Catchy song though. Notice that Melanie is at odds with husband Donald. Melania Trump seems to have joined a long line of Republican former first ladies who have come out in support of abortion rights, putting them at odds with their husbands' public views. In a short video clip promoting her forthcoming book, Mrs Trump expressed her support for women's "individual freedom", describing it as an "essential right that all women possess from birth".
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:53 am
by Currywurst and Chips
I wonder which voting group she’s worried about losing ground with
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 10:20 am
by Long slender neck
Protect their crypto investments and legalise weed? f*cking hell.
MAGA!
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 6:44 pm
by Dunners
That's racist.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 7:49 pm
by Dunners
"forgiveable loans"
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2024 7:53 pm
by Currywurst and Chips
Heh
Right out the lobbyist dictionary
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2024 12:41 am
by Adz
Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2024 9:53 am
I wonder which voting group she’s worried about losing ground with
I'm very much anti trump, but that is a awful agenda
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2024 6:35 pm
by Dunners
Looks like her divisive/identity campaign has backfired. Latest polls from CNN and early voting indicates that Harris is in trouble.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2024 6:44 pm
by Max B Gold
Dunners wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2024 6:35 pm
Looks like her divisive/identity campaign has backfired. Latest polls from CNN and early voting indicates that Harris is in trouble.
Don't worry Jonathan Ashworths electoral cunning will soon turn things around.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2024 7:19 pm
by Currywurst and Chips
Almost like they should’ve acknowledged the Biden problem instead of calling it a conspiracy theory then picked someone less unpopular and more capable
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:10 pm
by Currywurst and Chips
We’re at Trump is Hitler levels of concern
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:14 pm
by Dunners
That just comes across as desperate. Desperate shambles.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
by Give it to Jabo
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:34 pm
by oxo
Give it to Jabo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:35 pm
by RedDwarf 1881
Of course he is going to win . It was nailed on as soon as Harris was “selected “the official Democrat presidential candidate . I’ve seen some of her interviews and she’s completely out of her depth
Give it to Jabo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
In that case then maybe the Democrats should have selected somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. Also her running mate ,Walz with his stolen valour. What an abysmal pair they make
Give it to Jabo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
In that case then maybe the Democrats should have selected somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. Also her running mate ,Walz with his stolen valour. What an abysmal pair they make
In what case?
Yes, the dems are poor too, but they're not so wildly dangerous.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 6:43 pm
by Rich Tea Wellin
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:35 pm
Of course he is going to win . It was nailed on as soon as Harris was “selected “the official Democrat presidential candidate . I’ve seen some of her interviews and she’s completely out of her depth
Well, there you go people, the reddwarf seal of approval. Welcome president Harris
Give it to Jabo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
I can understand the “if you’ve got nothing” argument, but that explains but a portion of Trump’s constituency…
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 6:56 pm
by Long slender neck
I don't know how you beat Trump really. The thick are determined to vote for him no matter what and there's a lot of them.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 7:01 pm
by Give it to Jabo
Would you judge the UK to be better informed in these matters? He is not popular this side of the pond and Trump-Light Boris was seen off in the main, though of course he does have a sizeable fan base. Not only that, there was plenty of support for Farage and Reform last time around.
Give it to Jabo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:26 pm
Trump is going to win, isn’t he? Bad tactic labelling him a facist. Demonstrably true, but his supporters are going to want to defend him. Kamala should stick to the moral high ground, not sink to his tactics. People know he is a louse, but they still champion him. Can somebody explain this to me?
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
I can understand the “if you’ve got nothing” argument, but that explains but a portion of Trump’s constituency…
Oh I see.
Well you've got issues like abortion that mean the 'traditional' and often very religious right (which is a far bigger proportion of the USA than the UK) will vote for any republican candidate, however unhinged. Plus wealthy people who don't care who gets crushed under the weight of a collapsing social/economic structure as long as they don't have to pay a penny in extra tax (plenty to spare for political donations/lobbying though, obviously).
I think the “if you’ve got nothing” argument also kind of applies to cultural capital. 'Incel' types and others who feel socially cast aside (Elon Musk fanboys and all that) might also vote for a strongman/bully type, if only to spite the 'normies'.
Re: Harris v. Trump
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2024 8:39 pm
by oxo
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 5:38 pm
Also her running mate ,Walz with his stolen valour.
If you've got nothing, the politician who's willing to offer you one or more scapegoats and promises to punish them is a more appealing pick than the politician who promises to look after everybody else.
(Should probably point out that I despise him, obviously)
In that case then maybe the Democrats should have selected somebody who actually knew what they were talking about. Also her running mate ,Walz with his stolen valour. What an abysmal pair they make
In what case?
Yes, the dems are poor too, but they're not so wildly dangerous.