We Must Have Donald Trump As President Because Kamala Harris Is A Communist And Joe Biden Is A Communist Stooge And They Will Let Communists And Anarchists Destroy America

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  68 comments

We Must Have Donald Trump As President Because Kamala Harris Is A Communist And Joe Biden Is A Communist Stooge And They Will Let Communists And Anarchists Destroy America
Trump is becoming like a cornered rat, as are his supporters by osmosis. They have little in the way of Trump accomplishments  , that would appeal to anyone outside of his 35 - 40% base, to brag about in this campaign. They are losing, in some polls by a considerable margin, and are down to fear mongering in the worst tradition of Joseph McCarthy, a man whose memory Donald Trump admires.

We MUST Have Donald Trump As President Because Kamala Harris Is A Communist And Joe Biden Is A Communist Stooge And They Will Let Communists And Anarchists Destroy America

This is , at long last, what it has come down to for the Trump campaign and it's army of faithful followers. Interestingly, it is BECAUSE Trump strategists know that Biden and Harris are not radicals that the Trumpsters call them radicals.  The reality of it does not exist, so they must create the perception. If Harris and Biden were committed leftists there would be a history of it. There is none. Trumpism wants to create a fictional history of socialist and communist connections to the Democratic ticket. 

Joe Biden had been in the Senate or the vice presidency for 43 years. Never once in that long period was he considered a radical. It is ludicrous to say that Biden will lean toward socialism or communism. 

Kamala Harris became a government prosecutor one year after she graduated from law school, and held criminal justice positions in California up until the time she entered the U.S. Congress. Here is her wikipedia page.   There is nothing on there about Harris being a member of a subversive, radical, socialist or communist organization. Ever. She spent her entire career prosecuting criminals or managing the Attorney General of California's office, or in the US Senate. These are establishment positions, not radical ones. Harris is a member of the establishment, you know the people socialists and communists oppose. 

Trump is becoming like a cornered rat, as are his supporters by osmosis. They have little in the way of Trump accomplishments  , that would appeal to anyone outside of his 35 - 40% base, to brag about in this campaign. They are losing, in some polls by a considerable margin, and are down to fear mongering in the worst tradition of Joseph McCarthy, a man whose memory Donald Trump admires. Indeed one of Trump's best friends and confidantes and henchmen was the infamous Roy Cohn, who was Joseph McCarthy's legal attack dog.  Trump does not hesitate to employ McCarthy-like tactics, and by all appearances he loves to do so. 

I don't really expect Trump loyalists to stop with this insanity, in a sense it is now all they know. It is up to the rest of us to turn out to the polls in mass and send this atrocity known as Trumpism into the political version of the pits of hell. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

There are no depths to which Trump and his committed followers will not sink. 

 
 
 
JBB
2  JBB    3 weeks ago

Trump's campaign for reelection basically rests upon name calling and the misdefinition of words. SMH...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JBB @2    3 weeks ago
Trump's campaign for reelection basically rests upon name calling and the misdefinition of words. SMH..

That's all it was 4 years ago, and that's all he has this year.

"Vote for me or the world will end."

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    3 weeks ago

I think it is more like vote for me or the malcontents will steal your wealth.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
I think it is more like vote for me or the malcontents will steal your wealth.

2 of the Last 3 GOP Presidents Signed Larger Tax Increases Than Obamacare

CHeQhvLWcAAvfRA-1.png

Next lie???

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

I thought republicans wanted lower taxes you are telling me they want higher taxes interesting.The current crop of democrats want to raise taxes and tax wealth that will lead to a slow down in the economy.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

The stock market, at this point, has already factored in a potential Biden presidency.  The net message is that losing Trump is not a big concern.   Taxes certainly will be raised at some point, but until there is some clarity on the balance of power and the nature of Biden-administration legislation, I would not expect much of a change based on the presidential election itself.

If Biden is elected and the Senate remains R, we will have a conflicted dynamic that will make it difficult to make significant changes.   If the Senate goes D (and presuming the House remains D) then biting taxation will be a serious concern and it will likely have a negative effect on the economy.   The forces underlying the deals made to rally the various factions of the Ds behind Biden will be able to manifest into some legislation and the economy will take a hit.   Good might come out of it (e.g. a sensible, responsible energy policy), but the economy will certainly suffer.

