish anything.  You'd have to look at her time as a prosecutor.  You can.  I don't care.

(3) Biden apologized for the "you ain't black" comment within hours of saying it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

(1) Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

(2) What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  (3) Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

(1) With the primary contests over, yes, consolidating around Kamala without any public dissent was the best choice.  While it was possible for the delegates and donors to pick someone else, or set up a floor contest, neither group wants to expose the extent of their influence that way.  These people like being relatively anonymous and worry that they would lose both their access and their influence if they ever became more well known.  They would have loved to have the voters decide, but there was no time for that.

(2) Vice presidents and senators rarely accomplish anything.  You'd have to look at her time as a prosecutor.  You can.  I don't care.

(3) Biden apologized for the "you ain't black" comment within hours of saying it.

Thanks Marty.

---

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

I think they had to do it for several reasons.  First, if they had dumped her, they would have had a lot of trouble with black voters, and secondly, there was a very short time before the convention, and a contested nomination could have split the party.  Was she the best choice?  Not as far as I'm concerned, but of course I am not a Democrat, and I'm not a liberal, so I obviously would have selected someone more conservative.  But keep in mind, no matter what process they followed, it would have been up to the delegates to vote on a nominee, as it still is now.  You call it an "un-democratic appointment," but what other process could they have followed?  She lined up support, and no one else jumped in to contest it.  The delegates still have to make the decision.  

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Not much that I can tell.  But that's not unusual for Presidential candidates.  

Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  

Not that I recall. 

Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?  

I think it would be a pretty straightforward question.  A good politician would take such a question, evade answering, and pivot to their talking points.  Trump can't seem to do that.  He's too thin-skinned to be a politician. 

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Yes.  As I said, all she has to do is smile, wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.  Which is exactly what has happened so far.  She has smiled, waved, given canned speeches, and the polls say she is pulling ahead.  If the Republicans had nominated anyone else, and they had run on the exact same issues, they would be winning easily.

Kamala Harris Carves Open Huge Polling Lead Over Donald Trump - Newsweek

Here are a few questions for you Marty.  I hope that you will answer them honestly.

(1) Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

If your answer is somewhere along the lines of "next in line" or "serving as Vice President", why exactly was she selected?  What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

(2) What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Regarding the first part in bold, the first "question" was an attack on Trump.  (3) Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

(1) With the primary contests over, yes, consolidating around Kamala without any public dissent was the best choice.  While it was possible for the delegates and donors to pick someone else, or set up a floor contest, neither group wants to expose the extent of their influence that way.  These people like being relatively anonymous and worry that they would lose both their access and their influence if they ever became more well known.  They would have loved to have the voters decide, but there was no time for that.

(2) Vice presidents and senators rarely accomplish anything.  You'd have to look at her time as a prosecutor.  You can.  I don't care.

(3) Biden apologized for the "you ain't black" comment within hours of saying it.

I notice that you both avoided answering one of the questions.

What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

I think they had to do it for several reasons.  First, if they had dumped her, they would have had a lot of trouble with black voters, and secondly, there was a very short time before the convention, and a contested nomination could have split the party.  Was she the best choice?  Not as far as I'm concerned, but of course I am not a Democrat, and I'm not a liberal, so I obviously would have selected someone more conservative.  But keep in mind, no matter what process they followed, it would have been up to the delegates to vote on a nominee, as it still is now.  You call it an "un-democratic appointment," but what other process could they have followed?  She lined up support, and no one else jumped in to contest it.  The delegates still have to make the decision.  

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Not much that I can tell.  But that's not unusual for Presidential candidates.  

Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  

Not that I recall. 

Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?  

I think it would be a pretty straightforward question.  A good politician would take such a question, evade answering, and pivot to their talking points.  Trump can't seem to do that.  He's too thin-skinned to be a politician. 

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Yes.  As I said, all she has to do is smile, wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.  Which is exactly what has happened so far.  She has smiled, waved, given canned speeches, and the polls say she is pulling ahead.  If the Republicans had nominated anyone else, and they had run on the exact same issues, they would be winning easily.

Kamala Harris Carves Open Huge Polling Lead Over Donald Trump - Newsweek

(1) With the primary contests over, yes, consolidating around Kamala without any public dissent was the best choice.  While it was possible for the delegates and donors to pick someone else, or set up a floor contest, neither group wants to expose the extent of their influence that way.  These people like being relatively anonymous and worry that they would lose both their access and their influence if they ever became more well known.  They would have loved to have the voters decide, but there was no time for that.

(2) Vice presidents and senators rarely accomplish anything.  You'd have to look at her time as a prosecutor.  You can.  I don't care.

