╌>

Kamala Harris Needs To Get Back On Track

  
By:  John Russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  59 comments


Kamala Harris Needs To Get Back On Track
The second problem with running on policies is that such an approach detracts from the central core of this election , which is the necessity for the majority of voters to realize , and accept, that Trump can never be president again. His unfitness for office IS the issue of this campaign , and it should be the overwhelming issue in the minds of voters. 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


On the whole, even though Tim Walz certainly did not embarrass himself last night, neither did he succeed in doing the job he, and all those who oppose Trump need to do. 

For some reason Democrats keep telling themselves they can win this election on "policies". There are two un -overcomable problems with this approach. The first one is that after four years of being bombarded by the lies that all of the inflation, crime, and immigration issues , as well as Ukraine and Israel/Gaza , can be dumped at the Harris/Biden doorstep, much of that misinformation is baked in. The lies and misinformation, over long periods of time, like four years,  takes its toll and it is an unachievable uphill climb to turn that perception around in a few weeks or a few months. This is also an area where the mainstream media is very helpful to Trump, with their incessant "horse race" obsession. 

The second problem with running on policies is that such an approach detracts from the central core of this election , which is the necessity for the majority of voters to realize , and accept, that Trump can never be president again. His unfitness for office IS the issue of this campaign , and it should be the overwhelming issue in the minds of voters. 

Events like last night and the approach by Walz served to "sanewash" or as I say , normalize the Trump/Vance ticket. Donald Trump was the winner of last night's debate, because Vance was able to lie with impunity and Walz did very little to point out Trump's unfitness for office because he was spending almost all of his time being friendly with Vance and discussing "policy". 

Last week retired General Stanley McChrystal endorsed Harris, and his reasoning was almost entirely based on the issue of character. He says the president of the United States must be a person of good character, because character dictates actions. In his endorsement he said almost nothing about policies. 

Yesterday, think about that, yesterday , Donald Trump said that brain injuries suffered by American soldiers during Trumps term when terrorists attacked a US military base in (I believe it was Iraq) the middle east were "headaches". He also said Kim Jong Un is trying to kill him, and said Biden was spending security assets protecting Jong Un at the UN meeting instead of protecting him.  Kim Jong Un was not at the UN meeting in NY.

He also misread and mispronounced words he was reading off a piece of paper on the podium. A day or two before he said he had a good day in Louisiana when he was actually in Georgia that day. 

Never Trumpers and a lot of Democrats see Harris veering somewhat off the core message, and I agree. She is not going to win without making Trump unacceptable. Unless he is made completely unacceptable some voters will interpret that as "permission" to vote for Trump. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I have been looking at social media and some online columns. There is a lot of opinion that Harris and her campaign need to go after Trump more, and I completely agree. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
There is a lot of opinion that Harris and her campaign need to go after Trump more

That's all she talks about when she does talk. Maybe she should set up a propaganda ministry to drill it into us every morning before breakfast?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 weeks ago
That's all she talks about when she does talk.

As opposed to Trump's non-stop victimization speeches?  Everybody keeps picking on him......

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

It's not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 weeks ago

I know where to go to get our daily dump of propaganda and misinformation and outright lies right here on NT........

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

There are victims.

Have you ever read Hillbilly Elegy?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 weeks ago

Harris needs to get back on track? When was she ever on it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

They just can't get down and dirty and evil like him and jd.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    2 weeks ago
They just can't get down and dirty and evil like him and jd.

Somebody better, or he will be president again. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    2 weeks ago
Somebody better,

It seems that somebody is. Immediately after that VP debate, an Obama appointee who supposedly keeps getting assigned to everything involving Trump is about to leak damaging material on him within 34 days of an election. The democrat party never rests when it comes to election interference.

And you're right. If this election is a referendum on the performance of the Biden administration, they will lose for sure. They already know that. Even Jen Psaki has said it right from the beginning.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
Transcript: Trump’s Fury at “Sick” Tim Walz Gives Harris a Way Forward | The New Republic

.....Stoddard:   …So I think it’s really incumbent on the Democratic coalition to speak to the small universe of swing voters about the risk we take with him, the danger of Trump, the uncertainty, the destabilization, not only at home, but abroad. While Harris has been so intentional and run such a smart campaign, she’s avoiding certain things, we know for sure. Identity politics, trashing Trump, talking about democracy and January 6. She is avoiding taking the bait, he’s trying to run ads about trans issues. But she doesn’t want to take his bait. So she stays on the high road and avoids a lot of this stuff. And my argument is: that’s over, with now that we have five weeks left to today until election day.

