My thoughts for what they are worth….

[tvc184]

I have almost completely avoided commenting on the election in these forums. I have avoided most politics threads.

So with it over, these are my thoughts.

The Democrats are all about identity politics, period.  Not only about identity of potential voters but about candidates. That doomed them.

They have twice chosen a female to run with their banner but was either the best candidate or even the best woman candidate? No.

Clinton’s primary was rigged and Harris had no primary. When Harris ran in 2020 she could not even muster the support to win a single delegate. Let that sink in. The Democrats resoundingly rejected Harris four years ago. 

In my opinion the Democrats through Clinton, created Trump. In a normal election Trump should never have stood a chance in 2016 but against one of the worst candidates in history, the coronation of the first woman president didn’t happen. 

Was Clinton the best Democrat in the country? It only came down to a socialist in Bernie Sanders and “the first woman”. Why didn’t anyone (big names) else run?  It isn’t rocket science. The fix for Clinton and the super delegates was in. No Democrat with future aspirations would dare jump in and risk a defeat. 

Jump to 2024 and it was rigged again to break the glass ceiling. Of course someone could ignore that it was kind of a shock that Biden dropped out after he had secured the nomination but in smoke filled rooms this was the plan all along. Harris could not run against her boss so the Dems had to back him but then a couple of months before the election, force him out and install Harris without having her run. They hoped the bump would hold but it started fading quickly. They couldn’t wait to name her however because the DNC convention was looming and the call behind the scenes was forced in order for Harris to basically be selected (not elected) unopposed st the convention. It was now or never. Like Clinton, was Harris the best Democrat candidate? I think the result last night was a resounding no.

So who best Harris? According to the Democrats it was a guy who had the baggage of…

Orangeman bad

Mean tweets

Twice impeached

Convicted on felonies

Sued for issues many years ago

Insurrectionist

Abortion rights removal by the Supreme Court and Trump appointed justices 

Fascist

Hitler

Garbage

Will overturn the Constitution on his first day in office

A threat to democracy 

Etc.

 And yet, Harris got thumped. How could anyone think that Trump could win with such (claimed) baggage… but he did.

 That tells you how bad and delusional the Democrats are. With all of the baggage, how could the Democrat candidate not have won a record breaking landslide like Reagan in 1984?

Easy. By selecting a person based on boxes checked.

 The Democrats created Donald Trump and their internally rigged elections have come back to them. 

 This was not a Donald Trump win. It was a resounding Democrat loss. 

[HuntersLaptop2028]

Blue hairs will scream that Kamala wasn’t progressive enough, get their way, and lose in a bigger landslide in 2028

the goal is to make as much money in the meantime before it all burns down and inflation picks back up 

[baddog]

13 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I have almost completely avoided commenting on the election in these forums. I have avoided most politics threads.

So with it over, these are my thoughts.

The Democrats are all about identity politics, period.  Not only about identity of potential voters but about candidates. That doomed them.

They have twice chosen a female to run with their banner but was either the best candidate or even the best woman candidate? No.

Clinton’s primary was rigged and Harris had no primary. When Harris ran in 2020 she could not even muster the support to win a single delegate. Let that sink in. The Democrats resoundingly rejected Harris four years ago. 

In my opinion the Democrats through Clinton, created Trump. In a normal election Trump should never have stood a chance in 2016 but against one of the worst candidates in history, the coronation of the first woman president didn’t happen. 

Was Clinton the best Democrat in the country? It only came down to a socialist in Bernie Sanders and “the first woman”. Why didn’t anyone (big names) else run?  It isn’t rocket science. The fix for Clinton and the super delegates was in. No Democrat with future aspirations would dare jump in and risk a defeat. 

Jump to 2024 and it was rigged again to break the glass ceiling. Of course someone could ignore that it was kind of a shock that Biden dropped out after he had secured the nomination but in smoke filled rooms this was the plan all along. Harris could not run against her boss so the Dems had to back him but then a couple of months before the election, force him out and install Harris without having her run. They hoped the bump would hold but it started fading quickly. They couldn’t wait to name her however because the DNC convention was looming and the call behind the scenes was forced in order for Harris to basically be selected (not elected) unopposed st the convention. It was now or never. Like Clinton, was Harris the best Democrat candidate? I think the result last night was a resounding no.

