2024 US Presidential Election Thread
- Thread starter ryzno
- 3,904 comments
- 207,740 views
- 5,291
- Alabamistan
Meanwhile as Trump continues to ditch interviews like 60 Minutes because he doesn't like to be fact checked, Kamala Harris will appear on The Howard Stern Show tomorrow.
www.siriusxm.com
Watch and Listen to Kamala Harris’ Full Interview with Howard Stern
The current Vice President and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee will appear on ‘The Howard Stern Show.’
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
Here's the 60 min.Meanwhile as Trump continues to ditch interviews like 60 Minutes because he doesn't like to be fact checked, Kamala Harris will appear on The Howard Stern Show tomorrow.
Watch and Listen to Kamala Harris’ Full Interview with Howard Stern
The current Vice President and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee will appear on ‘The Howard Stern Show.’
- 29,446
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I am so cynical that I heartily lap up hypotheses like these: Netanyahu is holding back on a ceasefire until, hopefully for him, Trump is elected. It will be a huge coup about Trump's 'abilities' as a broker of peace.
Maybe not that exact scenario but something like that.
Maybe not that exact scenario but something like that.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
The 60 minutes interview was a little disappointing. It seemed to me like they were looking for a few "gotcha" moments, to try to appear adversarial or at least hard-hitting. I'd have preferred a real honest discussion about the problems that truly face a Harris presidency.
Because it's not immigration. I get that people are worried about that, but it's not the number one concern, and there is bipartisan support behind it anyway. It's also not economic policy, the economy is doing well. It's also not the deficit or taxes.
The number 1 issue facing a Harris presidency is how to cure this problem of being on the brink, it's what @Joey D said about being exhausted at having to defend democracy from collapse every 5 minutes. The issue is supreme court reform, it's presidential pardon reform, it's electoral college reform (national popular vote compact), it's gerrymandering reform, it's protections over the right to vote, it's protections for mail-in voting, it's protections for congressional election certification, and of course, protection for women's bodies.
Maybe voters are just too stupid to listen to discussions about these issues. Maybe it doesn't move the needle. But we reinforce the stupidity by giving voters this much airtime on stuff like immigration or "the economy" or even trade. We turn their eyes away from what actually matters to what doesn't matter.
For what it's worth, I think Harris is aware of these issues. But I thought Biden was aware of those issues too and we got none of that done. Maybe it's hard. Maybe it requires more of a shift in congress. But why is NOBODY talking about these issues when we're on the brink... again.
==============================================
@Duke
I'm still wondering what the issue is with Harris for some of the voters you're talking about. You say you know people who hate Harris so much that they will vote for pure insanity. On what basis? I get that she's a she, and she's black. And that's enough to make some people vote for the orange guy. I get that she's a democrat, and that's enough for people to vote for the red guy. But aside from this kind of rah rah go team stuff, why would someone think they had a rational basis for voting trump?
I return to my previous position. It did not matter who the democrats floated. There is simply a baked-in cult of authoritarian insanity who has been promised slightly lower gas prices if only they let Trump pardon the january 6th rioters. And they're buying that nonsense.
Last edited:
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Immigration isn't directly a significant issue with me. I've said for decades that we need to streamline the immigration process. The Trump Cult swears that the Democrats allow noncitizen voting, but everyone with a brain knows that's bull. I do not believe voting fraud is a serious problem at the national level. I am, however, in favor of requiring ID to vote, which currently 15 states do not.
But you can have either a welfare state or relatively open borders, NOT BOTH. I don't see much evidence that Harris won't try for both. Of the two, I'd much prefer reasonably open borders and a streamlined immigration process, but you need to couple that with substantially reduced public entitlements, in both volume and duration of benefits.
Harris and the Democrats are (or at least recently were) proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains. That's utter crap in its deepest form. I recognize that they intend it to apply only to people with net assets > $100M. DO NOT CARE. They are literally defining a hypothetical amount,taxing you on it, and then repeating that year after year. It what possible world is that just? They're considering it a "prepayment" of future capital gains. As if that makes it better. And what happens if the yearly tax on unrealized gains adds up to more than the actual gain? Ooooooh, you get a credit towards future taxes. Great - so you have the privilege of giving the government a large, interest-free loan for potentially decades instead of a single year. Suuuuuuper fair.