We cannot let these, not only attacks on her as mentally disabled, but the thing that you just mentioned, the idea of saying that Russia invaded Ukraine, that’s our fault, and Ukraine is gone and these types of things. The fact that these things are going unanswered and that Tim Walz is “sick,” that there’s something “sick” about him? There should be someone every day, and I understand it’s not going to be the candidate, but it should be somebody every day saying, This man is unwell. This is not how we need anyone to talk in this country. This woman is focused on your problems. He is full of grievance and rage. They just need to keep pounding. These things cannot go unanswered, Greg. We are normalizing Donald Trump…

Sargent:   Yeah.

Stoddard:   …and MAGA and the way that they have degraded our discourse and our politics and the way that they relish in instability and cruelty and hominem attacks and being offensive. At this period, I think the Democrats, should she lose, would regret looking back and saying, Why did we let him just go and say, Well, that’s just Trump, he just goes on Fox and Friends and says batshit, horrible, mean things that are usually untrue, we just got tired of it, so we moved on to other kitchen table issues. You can do both things at the same time.

Sargent:   Yeah, and you make a powerful point there when you say that not taking the bait, which seems to be what Harris wants to avoid doing, that that actually can translate into letting all the deranged lunacy seep into the discourse unchallenged and thus normalizing it. By the way, a lot of political professionals and journalists, the elite opinion-making and consensus forming class, take it as given that Trump’s deeply debased character and low morals are “baked in” for voters, to use a horrible cliche that political professionals will not stop using.

I’m telling you, I’ve said this before, we need to banish that phrase “baked in” forever. I really question that idea that this stuff is baked in. I think voters actually keep forgetting why they despise Trump’s first term and every time they’re reminded he loses ground and then when he recedes, he gains ground. Let me ask you, it sounds like you think there’s a way to keep it front and center, this stuff in voters minds. I still don’t quite have a feel for what it would look like if it’s done correctly. Can you explain that? ....
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Democrats keep telling themselves they can win this election on "policies"

Lol.  Who believes this?

They run on memes, vibes and scaring voters over Project 2025. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago

There is only one core issue in this campaign -  Donald Trump is a lunatic and should not be allowed in the presidency, or any other office , ever again. 

Every time the Democrats take their eye off that ball they are doing trump and MAGA a favor. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump is a lunatic and should not be allowed in the presidency, or any other office , ever again

So again it is "vote for not Trump" not substance. Sad way to go through life.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
it is "vote for not Trump"

Yep, it is the only thing that matters in this election. The sad thing is that you dont see that. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
The sad thing is that you dont see that. 

No, the sad thing is, that's ALL that matters to you................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

A lot of things matter to me, but as far as this election goes, keeping that unhinged lunatic out of office is , yes, the only thing that matters. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

I feel sorry for you............sincerely sorry

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

Hows this ? I dont give a shit.   I feel sorry for our country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
Every time the Democrats take their eye off that ball

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command". - George Orwell, 1984

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

The policies of Biden/Harris have gone completely off the rails, and there is no way at this late date for them to get the country back on the RIGHT track.

Their combined horrible history of actions and words are all part of the public record, and their failed policies and failures are plain for all to see. They can't change it or explain it away.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
5  Right Down the Center    2 weeks ago

The second problem with running on policies is that such an approach detracts from the central core of this election , which is the necessity for the majority of voters to realize , and accept, that Trump can never be president again. His unfitness for office IS the issue of this campaign , and it should be the overwhelming issue in the minds of voters. 

Most thinking people reject that hypothesis no matter how many times it is stated.   Many on the left rally around the "Trump is unfit" point goes back to the first reason you mentioned.  Yet running on policies is not working since Harris has nothing of substance to say and can't show that the 4 years were lies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Campaign ads in swing states should illustrate Trump emitting his craziest rhetoric (e.g. Trump claiming he would bomb Iran to smithereens) coupled with Republicans criticizing Trump on relevant matters (e.g. Trump being irrational and unfit).

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6    2 weeks ago
Campaign ads in swing states should illustrate Trump emitting his craziest rhetoric

No doubt they will.  They have been doing it for well over 8 years.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
6.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1    2 weeks ago

And it has absolutely no effect because people are accustomed to Trump's bluster and BS and simply ignore his day-to-day utterances.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Agree.  Most rational people recognize it as hyperbole and bluster and have stopped paying attention to everything he says.  Those that hang on his every word as literal struggle with the concept but pick and choose when they think he is lying and when he is telling the truth.  Which is funny since many of the same people say Trump always lies but then point to things he says as being the truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

How is it rational to ignore the fact that Trump is an irresponsible loose-cannon?   