So who best Harris? According to the Democrats it was a guy who had the baggage of…

Orangeman bad

Mean tweets

Twice impeached

Convicted on felonies

Sued for issues many years ago

Insurrectionist

Abortion rights removal by the Supreme Court and Trump appointed justices 

Fascist

Hitler

Garbage

Will overturn the Constitution on his first day in office

A threat to democracy 

Etc.

 And yet, Harris got thumped. How could anyone think that Trump could win with such (claimed) baggage… but he did.

 That tells you how bad and delusional the Democrats are. With all of the baggage, how could the Democrat candidate not have won a record breaking landslide like Reagan in 1984?

Easy. By selecting a person based on boxes checked.

 The Democrats created Donald Trump and their internally rigged elections have come back to them. 

 This was not a Donald Trump win. It was a resounding Democrat loss. 

Out of likes…..excellent post.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I have almost completely avoided commenting on the election in these forums. I have avoided most politics threads.

So with it over, these are my thoughts.

The Democrats are all about identity politics, period.  Not only about identity of potential voters but about candidates. That doomed them.

They have twice chosen a female to run with their banner but was either the best candidate or even the best woman candidate? No.

Clinton’s primary was rigged and Harris had no primary. When Harris ran in 2020 she could not even muster the support to win a single delegate. Let that sink in. The Democrats resoundingly rejected Harris four years ago. 

In my opinion the Democrats through Clinton, created Trump. In a normal election Trump should never have stood a chance in 2016 but against one of the worst candidates in history, the coronation of the first woman president didn’t happen. 

Was Clinton the best Democrat in the country? It only came down to a socialist in Bernie Sanders and “the first woman”. Why didn’t anyone (big names) else run?  It isn’t rocket science. The fix for Clinton and the super delegates was in. No Democrat with future aspirations would dare jump in and risk a defeat. 

Jump to 2024 and it was rigged again to break the glass ceiling. Of course someone could ignore that it was kind of a shock that Biden dropped out after he had secured the nomination but in smoke filled rooms this was the plan all along. Harris could not run against her boss so the Dems had to back him but then a couple of months before the election, force him out and install Harris without having her run. They hoped the bump would hold but it started fading quickly. They couldn’t wait to name her however because the DNC convention was looming and the call behind the scenes was forced in order for Harris to basically be selected (not elected) unopposed st the convention. It was now or never. Like Clinton, was Harris the best Democrat candidate? I think the result last night was a resounding no.

So who best Harris? According to the Democrats it was a guy who had the baggage of…

Orangeman bad

Mean tweets

Twice impeached

Convicted on felonies

Sued for issues many years ago

Insurrectionist

Abortion rights removal by the Supreme Court and Trump appointed justices 

Fascist

Hitler

Garbage

Will overturn the Constitution on his first day in office

A threat to democracy 

Etc.

 And yet, Harris got thumped. How could anyone think that Trump could win with such (claimed) baggage… but he did.

 That tells you how bad and delusional the Democrats are. With all of the baggage, how could the Democrat candidate not have won a record breaking landslide like Reagan in 1984?

Easy. By selecting a person based on boxes checked.

 The Democrats created Donald Trump and their internally rigged elections have come back to them. 

 This was not a Donald Trump win. It was a resounding Democrat loss. 

Good post, but I also think Harris, as unpopular as she was, seemed to indicate she was ok with the last 4 years and would even carry on, so she was having to overcome more than just a very unlikable personality, she was dragging around a horrible record AND saying she couldn't think of anything she'd change.

I also think this was a Donald Trump win, many folks liked how the country was going during his term and would like to see that time return.

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I have almost completely avoided commenting on the election in these forums. I have avoided most politics threads.

So with it over, these are my thoughts.

The Democrats are all about identity politics, period.  Not only about identity of potential voters but about candidates. That doomed them.

They have twice chosen a female to run with their banner but was either the best candidate or even the best woman candidate? No.

Clinton’s primary was rigged and Harris had no primary. When Harris ran in 2020 she could not even muster the support to win a single delegate. Let that sink in. The Democrats resoundingly rejected Harris four years ago. 

In my opinion the Democrats through Clinton, created Trump. In a normal election Trump should never have stood a chance in 2016 but against one of the worst candidates in history, the coronation of the first woman president didn’t happen. 

Was Clinton the best Democrat in the country? It only came down to a socialist in Bernie Sanders and “the first woman”. Why didn’t anyone (big names) else run?  It isn’t rocket science. The fix for Clinton and the super delegates was in. No Democrat with future aspirations would dare jump in and risk a defeat. 