From the official Democratic Party platform: "
This is an old saw that liberals just love to bring out an polish up every election year. The top 10% pays 75% of the income taxes... but somehow that's still not "their fair share." The Democratic platform on taxes boils down to "Eat The Rich", an idea as old as time, but neither fair nor good. But nobody is talking about simplifying and balancing the tax code; they're only talking about making it more complicated.
What do you think I'm joking about? Neither candidate has any interest in reducing the deficit. Other than a few Cultists who somehow think Trump is planning to "pay back the debt" by selling oil or something, no one on the campaign trail is talking about it at all. All they're talking about is new or different ways to spend too much money. The Republicans are still coasting on the conventional historic wisdom that they are the party of reduced government spending - which, like most conventional wisdom, is of course dead wrong, and has been for decades. But the Democrats aren't even bothering to pretend that they won't throw borrowed and printed money at everything under the sun.
Second only to Trump and the Cult's direct threat to democracy itself, government deficit spending is historically the largest crisis the US is facing. And no one with any political influence cares at all. In fact, they are actively involved in making the problem worse, for their own short-term political gain.
Crime is not a real issue for me. I don't believe it's up much (if at all), despite the Republican hysteria. It would be nice to end the war on drugs at the national level, however, which Harris sort of seems to be proposing, maybe.
Shouldn't be subsidized. Period. NOTHING should be subsidized. But if you MUST subsidize something, how about subsidizing something with real, robust energy density, like building modern, high-efficiency nuclear plants?
Yes, inflation. The pandemic guaranteed there would be unavoidable economic problems, agreed. No one expected to come out of that unscathed. Yes, Trump started the spending. But even when it became clear that inflation was unavoidable, the Biden administration just kept pumping fuel on the fire. Too much, too fast, too long, all while denying that it was happening. You and I have disagreed about the stimulus packages before, and we still do. They overwhelmed already stressed supply chains, they guaranteed that we got pennies on the dollar in infrastructure value, and they radically raised costs for everyone. not just government projects. In late 2019 I was getting ready to gut renovate both bathrooms in my house, which would have cost about $50,000 at that time. Then the pandemic hit and that cost jumped to - not kidding here - $140,000, which is about what I paid for my whole house in 1992. So it didn't happen until 2023, and even then if cost $80,000 - that's 62.5% inflation in 4 years. It put lots of small contractors out of business, because no one could afford to do small projects, and they weren't big enough to grab a slice of that government pie.
So yes, inflation is an issue. It was unavoidable - but it did NOT have to be as bad as the Democrats made it.
Just told you.
The non-Cultist people I know are convinced that tariffs will protect and strengthen US businesses. You and I both know they won't, but that is the belief, and that's why they are willing to vote Trump despite his flaws. They also believe at least some of the Republican machine's hype about both crime and illegal immigrants. These of course range from "based on some truth" to "completely insane total lies". Most of the undecided / centrists I know do not make it anywhere near the upper end of that scale, but they also tend to dismiss that crap as being fringe, rather than distressingly commonly believed.
- 2,649
- United Kingdom
- 20,640
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Did he also send leaves (leafs?) to make his table even longer?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
I don't use my ID in Colorado. I did get asked to show my ID in California. Guess which one is safer from a voter fraud perspective? It's Colorado. And it's not close.
The evidence is that Harris already backed a tougher border bill and has publicly said she would sign that if it were on her desk. It had support in congress based on the current congressional makeup. There's your evidence that she's not going for both. The Biden/Harris admin has been a lot tougher on immigration than most on that side would like actually. And they have signaled that they will continue to be.
Well she's not running on unrealized capital gains. She's running on raising the capital gains rate - and that is actually fair. In terms of people not paying their fair share, Amazon paid $0 in income tax in 2018. Is that their fair share? What do you think their fair share would be.
I agree with you that unrealized capital gains tax is a minefield. First, she's not running on that. Second, unrealized capital gains is a real issue that needs to be tackled thoughtfully, not ignored.
Actually she's just talking about changing the percentages.