Do you actually ignore this ... not recognize the relevance of a PotUS with such a perspective and using such reckless language??

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

Do you think a PotUS or nominee should be talking about using the power of the US military to blow a nation to smithereens??

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.3    2 weeks ago
fact that Trump is an irresponsible loose-cannon?   

You do realize just because you say something is fact it is not a fact don't you?  It is still just your opinion.  Read my comment again about hyperbole and bluster.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    2 weeks ago
Do you think a PotUS or nominee should be talking about using the power of the US military to blow a nation to smithereens??

Depends upon the results.  Maybe using words the Iranians understand will get the desired results.  One thing we do know is having the president stare into the camera saying "Don't" does not work

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

There is nothing Trump could do that would turn you against him. That ship sailed a long time ago. 

And if what I am saying was not true you would have turned on him by now, for hundreds of reasons.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.8    2 weeks ago

If you say so but trying to make it about me is not a relevent response to my comment

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.9    2 weeks ago

I'm telling everyone what they already know. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

Perfect example of deflection.  I present a video of Trump making irresponsible statements and you run from the question.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.7    2 weeks ago
Maybe using words the Iranians understand will get the desired results. 

The PotUS (or former, or nominee) should never threaten to blow any nation to smithereens.   Anyone with even the most basic understanding of world politics and diplomacy would know that.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    2 weeks ago

If they already "know" it what is the point if saying it? It still is just a deflection away from the comment. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    2 weeks ago

Anyone with even the most basic understanding of world politics would know that many countries threaten other countries.  It is called saber rattling.  Even Obama had a red line that was ignored.  Sometimes a need to speak the language of your adversaries is the best way to a diplomatic solution.  It is called speak loudly and carry a big stick.  Of course when Trump does it  all of a sudden it is unacceptable.

You did notice nothing Biden is saying seems to be making a difference don't you?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.11    2 weeks ago

I responded to your first question

I made it perfectly clear about my feelings about Trump and his bluster and hyperbole and do not feel the need to hear it every time he does it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.14    2 weeks ago
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of world politics would know that many countries threaten other countries. 

You of course ignored the fact that I specifically asked about the PotUS (or former or nominee).   I was not speaking of the leaders of other nations.

No PotUS in our history has every threatened to destroy another nation.   It is sickening that we can no longer say this is true about the USA.

It is called speak loudly and carry a big stick.

The quote is "speak softly and carry a big stick".   And its meaning is exactly what our presidents did with the exception of Trump.   I would explain this to you but you can Google yourself.   In short it means that one engages in diplomacy while subtly making our ability to execute clear (i.e. ensure the stick is visible).   Trump blatantly threatened with irresponsible rhetoric.

How is it that you do not condemn this behavior by Trump?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.15    2 weeks ago

Deflection on deflection.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.17    2 weeks ago

Typical and predictable comment when you don't like the response.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.16    2 weeks ago

How many wars were started or escalated because of his speak loudly and carry a big stick style while he was president?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.19    2 weeks ago

Here you are defending Trump's rhetoric that he would bomb Iran to smithereens.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.21  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.20    2 weeks ago

Deflecting from the question by trying to make it about the poster. How predictable. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.21    2 weeks ago

Your comments condone Trump's rhetoric that he would bomb Iran to smithereens.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.23  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.22    2 weeks ago

Your comment shows deflecting away from the question. 

How many wars were started or escalated because of his speak loudly and carry a big stick style while Trump was president?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.23    2 weeks ago

Your question is a deflection.  

It is obvious why you deflect from answering my question:

TiG@6.1.3 ☞ Do you actually ignore  this ... not recognize the relevance of a PotUS with such a perspective and using such reckless language??

TiG@6.1.16How is it that you do not condemn this behavior by Trump?   
 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.25  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.24    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
6.1.26  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.24    2 weeks ago
How is it that you do not condemn this behavior by Trump?

[deleted]

[] A better question is if the strategy is effective why would anyone be against it? Obviously the Biden/Harris strategy isn't working. And while we are at good questions why is Joe and Kamala for Iran keeping their nuclear weapons program alive?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago
Donald Trump said that brain injuries suffered by American soldiers during Trumps term when terrorists attacked a US military base in (I believe it was Iraq) the middle east were "headaches". 