I would prefer, in 2021 that is, to see Biden as PotUS with an R Congress.  That way the great many unknowns of a Biden-Harris administration will have a serious check to help prevent destabilizing movements and the nation will be rid of Trump.   I suspect that I will favor near gridlock until we see a marked improvement in the quality of those we elect to be in charge.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  MUVA @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
I thought republicans wanted lower taxes you are telling me they want higher taxes interesting.

I'm not "saying" it, I am providing historical facts.  Also, Republicans only want lower taxes for the wealthy, not for anyone else, as their tax cuts show.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    3 weeks ago
If the Senate goes D (and presuming the House remains D) then biting taxation will be a serious concern and it will likely have a negative effect on the economy. 

Increased spending on green infrastructure investments would boost the economy. 

The general rule is that taxes are pretty much neutral for the economy. The money that is withdrawn being reinjected.

Emmanuel Saez has shown that the most efficient tax rate is around 70%, and that below 90% taxes do not brake the economy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.6    3 weeks ago
Increased spending on green infrastructure investments would boost the economy. 

I agree.   My point was that we do not know what will actually happen if both the Executive and Legislative branches are D given the factions at play in 2021.   That is, I cannot go by what I think Biden (the individual) would naturally do because I am confident that he has made deals to rally support behind him.   If Congress is fully D in 2021 we have an unchecked system given the prevalence of power-hungry partisans and the absence of states-persons.   To wit, given we do not and will not have states-persons, the most effective check remains to be the partisan opposition check.

The general rule is that taxes are pretty much neutral for the economy. The money that is withdrawn being reinjected.

Depends on who is taxed and the amount of taxation.   In general principle, taxing consumers will diminish demand; taxing businesses will diminish supply.   In reality this is a very complex, nuanced matter so I have just stated the most basic principles.   We do not know what specific taxation might take place, but I would bet on an unsophisticated tax that affects businesses and the middle class.   I would be surprised if Congress had the balls to tax the aristocracy of the USA in a meaningful way but it would be good to see some movement in that area since that is one measure to mitigate runaway capitalism (the rare spikes of incredible success that results in leverage multipliers which produce extreme wealth measured in the tens of billions).    Again, I doubt Congress has the balls (other than a short-term, sunsetted tax), so we will likely see taxation that goes after the far less wealthy masses who have shown to endure this (and oddly defend runaway capitalism) with no real consequences to Congress.

Emmanuel Saez has shown that the most efficient tax rate is around 70%, and that below 90% taxes do not brake the economy.

To be clear, you are speaking of a tax rate on the top 0.1%.   Taxing the uber rich will have little impact on the economy.   I am not concerned with the upper tax rate but rather taxes on the middle and upper classes (the masses which lack direct pathological political influence).

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.8  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

They aren't going to stop at the uber wealthy  democrats have already indicated that people making as little as 350,000 a year will take in the shorts.If people in this country want European style government they are going to have to pay for it like they do in Europe. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.8    3 weeks ago

As I noted:

TiG @2.1.7Again, I doubt Congress has the balls (other than a short-term, sunsetted tax), so we will likely see taxation that goes after the far less wealthy masses who have shown to endure this (and oddly defend runaway capitalism) with no real consequences to Congress.

I think we are making the same observation.

If people in this country want European style government they are going to have to pay for it like they do in Europe. 

Correct, social democracy requires higher taxation (businesses and individuals) to fund the social programs.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.10  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

But a good portion of democrats think it only the Jones's that will pay they will see they are mistaken. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
To be clear, you are speaking of a tax rate on the top 0.1%. 

No. On the top tax bracket. Top 15% if there are six brackets. A tax must be applied to a large enough population, if it is to be efficient.

Politically, a rate at 70% is inaccessible. But Saiz's work is important because it explodes the myth that "the rich would just stop!" 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    3 weeks ago
social democracy requires higher taxation (businesses and individuals) to fund the social programs.

True. This is a feature, not a bug. 

Higher taxes make redistribution simpler. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.11    3 weeks ago
No.

Yes, the 70%-90% is regarding the top bracket.

I was not saying that taxation itself would ONLY be applied at the top bracket but that your percentage, per Saez, applied only to the top bracket.   He has made other statements such as 75% applied to the top 1%.   Point is, he is talking about the top bracket.  