The joke is that this is a reason to vote for Trump, who by all accounts would raise the deficit faster (and has a track record of that).
Well I don't agree with you. I'm not sure why you have placed this at such a high position in your own ranking of criticality, but I would invite you to question it.
Not sure why you like nuclear so much. Solar is better than nuclear in basically every way. I know that you cannot power solar literally everywhere and at all times of day. But there are many technologies that leverage solar to generate power when the sun is not shining, including simple things like pumping water up hill and lifting heavy stuff.
Fission is great. I love fission. Nuclear waste and meltdowns are scare tactics that amount to nothing. But fission takes way longer to build and costs more than solar. If you must subsidize something, it actually doesn't make a lot of sense to subsidize fission. Maybe in a few places.
Anyway, this is not a reason to vote for the insane man who loves coal.
You have no real evidence that it was partially avoidable. You just suspect that it was partially avoidable. Inflation was not 62% in 4 years. The cost of something went up 62% in 4 years, sure. That's not inflation, not in the macroeconomic sense, not in the government monetary policy sense.
We do not get to back through the pandemic and try a different monetary policy. We had to take a shot based on everything we know, and one of the things we knew was that overstimulation could trigger some inflation, but it would not be as painful as collapse. That was the thinking (I remember this being stated explicitly) going into the pandemic recovery. You think we could have done better, I think I'm pretty happy with where we are. What would really trigger inflation would be voting for donald trump. Not just in the sense that his policies would cause inflation (which economists say it will), but in the sense that inflation will not go well under the collapse of the US government, which is what project 2025 represents. Donald's goal is nothing short of full government collapse in favor of a chinese or russian model. And it will drastically damage the post-pandemic economy that I'm relatively happy with right now.
None of that is a basis for voting for pure insanity. Saving a few bucks is not a rational basis for voting for the gay windmill electric boat shark rapist.
Get them to watch V for Vendetta or something. The fear mongering over crime is a method of control.
Last edited:
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
@Danoff
A few other items from the Democratic platform you failed to mention, that I take substantial exception to:
A few other items from the Democratic platform you failed to mention, that I take substantial exception to:
In other words, price controls. Bad idea.
In other words, price controls, and continuing to total ignore that it was federal spending and monetary policy that created much of that inflation to begin with. And most of those jobs left the US because of federal policies, none of which the Democrats are even slightly interested in addressing.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a right.
Conspicuous in their absence: Denunciation of Israel's brutal attacks on Gaza, any reduction in aid to Israel in response to those attacks, any denunciation of the Israeli expansionism that causes Palestinian violence in the first place, and any commitment to making a two-state solution that would guarantee a Palestinian homeland protected from Israeli pressure.
- 16,992
- United Kingdom
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
The anti-price gouging thing is pretty vague. I haven't heard a specific idea on that, but I agree with you that price controls would be a bad one.
You're not really giving this question full consideration though. Other countries DO negotiate drug prices with drug companies and enjoy lower costs than the US system. To circumvent that, we need to be able to import those drugs back into the country. It's more complex than simply saying that price controls are bad and we must eat the cost. In principle, I'm with you. In practice, I think this belongs on the policy radar in some form.
Well no, I don't really agree with any of this. Jobs leave the US because you can run a sweatshop in Malaysia or wherever is the current sweatshop country. And monetary policy creating inflation following the pandemic was a strategy that is hard to criticize.
Our tax code is heavily bent to favor folks like Elon and Trump. I think it's damned near impossible to make a case against fixing that.
I agree that healthcare is not a right. This is a philosophical position. However, we have socialized medicine for seniors and prisoners. I think it actually makes sense to have SOME kind of social program for everyone (obviously it cannot be limited to this). Because the current system is broken beyond belief, and has been for a very long time. We need to make a change, and that change should not be letting people clog the ER.
Israel sucks. Palestine sucks. I hate that one of them is our ally. I agree that we have to play ball harder. But this is not a reason to vote for Trump, who wants to fund Israel to shoot brown people.
Last edited:
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
@Danoff
You have claimed multiple times here that you strongly approve of the Biden administration's pandemic response. You're basing that opinion on... what? That you're reasonably happy with your current economic state? So am I. But others are not. You're dismissing any criticism by saying "we can't go back and try again, and this isn't that bad, so by definition, this is the best that could have been done."