(3) Biden apologized for the "you ain't black" comment within hours of saying it.

I notice that you both avoided answering one of the questions.

What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

Oh, sorry, I didn't avoid that on purpose.  I believe he said he wanted someone who was eminently qualified to lead the free world.  Just kidding.  He said he wanted a black female.

So, now that I have answered your questions, what do you take from my answers?  Were they helpful to you in some way?

---

Was the un-democratic appointment of Kamala really the best choice for the democrats?  Why or why not?

I think they had to do it for several reasons.  First, if they had dumped her, they would have had a lot of trouble with black voters, and secondly, there was a very short time before the convention, and a contested nomination could have split the party.  Was she the best choice?  Not as far as I'm concerned, but of course I am not a Democrat, and I'm not a liberal, so I obviously would have selected someone more conservative.  But keep in mind, no matter what process they followed, it would have been up to the delegates to vote on a nominee, as it still is now.  You call it an "un-democratic appointment," but what other process could they have followed?  She lined up support, and no one else jumped in to contest it.  The delegates still have to make the decision.  

What exactly has Kamala accomplished?

Not much that I can tell.  But that's not unusual for Presidential candidates.  

Has the "media" ever questioned Biden as to why he told a black audience that if they didn't vote for them then "you aint black"?  

Not that I recall. 

Would that be a "question" or an "attack"?  

I think it would be a pretty straightforward question.  A good politician would take such a question, evade answering, and pivot to their talking points.  Trump can't seem to do that.  He's too thin-skinned to be a politician. 

Regarding the second part in bold, that kind of thinking could explain why she has not done a single interview or press conference since being un-democratically appointed.

Yes.  As I said, all she has to do is smile, wave, give canned speeches, and let Trump do himself in.  Which is exactly what has happened so far.  She has smiled, waved, given canned speeches, and the polls say she is pulling ahead.  If the Republicans had nominated anyone else, and they had run on the exact same issues, they would be winning easily.

Kamala Harris Carves Open Huge Polling Lead Over Donald Trump - Newsweek

(1) With the primary contests over, yes, consolidating around Kamala without any public dissent was the best choice.  While it was possible for the delegates and donors to pick someone else, or set up a floor contest, neither group wants to expose the extent of their influence that way.  These people like being relatively anonymous and worry that they would lose both their access and their influence if they ever became more well known.  They would have loved to have the voters decide, but there was no time for that.

(2) Vice presidents and senators rarely accomplish anything.  You'd have to look at her time as a prosecutor.  You can.  I don't care.

(3) Biden apologized for the "you ain't black" comment within hours of saying it.

I notice that you both avoided answering one of the questions.

What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

That would be black and a woman for $1000 Alex

That is the problem with DEI. You end up focusing on Race vs Qualifications. It is also racist because more qualified people are not getting the Jobs or positions based on their race. It's fatally flawed. Harris is not qualified to be VP and surely not president.

---

These people are used to a President who talks and looks the part..

While that administration stabs them in the back, over and over lololol

Kinda reminds me of Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House.. Thank You Sir, may I have another?!?!

Precisely why Trump needs to stop kissing up and trying to pander to the low voter percentage group / good old tried and true Democratic demographic. He needs to take the same route he did in 2016, just with a different group. He's not saying enough, not doing enough and not calling it out enough in my opinion to garner much excitement. 

His majority voter base is white non college educated men or folks in general. He needs to continue to target this demographic, just those who hate this system, who do not trust the Government as it stands, remain fiercely Independent... BUT... have had enough of the [BLEEP] between the Covid lockdowns, the stagnant growth economically and the increasingly [BLEEP] prices that keep going up at the pump and the grocery store. 

Non college educated or not. This is his group that he needs to shift his focus towards and start speaking to. This is the extra 3% - 5% he's going to wish he had in his back pocket on election day when he's out here [BLEEP] around trying to pander towards a group of people that have the Democrats DEEPLY rooted into their thought process and feelings. 

It's obvious who the media now favors. Because they did a complete 180 on Harris and now she's the [BLEEP] talk of the town. She's Queen [BLEEP] for the rest of the way now. She's going to keep getting soft ball questions and she'll have months to prepare with her buyers and teammates to actually hammer down and answer the tough questions at the final debating stage.

Trump's going to continue to get called everything under the sun. Nobody gives a [BLEEP] now in the media about his near death experience with some punk [BLEEP] kid that tried to take him out all "alone", according to the media. It's all about perception. Whether we like it or not. That is the truth of it. The average American is a [BLEEP] moron, educated or not, they're pretty much everywhere, completely embedded and embroiled with their savior's in their little fancy suits and ties. 