Jump to 2024 and it was rigged again to break the glass ceiling. Of course someone could ignore that it was kind of a shock that Biden dropped out after he had secured the nomination but in smoke filled rooms this was the plan all along. Harris could not run against her boss so the Dems had to back him but then a couple of months before the election, force him out and install Harris without having her run. They hoped the bump would hold but it started fading quickly. They couldn’t wait to name her however because the DNC convention was looming and the call behind the scenes was forced in order for Harris to basically be selected (not elected) unopposed st the convention. It was now or never. Like Clinton, was Harris the best Democrat candidate? I think the result last night was a resounding no.

So who best Harris? According to the Democrats it was a guy who had the baggage of…

Orangeman bad

Mean tweets

Twice impeached

Convicted on felonies

Sued for issues many years ago

Insurrectionist

Abortion rights removal by the Supreme Court and Trump appointed justices 

Fascist

Hitler

Garbage

Will overturn the Constitution on his first day in office

A threat to democracy 

Etc.

 And yet, Harris got thumped. How could anyone think that Trump could win with such (claimed) baggage… but he did.

 That tells you how bad and delusional the Democrats are. With all of the baggage, how could the Democrat candidate not have won a record breaking landslide like Reagan in 1984?

Easy. By selecting a person based on boxes checked.

 The Democrats created Donald Trump and their internally rigged elections have come back to them. 

 This was not a Donald Trump win. It was a resounding Democrat loss. 

He didn't win like Reagan. I think Reagan won every state but one. She is a black woman in America. They were not ready. Mondale won 13 electoral votes. She had over 200.

 

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, HuntersLaptop2028 said:

Blue hairs will scream that Kamala wasn’t progressive enough, get their way, and lose in a bigger landslide in 2028

the goal is to make as much money in the meantime before it all burns down and inflation picks back up 

Black men and Latinos smh

[BS Wildcats]

11 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Black men and Latinos smh

Again, they are smarter than you!!

[tvc184]

Another thought to ponder.

 The Democrats hate to lose (who doesn’t) but they are willing to legally “cheat” the system in order to gain their agenda.

Our government was created to make enacting laws and changing the Constitution difficult. Both houses and especially the Senate have rules in place to protect from a congressional dictatorship or monopoly. By the Constitution, each house can make or change its own rules.

 The Senate rules allow for a filibuster or continued talk by a senator who is not limited in time like the House Representatives are.

Over 100 years ago the Senate enacted a rule called Cloture. If 60 senators voted to end a debate or filibuster, they could. So basically it only takes 51 votes as a simply majority in the Senate to pass a bill but it takes 60 to force a vote. So even a minority party might still be able to prevent a bill from passing or at least until they get a compromise.

The only way out of Cloture requirement “without” a 60 vote majority required, is the nuclear option. It is a loophole in the Senate rules in order to get around the rules.

Obama was having a hard time getting his progressive judge nominations passed by the Senate due to the Republicans not agreeing to enact Cloture. The Republicans were blocking many Obama nominated judges from taking office. That is the system, however.

Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader threatened to use the nuclear option if Republicans kept using their authority to hold up the vote. Reid was warned by the Republicans to play by the rules and not use the nuclear option which was legal but a direct overriding of the Senate rules. Reid was told that the Democrats would not be in office forever and if they used it to get federal judges passed, so would the Republicans in a future Congress. Reid said to heck with it and used the option. They got some federal judges approved. 

Fast forward to Trump’s first term. The Republicans took over the Senate but did not have the 60 votes to enact Cloture  and get Trump‘s Supreme Court nominees passed. Guess what?

Yep, the Republicans used the nuclear option to get Gorsuch,  Kavanaugh and Barrett put on the Court. The Dems cried, we didn’t want THOSE federal justices confirmed with the nuclear option. We just wanted OUR federal judges to be confirmed that way. Oops!

Oh well, you were warned. So to the Dems complaining about the current Court ruling against their wishes….. you can thank the Senate Democrats. 

So a little over a year ago, the Democrats in the Senate wanted to change the rules and completely eliminate the filibuster. That would mean that in any future Congress, a mere 51 vote, simple majority could enact any law in the Senate. Only Democratic Senator Joe Manchin voted no and did not support the other Democrats. He believed that the rules were in place for a reason and it should apply to everyone. He knew that the Democrats would not always be in charge and they would pay the price later like they already have. So by one vote the filibuster was maintained as a Senate rule.