You have no direct evidence either; you're just using your opinion that it isn't that bad to counter my opinion that it could have been better.
I'm not voting for Trump. Never did, never would. But you asked how anyone sane could even remotely consider it, then you're dismissing any explanation out of hand.
I make excessive federal spending and the crushing national debt my long-term primary issue because they are millstones around the necks of the economy and the people. Those millstones get heavier with every hour and they have been for decades, whether a Republican or a Democrat was in office.
Now, in the short term, Trump and the Cult are a greater threat, so I'm voting Democrat this time - my first vote ever for a major party national candidate, in 40 years of voting. But I am doing so at the cost of making the long-term economic situation worse, or at least failing to make it better.
You have claimed multiple times here that you strongly approve of the Biden administration's pandemic response. You're basing that opinion on... what? That you're reasonably happy with your current economic state? So am I. But others are not. You're dismissing any criticism by saying "we can't go back and try again, and this isn't that bad, so by definition, this is the best that could have been done."
You have no direct evidence either; you're just using your opinion that it isn't that bad to counter my opinion that it could have been better.
I'm not voting for Trump. Never did, never would. But you asked how anyone sane could even remotely consider it, then you're dismissing any explanation out of hand.
I make excessive federal spending and the crushing national debt my long-term primary issue because they are millstones around the necks of the economy and the people. Those millstones get heavier with every hour and they have been for decades, whether a Republican or a Democrat was in office.
Now, in the short term, Trump and the Cult are a greater threat, so I'm voting Democrat this time - my first vote ever for a major party national candidate, in 40 years of voting. But I am doing so at the cost of making the long-term economic situation worse, or at least failing to make it better.
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I'm discussing entitlements, not civic duties.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
Well no, I don't think that's a fair characterization. "This isn't that bad" might be an opinion, but it can at least be an opinion that is measured against economies of the past. It has some basis in fact. Your opinion that "we could have done better" is very difficult to substantiate. It looks like hindsight criticism to me. We came out of the pandemic WAY better than many of the predictions at the time. You think we could have done even better, but you have a lot of work to make that case.
I don't think it's realistic to say that we could have achieved the best possible course given what we knew at the time. We did the best we could based on the information and people we had. That's somewhat tautological. Biden could not have done any better - because he's Biden. Neither could the fed, because they're the fed. But would I rather have had the insane man? Absolutely not.
I wouldn't say it's "out of hand". I'm giving you reasons.
Like... if you think that there is no evidence that Harris would do anything to prevent illegal immigration. I gave you some. That's not "out of hand", that's just giving you what you asked for. If one of your reasons is that we should be investing in nuclear instead of solar (which I don't understand), saying that Donald prefers coal is not "out of hand" it's a real reason why that position should not lead one to vote for Donald "I love coal" Trump.
I understand that view, but I think it is oversimplified. I've told you why I think that is but we can discuss it at length in whatever thread is appropriate. For this thread, it's not a reason to vote trump over Harris, because Trump by all accounts would make that from somewhat worse to way worse.
Compared to what? Making it worse compared to...
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I didn't say we could have achieved the best possible course. What I said was that you are saying we did achieve the best possible course, because it was not a disaster.
But what if you don't give Trump's excesses enough weight to think that he's insane? That's part of what you're dismissing out of hand.
You think he's insane. I think he's insane. But even leaving the Cultists out of it, a lot of people who don't particularly like him don't think he's insane. So they are not voting for an insane man. They're voting for someone they don't like because they think Republican economic policies are better than Democratic ones. They perceive Democratic economic policies as actively socialist, and they're not entirely wrong.
And you're dismissing my reasons out of hand.
I never said Harris wouldn't do anything about illegal immigration. What I said was that I believe Harris will try to simultaneously increase legal immigration and entitlement / assistance programs. My belief is based on reading the adopted Democratic Party platform, ratified at the 2024 DNC convention. I do not think this is a sustainable or even viable proposition.
Again, not what I said. What I said was that we shouldn't be subsidizing anything.