They know what they're doing. They are using celebrities to elevate the non informed or lazy voter, who will not do the hard work and dig up the bones and skeletons of these people. Who will refuse to follow the money of where these candidates policies are actually coming from. 

When they have Megan the Stallion out there shaking her [BLEEP], Taylor Swift out there condemning Trump (With Trump trying to publicly shame her over her music deals and money, like a [BLEEP] high schooler, instead of treating her like the bought and paid for meat puppet that she is from the left). He's just alienating himself from a group of people that were already 50/50 on him instead of speaking to the people that he needs to rein in and rein in [BLEEP] fast. 

2016 was an interesting election. You had Clinton with a little more than 3M more votes than Trump in popularity. Trump ultimately won out the rust belt and therefore won the Electoral Vote. That race came down to the usual swing vote states. Losing any combination of some of these states like Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin & Missouri could royally [BLEEP] him this year if he's not careful. Just like 2020. (We can cry rigged this, rigged that, it is what it is, on paper, he lost some of those states). 

You don't need much to win in 2024. I think his margin of victory will begin to dwindle if he doesn't tighten the [BLEEP] up and start speaking to his larger audience that's out there for the taking.

I think you're wrong about this. He needs to turn the black vote.

---

I notice that you both avoided answering one of the questions.

What were the two main criteria that Biden himself said that he wanted when selecting a running mate?

That would be black and a woman for $1000 Alex

That is the problem with DEI.  You end up focusing on Race vs Qualifications.  It is also racist because more qualified people are not getting the Jobs or positions based on their race.  It's fatally flawed. Harris is not qualified to be VP and surely not president.

The fact that Biden said he would choose a Black female implies that Harris might not have been the most qualified choice.  But it does not prove it.

And even if it proved that Harris was not the most qualified choice, it does not prove that she was unqualified.

This is why these attacks aren't landing.  Most people trace this logic instinctually.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Harris doesn't even have to speak.  Trump will say enough stupid [BLEEP] coming into the election that he'll alienate enough people to push her into office...just like 2020.  And who wants that?

Good grief we need some actual presidential candidates.  This is worse than trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

Are you suggesting Trump can win with the basement strategy?

Basement strategy only works when you have the entire media and university apparatus in your pocket.

---

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

Fact #2:  She was appointed as Vice President for what she has between her legs (or the lack thereof) and the color of her skin.

Fact #3:  As Vice President she has accomplished nothing, failed in her only major assignment as the border czar and can't keep staff around because she is almost impossible to work with.

Fact #4:  Since being un-democratically appointed as the democrat nominee for President she has refused to do any interviews or press conferences.  She sticks to speaking at perceived "safe places" like speaking to black sororities.

Why on earth would anyone with a right or sensible mind think that she would be a good President?

To contrast that, President Trump went to Harlem unscripted and was received very well.  Went to a Chik-fil-a in Atlanta again, unscripted and just talked with the people from the area.  He again was well received.  Went to see the folks in East Palestine, Ohio where a train derailment pretty much destroyed their town.  Biden never went nor did Harris.  Instead they sent Pete Buttigeg over to see how many EV charging stations they could put in at over 1 billion $ a pop.

The bottom line is that one candidate is working for the people and really cares about them.  That's ALL people regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

The other candidate only cares about herself and "breaking glass ceilings".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That would be black and a woman for $1000 Alex

That is the problem with DEI.  You end up focusing on Race vs Qualifications.  It is also racist because more qualified people are not getting the Jobs or positions based on their race.  It's fatally flawed. Harris is not qualified to be VP and surely not president.

The fact that Biden said he would choose a Black female implies that Harris might not have been the most qualified choice.  But it does not prove it.

And even if it proved that Harris was not the most qualified choice, it does not prove that she was unqualified.

This is why these attacks aren't landing.  Most people trace this logic instinctually.

In a vacuum your premise is correct, however in the real world her qualifications have been noted and anyone with two functioning braincells can see she is immensely unqualified.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

Fact #2:  She was appointed as Vice President for what she has between her legs (or the lack thereof) and the color of her skin.

Fact #3:  As Vice President she has accomplished nothing, failed in her only major assignment as the border czar and can't keep staff around because she is almost impossible to work with.

Fact #4:  Since being un-democratically appointed as the democrat nominee for President she has refused to do any interviews or press conferences.  She sticks to speaking at perceived "safe places" like speaking to black sororities.

Why on earth would anyone with a right or sensible mind think that she would be a good President?