Politically, a rate at 70% is inaccessible. But Saiz's work is important because it explodes the myth that "the rich would just stop!" 

Yes I do not think the rich would just stop.   That said, I truly doubt we will test that (again).

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.12    3 weeks ago
Higher taxes make redistribution simpler. 

Certainly.   And I agree it is not a bug, it is fundamental to the concept of social democracy.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
that people making as little as 350,000 a year will take in the shorts

That's a very telling and interesting expression, "as little as $350,000 a year".  

I would have said "as much as $350,000 a year"  given that the real medium income is around $63,000 per household.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.15    3 weeks ago
That's a very telling and interesting expression, "as little as $350,000 a year".

It's almost like he was unfamiliar with this country.....

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1.17  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.16    3 weeks ago

Makes one wonder from time to time.....

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

I doubt it is my imagination that Trump partisans seem to be losing it commensurate with Trump's chances for reelection.   The defensive ' arguments ' are becoming increasingly shrill and irrational.  One can see Trump supporters using every trick in the book to try to prop up support for Trump.   Some have abandoned all attempts at reason and now simply make grand delusional declarations about how Trump will win and the next four years will be glorious.   jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

I will be happy to see November 3 rd arrive to put an end to the ridiculous ' debates ' that are taking place in defense of and attacking Trump.  

For me, 2020 is yet another lost opportunity for the USA to elect a qualified, inspirational PotUS.    I will reset and hope that 2024 is better.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 weeks ago
he defensive ' arguments ' are becoming increasingly shrill and irrational.  One can see Trump supporters using every trick in the book to try to prop up support for Trump.   Some have abandoned all attempts at reason and now simply make grand delusional declarations about how Trump will win and the next four years will be glorious.

To be fair, we've been hearing that since day 1.

I will reset and hope that 2024 is better.

I'm not so sure. Each election only seems to be getting worse and worse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    3 weeks ago

I am not optimistic.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Neither am I.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

I agree with both of you, up to a point. 

put an end to the ridiculous ' debates ' that are taking place in defense of and attacking Trump.  

It isn't possible to unfairly attack Donald Trump, and people who oppose his absurd presidency are not required by logic or fairness to mention the one or two scraps of accomplishment or decency that are connected to his term.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
It isn't possible to unfairly attack Donald Trump, ...

One can unfairly attack anyone.   And every unfair attack reduces the credibility of the attacker and lessens the effect of attacks in general.

Trump puts out so many legit opportunities for criticism, it continues to amaze me that some are not satisfied with the low-hanging fruit.  Good grief, it is everywhere.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
One can unfairly attack anyone.  

No. 

If I say Trump is a pathological liar he cannot be defended on the basis that once in a blue moon he tells the truth. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
If I say Trump is a pathological liar he cannot be defended on the basis that once in a blue moon he tells the truth. 

You do not understand that anyone can be unfairly attacked?   Certainly you must realize that there exists an almost unlimited supply of unfair attacks available.   If one were to accuse Trump of being a closet Nazi who secretly desires to complete Hitler's genocide, is that a fair attack in your world?

Extreme positions such as "It isn't possible to unfairly attack Donald Trump" lessen the credibility of the fair attacks.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Well, you go an extreme situation.  I am talking about people who attack Trump with the truth but his supporters complain thats its not fair to attack him without also admitting he has done some good.  The "good" he has done is insignificant compared to the damage he has done, and thus it is not possible to be unfair to him. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
Well, you go an extreme situation. 

I felt I had to do so to get through to you.   Your claim was extreme.

I am talking about people who attack Trump with the truth but his supporters complain thats its not fair to attack him without also admitting he has done some good.

Well that is entirely different.   Yes it is quite fair to attack Trump (or anyone) without softening the attack with a "but, he did this well".

Those who attack Biden and Harris do not seem to offer a "but, he/she did this well".   When some call Harris a slut, they don't seem to also offer that she is a very smart slut.  /s

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

I almost swallowed my gun when I read a seed here that says Biden is more unethical than Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
"Well, you go an extreme situation.  I am talking about people who attack Trump with the truth but his supporters complain thats its not fair to attack him without also admitting he has done some good.  The "good" he has done is insignificant compared to the damage he has done, and thus it is not possible to be unfair to him."