Not by all accounts. Understand: I agree with you that Trump's policies will be no better, and probably worse. That wasn't the question. The question was how anyone sane could vote for Trump, and here you're defining your interpretation of economic policy as the only sane one, so anyone who doesn't share that interpretation is by definition insane.
...what we could have if we reigned in general spending, passed balanced budget legislation, simplified and rebalanced the tax code, stopped sending so much money overseas, reduced bureaucracy, quit social engineering via subsidy and tax breaks, reduced lobbying power, etc, etc, etc...
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
Well then I miscommunicated somehow. I think we did the best we could with the people and information we had. But I also said that was tautological. We get the best we could get out of Biden and the fed based on the information that biden and the fed had. I do not think it was the best possible course we could have taken if given more information or better people, etc. I would not characterize the pandemic response as perfection, that would be a very difficult position to hold.
I'm not following you.
So compared to something that wasn't on the table. Something that wasn't viable. So why bring this up? This is the case every time you vote for no matter who you vote for. You're voting for someone who will do something that isn't what you consider to be the absolute best possible thing. I'm not understanding why it's worthwhile to use this as a measuring stick or a knock against a candidate when it is simply not available.
I think we've gotten a little off track. Let me try to re-state my position.
From a libertarian perspective, which candidate is better on:
Trade: Harris
Economic growth: Harris
The deficit: Harris
Taxes: Harris
Legal Immigration: Harris
Illegal Immigration: Harris
Israel: Harris
Ukraine: Harris
Russia: Harris
China: Harris
Abortion: Harris
Democracy: Harris
The constitution: Harris
Rule of law: Harris
Climate: Harris
Inflation: Harris
Military: Harris
Housing: Harris. Now you might think this goes for Trump, but the big movement in the housing discussion is intelligent deregulation - which is something Walz feels very strongly about.
Healthcare: This one I have a harder time answering. Trump's plan to replace Obamacare with concepts of a plan is not great. And Harris wins 100% on abortion, which is a healthcare issue. So I would give this to Harris, but I honestly don't know what all she has in mind for healthcare. From a libertarian perspective, it's hard for me to say that the continuation of Obamacare (despite abortion) is a harris win. I think Harris wins this category, but admittedly it's not a libertarian position. You basically have to argue that libertarians would prefer chaos, which probably they do, but there is a real argument that a libertarian position does not require a leap into repealing Obamacare and trusting Trump to think of something.
Ok, so with the possible exception of Healthcare, it's Harris all the way down for libertarians as compared to Trump.
Edit: You might be wondering why I'm not including the libertarian candidate in this list. It's because the LP is not viable. I don't mean that they can't win, I mean that they can't function. Oliver (the LP Candidate) is willing to cater at least partly to the trumpy movement within the LP. They're broken. RFK is a different flavor of insane. Granted, I would take RFK, Stein, or Oliver over Trump, but it just doesn't make sense to include them in this list.
If someone doesn't think Trump's insane, they're a cultist or just completely ignorant of Trump. I don't see how you can be outside the cult and not conclude that Trump is insane. Discounting his "excesses" is part of the cult. If you know people who don't think Trump is insane, but do know who Trump is even a little bit, I have bad news for you. They're cultists. This thread, and several others, are filled to the brim with pure Trump insanity. From injecting bleach to election/assassination conspiracies to gay windmills and Hannibal Lecter eating dogs and cats. He's out of his damned mind, full stop. And we saw what happens when someone who is out of their damned mind goes into a paranoid rage fest, he sends an angry mob to the capital to execute the US government - including congress and the vice president.
If someone can come to the conclusion that it's not just an insane s-show on the right at the moment, that person is PART of the insane s-show.
Last edited:
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
You're still mistaking "better on" for "actually good."
I've already stipulated that I'm voting for Harris. I'm holding my nose and doing it because all of the alternatives are worse, as you've outlined.
But I am under zero illusion that makes her a good candidate. She's not even good enough. She is just better than the alternatives... which I suppose under one definition makes her good enough.
Kind of like how you don't need to be able to outrun the bear; you just have to outrun the person you're with.
I've already stipulated that I'm voting for Harris. I'm holding my nose and doing it because all of the alternatives are worse, as you've outlined.