To contrast that, President Trump went to Harlem unscripted and was received very well.  Went to a Chik-fil-a in Atlanta again, unscripted and just talked with the people from the area.  He again was well received.  Went to see the folks in East Palestine, Ohio where a train derailment pretty much destroyed their town.  Biden never went nor did Harris.  Instead they sent Pete Buttigeg over to see how many EV charging stations they could put in at over 1 billion $ a pop.

The bottom line is that one candidate is working for the people and really cares about them.  That's ALL people regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

The other candidate only cares about herself and "breaking glass ceilings".

Trump could have the cure for cancer and he'd still be down in the polls because the Democrat-led media would convince Americans cancer is actually good for you. Majority of Americans are going to vote for whomever the Demcocrat-owned media tells them to vote for no matter how unqualified, unfortunately.

---

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

Fact #2:  She was appointed as Vice President for what she has between her legs (or the lack thereof) and the color of her skin.

Fact #3:  As Vice President she has accomplished nothing, failed in her only major assignment as the border czar and can't keep staff around because she is almost impossible to work with.

Fact #4:  Since being un-democratically appointed as the democrat nominee for President she has refused to do any interviews or press conferences.  She sticks to speaking at perceived "safe places" like speaking to black sororities.

Why on earth would anyone with a right or sensible mind think that she would be a good President?

To contrast that, President Trump went to Harlem unscripted and was received very well.  Went to a Chik-fil-a in Atlanta again, unscripted and just talked with the people from the area.  He again was well received.  Went to see the folks in East Palestine, Ohio where a train derailment pretty much destroyed their town.  Biden never went nor did Harris.  Instead they sent Pete Buttigeg over to see how many EV charging stations they could put in at over 1 billion $ a pop.

The bottom line is that one candidate is working for the people and really cares about them.  That's ALL people regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

The other candidate only cares about herself and "breaking glass ceilings".

You're being a bit harsh.  
Harris hasn't accomplished much, but the reality TV star / bankrupt casino owner didn't have an impressive resume either.
Lots of people, including her allies, say she is difficult to work with, doesn't study, and blames subordinates when her lack of study bites her in the [BLEEP].  She will surely have a disfunctional cabinet.  But Trump's cabinet was the most disfunctional in living memory.  He had six communication directors, four chiefs of staff, four press secretaries, four secretaries of homeland security, and four national security advisors.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

Fact #2:  She was appointed as Vice President for what she has between her legs (or the lack thereof) and the color of her skin.

Fact #3:  As Vice President she has accomplished nothing, failed in her only major assignment as the border czar and can't keep staff around because she is almost impossible to work with.

Fact #4:  Since being un-democratically appointed as the democrat nominee for President she has refused to do any interviews or press conferences.  She sticks to speaking at perceived "safe places" like speaking to black sororities.

Why on earth would anyone with a right or sensible mind think that she would be a good President?

To contrast that, President Trump went to Harlem unscripted and was received very well.  Went to a Chik-fil-a in Atlanta again, unscripted and just talked with the people from the area.  He again was well received.  Went to see the folks in East Palestine, Ohio where a train derailment pretty much destroyed their town.  Biden never went nor did Harris.  Instead they sent Pete Buttigeg over to see how many EV charging stations they could put in at over 1 billion $ a pop.

The bottom line is that one candidate is working for the people and really cares about them.  That's ALL people regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

The other candidate only cares about herself and "breaking glass ceilings".

You're being a bit harsh.  
Harris hasn't accomplished much, but the reality TV star / bankrupt casino owner didn't have an impressive resume either.
Lots of people, including her allies, say she is difficult to work with, doesn't study, and blames subordinates when her lack of study bites her in the [BLEEP].  She will surely have a disfunctional cabinet.  But Trump's cabinet was the most disfunctional in living memory.  He had six communication directors, four chiefs of staff, four press secretaries, four secretaries of homeland security, and four national security advisors.

And about half of them say he should never be President again.

---

That would be black and a woman for $1000 Alex

That is the problem with DEI.  You end up focusing on Race vs Qualifications.  It is also racist because more qualified people are not getting the Jobs or positions based on their race.  It's fatally flawed. Harris is not qualified to be VP and surely not president.

The fact that Biden said he would choose a Black female implies that Harris might not have been the most qualified choice.  But it does not prove it.

And even if it proved that Harris was not the most qualified choice, it does not prove that she was unqualified.

This is why these attacks aren't landing.  Most people trace this logic instinctually.

Or people like you who are blind to it.

She ran for president and was kicked out of the race before any major event due to her unpopularity.  She is partner to the same failed current administration.  She supports millions of immigrants coming in and wants to give them free healthcare and other crazy nonsense.  Her record speaks for itself.