That's it in a nutshell.  

It's unreal how some still defend anything and everything trumpturd does or doesn't do.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

Oh crap....my GUM not my gun.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Don't worry, Paula, I'm sure most of us knew what you meant.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 weeks ago

It will not get better one side wants to punish the other side and guess who that side is?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2    3 weeks ago
It will not get better one side wants to punish the other side and guess who that side is?

The 'right' always wants to punish the left for not kissing trumpturds' big fat stinking sloppy ass.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  MUVA @3.2    3 weeks ago
one side wants to punish the other side

I don't understand. 

Who wants to punish whom? Why? How? 

Your post sounds like baseless paranoia. 

 
 
 
cjcold
3.3  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 weeks ago
to elect a qualified, inspirational PotUS

I believe Biden to be highly qualified. Google his record. 

Sad that Trump/Putin propaganda have painted him as "sleepy Joe" with dementia.

Biden is just not as flamboyant and bombastic as Trump. That doesn't make him "sleepy"

I much prefer a calm and sane head administrator. Someone who actually believes in science.

This is not an effing gameshow where making the most money makes you the winner.

Watch the movie "Dave". That's what a president should be. What Biden is.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.3.1  MUVA  replied to  cjcold @3.3    3 weeks ago

Biden is a dolt always has been always will be.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.3.2  cjcold  replied to  MUVA @3.3.1    3 weeks ago

Obviously you don't pay attention to reality, just far right wing propaganda.

Biden is an intelligent, thoughtful public servant.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  cjcold @3.3    3 weeks ago
"I much prefer a calm and sane head administrator. Someone who actually believes in science."

So would any rational and intelligent person.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4  Bob Nelson    3 weeks ago

Trump has always been irrational. He has always been a serial liar. So what has changed?

Could some of his TrumpTrueBelieversTM finally be realizing that he has been abusing them? That's hard to imagine, considering how much crap they've taken so far.

I don't dare hope...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    3 weeks ago

Kool Aid toxicity is a bitch.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    3 weeks ago

Addictive. 

 
 
 
cjcold
4.2  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    3 weeks ago

Those on the bottom of the intelligence curve tend to speak the loudest. 

Pretty sure that Fox gave fools/fascists their legitimacy and their marching orders.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @4    3 weeks ago
"That's hard to imagine, considering how much crap they've taken so far."

Not just taken, Bob, but believing and repeating.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

To anyone who thinks I exaggerate, here are a few of the search results related to the topic

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

Yeah, the Rs have definitely anchored themselves to this absurd socialist/Marxist nonsense.   Don't get me started.

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.1  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    3 weeks ago

Actually the far right has rooted themselves in far right fascism. 

They think that anybody to the left of Atilla the hun is a liberal.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

A week or two ago, a NewsTalkers TrumpTrueBelieverTM said that Harris is a commie. I asked what that meant.

I never got an answer. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
5.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

Well, it is a good thing that TRUMP DOESN'T HAVE TIES TO PUTIN!

 
 
 
cjcold
5.3.1  cjcold  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @5.3    3 weeks ago

The blackmail that Putin has on Trump must be devastating.

 
 
 
Kavika
6  Kavika     3 weeks ago

He sounds like ''Tail Gunner'' Joe McCarthy. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
7  Eat The Press Do Not Read It    3 weeks ago

John Russell:

Have I NOT be telling you from day one about the folks, here, on thenewstalkers.communists?

Now, you know, the truth about Biden, Kamala, and many, right, here, in "River City." Be careful whom you are photographed with, or, chat up!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Maybe because this is the sort of behavior they find acceptable? When will Biden denounce the BLM rioters acting like Mao's Red Guards? Harris and Biden staffers paid to get rioters out of jail and haven't apologized for it. 

They might not be communists, but hey certainly are in bed with them and certainly are happy with their support. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago
They might not be communists, but hey certainly are in bed with them and certainly are happy with their support. 

Where does this 'communist' angle come from?    How do you define the word 'communist'?  

The video shows out-of-control mobs engaging in a non-peaceful protest.   Tagging this with the 'communist' label makes your comment seem irrational.   If you had stuck with the video and noted it as evidence of another case where left protestors went out of control and engaged in crappy behavior, your point would have been more solid.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    3 weeks ago

The co founder of the BLM movement is a vocal communist.