But I am under zero illusion that makes her a good candidate. She's not even good enough. She is just better than the alternatives... which I suppose under one definition makes her good enough.
Kind of like how you don't need to be able to outrun the bear; you just have to outrun the person you're with.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
You mean from a libertarian perspective or my personal perspective? From a libertarian perspective, I don't think it makes much sense to discuss a non-existent option. From a personal perspective, the differences between the candidates have historically set what it means to be "actually good" for me. And that may have been wrong-headed.
When McCain was running against Obama, I could get really picky about what I thought would be perfect. Because both candidates had so much in common, my assessment of their relative differences revealed a lot of disagreements between me and each candidate. Based on how they're campaigning and where I was back then, I would take Harris over either one. Granted, I would not have called Harris "good" at the time and probably would have still voted libertarian to better align with my political positions.
At the time, character and democracy were table stakes. They were something you expected every candidate to have and support. It never even occurred to me to assess "good" against basic character and democracy. If I had, I'd have called both candidates "actually good". Here's the real kicker, I'm not sure I would have called Bob Barr "actually good" anymore. I never occurred to me to assess whether Barr possessed the character or adherence to democracy and representative government. I never questioned it. I considered it table stakes.
Now I question it. Now that I do question it, it's about 90% of what matters to me. I can't get worked up about tax policy and whether that makes someone "actually good" because it's neither here nor there when it comes to basic character and belief in representative government.
So I consider Kamala Harris "actually good". Not because I agree with her on every last bit of economic policy or immigration or healthcare. It's because I've grown since 2008 and learned that character and belief in "we the people" is just about the only thing that actually matters.
Last edited:
- 24,320
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Whereas I think it does make sense to discuss it. Because it can represent an ideal, not just a reaction to an existing political landscape. If you only discuss the current path of least resistance (or best avoidance of chaos, at this point), you're not striving for anything positive. You're just trying to slow the inevitable descent and minimize the pain.
I won't argue with how you got there. For me, it is not so much about my personal growth as it is about how the bottom has dropped out of the American political system.
- 695
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- dawson864
He did. Though it's also impossible to prove there was no fraud involved. Additionally, all the (true) dirt on the Biden family was suppressed as misinformation, and the promoted Russian disinformation pushed as true (later proven false), gave Biden victory by a razor's edge, it's not much of a leap to say the media (social and otherwise) were complicit in election interference.
First term of Trump's was way better than the trash Biden's administration has given us. Biden himself hasn't even been calling the shots for the last few years and Kamala has been a willing partner in maintaining that lie. If that is who you want running the country then vote for her. It's hardly democratic.
The country is excited to vote for Trump, travel all over and you'll see it everywhere. On the flip side is another group that begrudgingly will vote for "not Trump", regardless of the antidemocratic orchestration that put Kamala in the position where she is today.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,653
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
No, it's not.
For one, I am repulsed by the idea of Trump being elected to a second term in office when he has yet to receive his sentence in the hush money case. My thinking is that he should have been immediately disqualified when that guilty verdict (on 34 felony charges) was handed down. It's a damn joke that he was allowed to continue his campaign. If this happened to a candidate on the Democrat side, they'd have dropped the candidate and gotten someone else almost immediately.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,719
- Mile High City
I say personal growth in part because I wonder if Bob Barr is something I can't stand behind anymore for exactly that reason.
Glad you enjoyed your insurrection. I wonder, when you see an American flag does it remind you that Trump tried to kill congress and the vice president? Or do you only remember that when you're touching yourself to the memory of Trump doing an ad for canned beans in the oval office?
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,260
- Texas
Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database | The Heritage Foundation
Explore a sampling of recent proven instances of election fraud from across the country. The database is intended to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in the election system and the many ways in which fraud is committed.
www.heritage.org
Trump fake electors plot - Wikipedia
Sorry, they're allowed to do that. From your candidate's orange, puckered up pie hole.
Trump says he had 'every right' to interfere in the 2020 election
Harris' campaign called the former president's remarks to Fox News evidence that he thought he was above the law.
www.nbcnews.com
- 2,649
- United Kingdom
@WolfpackS2k, do you think of yourself as deeply patriotic?
Similar threads
- Poll