---

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-HnhapRp...kzZ29reWFl

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Precisely why Trump needs to stop kissing up and trying to pander to the low voter percentage group / good old tried and true Democratic demographic. He needs to take the same route he did in 2016, just with a different group. He's not saying enough, not doing enough and not calling it out enough in my opinion to garner much excitement. 

His majority voter base is white non college educated men or folks in general. He needs to continue to target this demographic, just those who hate this system, who do not trust the Government as it stands, remain fiercely Independent... BUT... have had enough of the [BLEEP] between the Covid lockdowns, the stagnant growth economically and the increasingly [BLEEP] prices that keep going up at the pump and the grocery store. 

Non college educated or not. This is his group that he needs to shift his focus towards and start speaking to. This is the extra 3% - 5% he's going to wish he had in his back pocket on election day when he's out here [BLEEP] around trying to pander towards a group of people that have the Democrats DEEPLY rooted into their thought process and feelings. 

It's obvious who the media now favors. Because they did a complete 180 on Harris and now she's the [BLEEP] talk of the town. She's Queen [BLEEP] for the rest of the way now. She's going to keep getting soft ball questions and she'll have months to prepare with her buyers and teammates to actually hammer down and answer the tough questions at the final debating stage.

Trump's going to continue to get called everything under the sun. Nobody gives a [BLEEP] now in the media about his near death experience with some punk [BLEEP] kid that tried to take him out all "alone", according to the media. It's all about perception. Whether we like it or not. That is the truth of it. The average American is a [BLEEP] moron, educated or not, they're pretty much everywhere, completely embedded and embroiled with their savior's in their little fancy suits and ties. 

They know what they're doing. They are using celebrities to elevate the non informed or lazy voter, who will not do the hard work and dig up the bones and skeletons of these people. Who will refuse to follow the money of where these candidates policies are actually coming from. 

When they have Megan the Stallion out there shaking her [BLEEP], Taylor Swift out there condemning Trump (With Trump trying to publicly shame her over her music deals and money, like a [BLEEP] high schooler, instead of treating her like the bought and paid for meat puppet that she is from the left). He's just alienating himself from a group of people that were already 50/50 on him instead of speaking to the people that he needs to rein in and rein in [BLEEP] fast. 

2016 was an interesting election. You had Clinton with a little more than 3M more votes than Trump in popularity. Trump ultimately won out the rust belt and therefore won the Electoral Vote. That race came down to the usual swing vote states. Losing any combination of some of these states like Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin & Missouri could royally [BLEEP] him this year if he's not careful. Just like 2020. (We can cry rigged this, rigged that, it is what it is, on paper, he lost some of those states). 

You don't need much to win in 2024. I think his margin of victory will begin to dwindle if he doesn't tighten the [BLEEP] up and start speaking to his larger audience that's out there for the taking.

I think you're wrong about this. He needs to turn the black vote.

We'll see. Hopefully I am wrong in November. I think it's historically a lost cause at this point.

---

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

Fact #2:  She was appointed as Vice President for what she has between her legs (or the lack thereof) and the color of her skin.

Fact #3:  As Vice President she has accomplished nothing, failed in her only major assignment as the border czar and can't keep staff around because she is almost impossible to work with.

Fact #4:  Since being un-democratically appointed as the democrat nominee for President she has refused to do any interviews or press conferences.  She sticks to speaking at perceived "safe places" like speaking to black sororities.

Why on earth would anyone with a right or sensible mind think that she would be a good President?

To contrast that, President Trump went to Harlem unscripted and was received very well.  Went to a Chik-fil-a in Atlanta again, unscripted and just talked with the people from the area.  He again was well received.  Went to see the folks in East Palestine, Ohio where a train derailment pretty much destroyed their town.  Biden never went nor did Harris.  Instead they sent Pete Buttigeg over to see how many EV charging stations they could put in at over 1 billion $ a pop.

The bottom line is that one candidate is working for the people and really cares about them.  That's ALL people regardless of skin color or ethnicity.

The other candidate only cares about herself and "breaking glass ceilings".

Trump could have the cure for cancer and he'd still be down in the polls because the Democrat-led media would convince Americans cancer is actually good for you. Majority of Americans are going to vote for whomever the Demcocrat-owned media tells them to vote for no matter how unqualified, unfortunately.

Agreed. Most folks, again, just lazy and unwilling to look into things. Your typical voter is going to go along with whatever the media tells them to do. Perception is King. Which the media paints and projects accordingly to fit it's agenda.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

So I think that we have established a few facts.

Fact #1:  Kamala Harris has accomplished nothing in her political career.

You're being a bit harsh idiotic.  

FIFY

---