Instead of class conflict, it’s Marxism applied to race.  Why is that so hard for some progressives to admit?  Just read their manifestos.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    3 weeks ago
The co founder of the BLM movement is a vocal communist.

You need to define what you mean by 'communist' because that word, unqualified, is ambiguous.   Do you mean she embraces the tactics of Chairman Mao and Stalin?   Or do you mean that she favors 'power held by the people'?   Something in-between?  

What, specifically, do you mean?

Instead of class conflict, it’s Marxism applied to race.  

WTF is 'Marxism applied to race'?   Literally, if you are speaking orthodox Marxism, that would mean that people of all races have value and should contribute to society and should in turn reap the benefits of the society they help build?   I doubt that is what you mean.  So what, specifically, do you mean?

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.2  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago
Harris and Biden staffers paid to get rioters out of jail and haven't apologized for it. 

Of course you have dozens of links to support this nonsense claim, correct?

Why should staffers apologize, regardless of who they work for?  They have the same rights as the rest of us, do they not?

 
 
 
cjcold
8.3  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago

Actually those committing violence and looting are false flag far right wing fanatics. 

 
 
 
cjcold
8.4  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago

Actually it is far right wingers such as Patriot Prayers and boogaloo that are creating all of the false flag violence and looting.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago

That's funny, I watched an interview with Biden where in his words he specifically pointed out that he did NOT support the looting and destruction, that they were not acceptable.  Your accusations are desperate and hilarious. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Let’s pretend the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer  was not a Biden supporter and instead was organizing violent riots across America against cops unjustly shooting whites.. . What would you call politicians who refused to condemn Spencer’s movement, refused to hold them criminally liable for the crimes they commit and pay to get those who are arrested out of jail? Let’s say trump refused to condemn them and only spoke out specifically against progressive   Counter  protesters. 

We all know any politician who kow towed to white nationalists like Biden and Harris do to blm rioters would be called neo-Nazis, even if those politicians were not. Neo-Nazis themselves. 

 
 
 
cjcold
9.1  cjcold  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    3 weeks ago

So it's still reverse day on your planet.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Joe Biden had been in the Senate or the vice presidency for 43 years. Never once in that long period was he considered a radical. It is ludicrous to say that Biden will lean toward socialism or communism. 

What he has done, said, or supported over the last 43 years clearly doesn't mean much in 2020.

Joe Biden Denounces Hyde Amendment, Reversing His Position

The Real Reason Joe Biden Won’t Release His Papers

Biden voted for welfare reform and the Defense of Marriage Act and an “ immoral ” border wall

he advocated  against  green-lighting the raid that killed Osama bin Laden

Biden likes to pretend he was a fierce opponent of the invasion of Iraq, when in reality he turned critical only after the democracy-building went south. Biden stood in front of Congress in 2002, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and  argued  for war.

The historic  record  already shows that Biden was far more than just “civil” with segregationists early in his career: He engaged in obsequious efforts to gain their trust for committee seats and worked with them on issues such as busing.

While in the Senate, Biden supported virtually every expansion of the drug war and mass incarceration, co authoring   the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Biden gave passionate speeches on the Senate floor arguing that one could be a “progressive”  and  “ lock the SOBs up .” Now Biden claims to regret 1990s crime bill, calling it a “big mistake.”
 
 
 
cjcold
10.1  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @10    3 weeks ago

So glad that Biden has the ability to rethink past mistakes. Far right wingers never do.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @10.1    3 weeks ago

It's not simply about seeing the light. That, I applaud. He fabricates his past positions. Heck, he has fabricated personal stories. He has a long history of dishonesty that more people should look into. If people think that by picking Biden, they are picking the honest one? They're mistaken.

 
 
 
freepress
11  freepress    3 weeks ago

The rubes fall for Republican fear mongering every time no matter what. They fully accept divide and conquer, even when they are being used and lied to. They fell for Bush and crew and they fall for Trump and a bigger crew of grifters. Trump using his campaign cash to pay his lawyers and Bannon stealing their cash in a "pay for the wall" scheme. It is all one big grift on the backs of Republican supporters who fall for it every single time.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Bob Nelson


64 visitors