The DNC needs to do an ad that emphasizes this statement. It shows his utter contempt for military personnel especially those that have been injured or killed

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    2 weeks ago

Taking questions from reporters   earlier on Tuesday,   Trump was asked if he should have been tougher on Tehran after  more than 100 U.S. troops  suffered traumatic brain injuries in a missile attack on the Ain al-Asad air base in Iraq   in 2020.

“So first of all, injured. What does injured mean? Injured means — you mean because they had a headache? 

Trump downplays U.S. troop brain injuries in 2020 Iranian attack - The Washington Post

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    2 weeks ago

If Trump suffered the same “headache” problem you can bet he’d be calling it a horrific injury that only a man with his stamina could withstand.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
7.2  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @7    2 weeks ago
The DNC needs to do an ad that emphasizes this statement.

They should.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

www.mediaite.com   /tv/msnbcs-symone-sanders-townsend-trashes-walzs-debate-niceties-if-you-agree-so-much-with-jd-vance-why-should-they-vote-for-you/

MSNBC’s Symone Sanders Townsend Trashes Walz’s Debate ‘Niceties’: ‘If You Agree So Much With JD Vance, Why Should They Vote For You?’

Jamie FreveleOct 2nd, 2024, 11:02 am 4-4 minutes   10/2/2024


MSNBC’s panel of hosts following Tuesday’s   vice presidential debate   between Minnesota Gov.   Tim Walz   (D) and Sen.   JD Vance   (R-OH) were less than impressed by the common ground expressed by both candidates.

During the debate post-game, host   Rachel Maddow   turned to fellow host   Symone Sanders Townsend   for her take on the nature of the debate, and Sanders laced into Walz for not doing more to call out Vance on his — and former President   Donald Trump’s   — extreme agenda:

Let me just say this, that debates are about performance and they are about policy. And why this debate was very important is that there are many Americans out there, not just moderate Republicans, there are base Democratic voters that are saying they want to and need to hear more. Now, I think it is very fair for people to want to criticize those base Democratic voters who say, “Well, what more do you need?” You can do that. But that is their lived reality, and so if you are trying to win their votes, you have to meet them where they are. There were so many niceties on that debate stage tonight. I am just kind of like, “Well, if you agree so much with JD Vance, why should they vote for you?” I fully believe that Governor Walz went out there tonight and did what was practiced in debate prep, did what the strategy was that the team put together. That was not the Governor Walz that we, that I had seen out on the campaign trail. That’s not the Governor Walz that I had seen during the veepstakes. Right? That was not the JD Vance that I know to be true. I mean, goodness! JD Vance was on that stage, he was   sorry about   Amber Thurman , he was he was sorry about — he was sorry about a lot of stuff. “We get things wrong.” But do you agree with the policy? And then I just, you know, that’s not the [ Margaret Brennan ] and [ Norah O’Donnell ] that I know! Margaret don’t do that on Sunday morning! So, I just think that, I know that there are so many people out there that want normal. They want normalcy. They just want, you know, just be able to just disagree with — “Oh, you said a lot of things I agree with.” This is not a normal election. JD Vance   is actually not   Paul Ryan . And Donald Trump sure as heck is not   Mitt Romney , okay? And what happened on that debate stage tonight was not enough contrast, was not clear enough for people sitting at home or frankly, who will probably consume this through the clips in their local news or here on MSNBC, or on social media to distinguish to make a difference.

Host   Nicolle Wallace   was on the same page as Sanders Townsend and said, referring to the debate moment that brought up the case of Amber Thurman,   a Georgia woman who died after she wasn’t able to access reproductive health care in her home state , just one of several cases of women dying for reasons related to   abortion bans in their home states :

They died because of Donald Trump. One man had a litmus test for the people he put on the Supreme Court and he put not one, not two, but three on because they passed a litmus test that they would overturn   Roe . And that’s why Amber died. That’s why that little boy doesn’t have a mom. And nobody made that reality come to life. Because I think if you — even if you didn’t get the contrast you were looking for, neither did you get any, you know, wake up and smell the smelling salts. You were sort of lulled into normalcy.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
.
@BillKristol
·
I'm worried--because Vance may have made Trump more palatable. Vance was there to sell a kinder and gentler MAGA, and Walz didn't do much to stop him. Did Vance's performance provide enough of an excuse for some normie Republicans to slide back to Trump?
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @9    2 weeks ago

This is exactly what I have been saying last night and today.  The next 4 weeks are going to go by fast. People who want Trump to lose need to start paying attention. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    2 weeks ago

I hear you. As for me I'll never miss a chance to educate folk on Trump. He is an insane, narcissistic, mean-spirited, whiny, asshole, baby raping megalomaniac!

 
 

Who is online













405 visitors