Most recently, Kamala Harris suggested using the nuclear option for abortions on demand. Okkkayyyyyy…….

So now, since the end of the filibuster was defeated by Manchin, Harris believes that any law is not subject to the filibuster simply by using the nuclear option on everything. If you don’t like the way of vote would go and you don’t want to compromise with the other party, simply vote on it with the nuclear option!! Of course Harris thought that she would win so if there was a tie in the Senate, Walz would be the tiebreaker just asc shecwas.  Oops!

So now the Republicans have Senate. It appears that they may take the House. If they control both houses, they could have now pass any bill into law with single vote in both houses and Trump would likely sign it, had Harris and the Democrats gotten they way.. 

Luckily for the Democrats, Joe Machin prevented that future disaster.

Remember that there was talk of stacking the Supreme Court by the Democrats adding more members like maybe a 15 justice Court. The Democrats don’t like to play by the rules, but as always happens, the ball eventually goes to the other side of the court.

Oops, now the ball is in Trump’s side of the court. If the Democrats had gotten their way, Trump could start enacting any law that he wished with almost no repercussions.

I wonder how the Democrats would have liked that?
 

 

 

[bullets13]

Here’s a thought for you: I have 3 good Mexican friends who were brought into the country illegally as children.  Through the dreamer act they were able to go through the process legally to become US citizens.  It was a long process, and this was the first election they were able to vote in.  All three are hard workers and make pretty good money, and subsequently pay a lot of taxes.  All three voted for Trump.  It appears that the left’s attempt to flood the country with new voters is starting to backfire.  It seems that even immigrants, once they become legal and pay taxes and come off the govt teat are trending towards being somewhat conservative. I talked to one of them tonight and he told me “we worked hard to get where we are, and we don’t want them just letting everyone in either.”  And apparently to some degree this is happening with black voters as well.  When you work hard to get to where you are it’s a lot less appealing to give large chunks of your money to those who refuse to help themselves. The irony is that without a doubt DEI initiatives created some newly financially stable voters who don’t like the idea of their earned money being taken from them and redistributed to those who don’t work.  1 in 4 black males in Georgia voted for Trump.  60% of Latinos in Michigan voted for Trump. Those are incredible numbers! 

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Evidence

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Here’s a thought for you: I have 3 good Mexican friends who were brought into the country illegally as children.  Through the dreamer act they were able to go through the process legally to become US citizens.  It was a long process, and this was the first election they were able to vote in.  All three are hard workers and make pretty good money, and subsequently pay a lot of taxes.  All three voted for Trump.  It appears that the left’s attempt to flood the country with new voters is starting to backfire.  It seems that even immigrants, once they become legal and pay taxes and come off the govt teat are trending towards being somewhat conservative. I talked to one of them tonight and he told me “we worked hard to get where we are, and we don’t want them just letting everyone in either.”  And apparently to some degree this is happening with black voters as well.  When you work hard to get to where you are it’s a lot less appealing to give large chunks of your money to those who refuse to help themselves. The irony is that without a doubt DEI initiatives created some newly financially stable voters who don’t like the idea of their earned money being taken from them and redistributed to those who don’t work.  1 in 4 black males in Georgia voted for Trump.  60% of Latinos in Michigan voted for Trump. Those are incredible numbers! 

So they don’t want to be in that crab bucket….

[Big girl]

12 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Here’s a thought for you: I have 3 good Mexican friends who were brought into the country illegally as children.  Through the dreamer act they were able to go through the process legally to become US citizens.  It was a long process, and this was the first election they were able to vote in.  All three are hard workers and make pretty good money, and subsequently pay a lot of taxes.  All three voted for Trump.  It appears that the left’s attempt to flood the country with new voters is starting to backfire.  It seems that even immigrants, once they become legal and pay taxes and come off the govt teat are trending towards being somewhat conservative. I talked to one of them tonight and he told me “we worked hard to get where we are, and we don’t want them just letting everyone in either.”  And apparently to some degree this is happening with black voters as well.  When you work hard to get to where you are it’s a lot less appealing to give large chunks of your money to those who refuse to help themselves. The irony is that without a doubt DEI initiatives created some newly financially stable voters who don’t like the idea of their earned money being taken from them and redistributed to those who don’t work.  1 in 4 black males in Georgia voted for Trump.  60% of Latinos in Michigan voted for Trump. Those are incredible numbers! 

How do they feel about the program not being available to other people like them? Article from 2017

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SmashMouth]

5 minutes ago, Big girl said:

How do they feel about the program not being available to other people like them?

Ma'am. They voted for Trump.

[Big girl]

5 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Ma'am. They voted for Trump.

So, they don't care if others are adversely affected, as long as they got there's.  So sad

[LumRaiderFan]

10 minutes ago, Big girl said:

So, they don't care if others are adversely affected, as long as they got there's.  So sad

You didn't seem to care that taxpayers paid off your school loan, as long as you got yours, smh.

[Big girl]

9 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

You didn't seem to care that taxpayers paid off your school loan, as long as you got yours, smh.

I paid 3x more than I borrowed, so get over it. It was predatory lending.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I paid 3x more than I borrowed, so get over it. It was predatory lending.

Predatory lending, smh, always the victim.

Student loan payoffs cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars, but hey, you got yours.

Apparently, you have no concern about how that adversely affects others.

[thetragichippy]

Just now, Big girl said:

It was predatory lending.

It was you signing and agreeing to terms and conditions you either: A. Didn't read  B: Didn't understand  😄 Didn't care what it said

I made a similar mistake when I was young. I signed a construction contract when I built my home. I did not check the box that I would retain 10% of each draw to general contractor. I didn't read the why I should or shouldn't check it. If I would of read it, when I fired my GC, had I checked it, any bills he didn't pay I would only have to distribute the 10% I kept. It would of saved me 7K in legal fees.  I did not blame "predatory lending" - I blamed MYSELF, because I was a grown man who signed a contract.......

You should hold yourself to the same standard..... 

[SmashMouth]

17 hours ago, Big girl said:

She is a black woman in America.

At best you can only use the argument that "She is a woman in America". There has been a black president, so take that lame excuse off the table; however, there has never been a woman president, so technically there is at least an argument for that. Also, Trump garnered  more of the black vote than anyone could've imagined - race is not the issue. In my honest opinion, I don't think being a woman had anything to do with it. Some 54 percent of female voters cast their ballots for Harris, according to exit polls. But Joe Biden won the support of 57 percent of women in 2020. So why did a black woman candidate lose 3% from the numbers her boss posted (a bumbling old white guy)? Because MOST people are tired of inflation outpacing wages. Because MOST people don't agree with the far left policies that the Biden/Harris administration executive ordered down our throats for nearly 4 years (and remember, Harris is further left than Biden). Because MOST people think the border policies of the Biden/Harris administration are catastrophic failures and harmful to Americans. Here's the real kicker...Because MOST people remember how much better off they and the country were when the previous Trump administration was in office vs. the Biden/Harris administration. It was a referendum. It has little to do with being a "black woman in America". It has everything to do with being tied to a failed administration and claiming on "The View" that she would not have done anything differently than the Biden/Harris administration if she were elected president.

[SmashMouth]

38 minutes ago, Big girl said:

So, they don't care if others are adversely affected, as long as they got there's.  So sad

Reminds me of loan forgiveness recipients...

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Predatory lending, smh, always the victim.

Student loan payoffs cost upwards of 1 trillion dollars, but hey, you got yours.

Apparently, you have no concern about how that adversely affects others.

That's only if the government paid 10000 to everyone who had a student loan. Mine was forgiven because of the number of qualifying payments I made. Borrowed 27000 owed 26000 after 26 years. My coworker borrowed 28000, she owns 250000 after 29 years. Some people owe more than they borrowed.

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Reminds me of loan forgiveness recipients...

Hell all of my friends got their loan forgiven. We all celebrated together.🫠🫠🫠🫠. The people who prospered under DACA should want the program to help others like it helped them, but Trump is going to put a stop to it.

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, Big girl said:

That's only if the government paid 10000 to everyone who had a student loan. Mine was forgiven because of the number of qualifying payments I made. Borrowed 27000 owed 26000 after 26 years. My coworker borrowed 28000, she owns 250000 after 29 years. Some people owe more than they borrowed.

Some folks actually paid theirs off, imagine that.

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Reminds me of loan forgiveness recipients...

Loan forgiveness was for companies to pay business expenses when local governments made them close. The loans were not forgiven if they could not provide proof of what the finds were spent on....AND that was agreed upon before loan was funded.

[Big girl]

7 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Loan forgiveness was for companies to pay business expenses when local governments made them close. The loans were not forgiven if they could not provide proof of what the finds were spent on....AND that was agreed upon before loan was funded.

What?