- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 643
I haven’t ever voted for Trump actually, but just keep pretending everyone against the DNC routinely fixing their elections is MAGA so you don’t have to face the facts.
Biden Out of Race
- Thread starter DirtDocMD
- Start date
Hard to believe for someone who is repeating Fox News.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 643
Forget MAGA. Explain how it’s not anti democratic for the DNC to anoint a candidate rather than hold an election. They could hold a primary next week with all mail-in ballots. Anything would be more democratic than what they’re doing.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
Why would I want the Democratic party to spend millions on a mail-in primary that will likely capture 1/10th the population of the previous primary when there would literally be only one candidate on the ballot?
Your suggestion seems dumb, wasteful, and purposefully divisive.
You can't escape from the fact that there is literally no other serious competition for Harris at this point.
It's fine to say that it is "less democratic" for Harris to be selected by the delegate process. It is NOT "anti democratic" though. You aren't suggesting a better option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 7,370
What I find laughable is how dems always try to come from a place of holiness but when pointed out, their answers are always, "but look at Trump" or "Look at what they did"
The R and D selection process is all pre determined most of the time. Biden was VP under Obama and told to stand down for Hillary. Bernie was winning the process and then told to stand down. Biden now told to stand down again using the hugs method then the knife method when hugs didn't work.
Trump should be thankful that this was not an open convention. If the guy from PA ended up being the nominee, I don't think trump would have a change.
But Harris is essentially unelectable. What I find funny is Harris will do terrible with black males. Most of the ones I know said in no way they voting for a black woman. Harris not going to do well in the battleground states. If Hilary couldn't, Harris definitely will not.
The R and D selection process is all pre determined most of the time. Biden was VP under Obama and told to stand down for Hillary. Bernie was winning the process and then told to stand down. Biden now told to stand down again using the hugs method then the knife method when hugs didn't work.
Trump should be thankful that this was not an open convention. If the guy from PA ended up being the nominee, I don't think trump would have a change.
But Harris is essentially unelectable. What I find funny is Harris will do terrible with black males. Most of the ones I know said in no way they voting for a black woman. Harris not going to do well in the battleground states. If Hilary couldn't, Harris definitely will not.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 643
It is extremely anti-democratic. The most democratic option at this point would be to take nominations, give campaign speeches, present policy plans, have a debate, and have a primary election asap.
The second most democratic option would be to have an open convention with multiple candidates running and delegates free to vote for whomever they want at the convention.
The least democratic option is to give the people no say whatsoever. They’re going with option three which is the least democratic, you might even say anti-democratic, option.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
If you're voting for Trump, no one should take your commitment to democratic norms seriously.
Pretty sure Biden chose not to run in 2016 because his son had just died.
Your second argument here is that the deep state forced the President of the United States not to seek re-election, for which you present precisely zero evidence.
If you read actual reporting, he invited friends and family to his house in Delaware and reasonably concluded his campaign was facing an uphill battle after the debate. Apparently frank discussions with friends and family is the "knife method".
Joe Biden Drops Out
The president’s decision not to seek re-election upended the race and set the stage for a raucous and unpredictable campaign.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
You're right. This would be more democratic. But guess what?
Your plan fell apart at "take nominations".
Who is going to give the campaign speechs? Present policy plans? Debate with? Primary against?
It's like you're upset when there is TOO MUCH agreement in the party. If there was a serious contender there would likely be a serious primary battle.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 7,370
I guess you have all the authority of what is right, but nothing is new.If you're voting for Trump, no one should take your commitment to democratic norms seriously.
Pretty sure Biden chose not to run in 2020 because his son had just died.
Your second argument here is that the deep state forced the President of the United States not to seek re-election, for which you present precisely zero evidence.
If you read actual reporting, he invited friends and family to his house in Delaware and reasonably concluded his campaign was facing an uphill battle after the debate. Apparently frank discussions with friends and family is the "knife method".
Joe Biden Drops Out
The president’s decision not to seek re-election upended the race and set the stage for a raucous and unpredictable campaign.www.nytimes.com
There have been multiple reports in the dem leaning MSM that he was livid for being pushed out and how he is still bitter towards Obama for jumping him for Hillary.
But you do you and go with the nice tea party discussion that finally changed his mind. I guess all the pissed off congressman, donors withholding $$, Hollywood, MSM telling him to quit didn't have much to do with it.
This thread will not age well. If Harris loses, please come back and tell me I am right.
If Harris wins, I will come back to admit I was totally wrong and the Dems did the right thing by going straight to Harris.
I have no problem with what the Dems are doing. The point is to win and stay in power. It has little to do with the democratic process. I would expect the repubs to do the same.
But I can atleast see it for what it is. You see it as some holy path.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 7,370
If this is your stance, and I have no issues with how they nominate. Next yr, lets not waste the hundreds of millions going through the nomination process and just have Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, and Clyburn pick someone.
I don't have any issue with your Democratic Maga stance. But its like the Maga denying that Biden won. Both needs to just admit what is obvious. You are no diff than the Right Maga TBH which is sad b/c you rail against what you really are. A D Maga.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
If you're voting for Trump, I don't take your commitment to democratic norms seriously. (Is that better?)
You mean free speech persuaded him?
My arguments here stand regardless of Harris performance. A lot can happen between now and November.
I don't know what you're talking about.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 3,840
I don't see the issue with Dems coalescing behind Harris.
Political parties are not what makes us a democracy. The fact that we elect our government makes us a democracy. You don't like your party's candidate or process? You have the ultimate power by not voting for them.
Until recently political parties just selected the candidate. Now they use a primary system, which is itself undemocratic buy overweighting certain states, while the party puts their foot on the scale. R's tried to put their foot on the scale against trump and failed. D's put their foot on the scale for Biden/against Bernie and succeeded. Now they are putting their foot on the scale for Harris. Remember the sole purpose of a political party is to get its people elected. They believe, reasonably, that immediately coalescing behind Harris gives them a better shot against trump then an open primary. Are they right? Time will tell.
Political parties are not what makes us a democracy. The fact that we elect our government makes us a democracy. You don't like your party's candidate or process? You have the ultimate power by not voting for them.
Until recently political parties just selected the candidate. Now they use a primary system, which is itself undemocratic buy overweighting certain states, while the party puts their foot on the scale. R's tried to put their foot on the scale against trump and failed. D's put their foot on the scale for Biden/against Bernie and succeeded. Now they are putting their foot on the scale for Harris. Remember the sole purpose of a political party is to get its people elected. They believe, reasonably, that immediately coalescing behind Harris gives them a better shot against trump then an open primary. Are they right? Time will tell.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
I expect there to be primary elections when there are serious opponents available that the party needs to choose between. That isn't the case currently.
If Newsom had come out and said "hey, I want to be in this race" I would bet a lot of money we would see speeches, debates, etc... maybe not a nationwide mail in primary, but there would be competition over the delegates.
I won't pretend to know what "Democratic MAGA" is.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 7,370
Of course you don't. Just like Rep Maga don't know what that means either.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 7,370
Although I don't think much of polls esp this early on, it looks like a recent widely accepted poll has Trump 49 vs Kamala 46%. Doesn't bode well esp with the Kamala excitement. Kamala needs to win the national polls by 2% points to win the electoral.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 7,270
We’ll see. Maybe she wins. Maybe she loses. Despite the racist DEI rhetoric here she’s well qualified to be president. Only a few states matter in this election and she will have a tough time winning them. She’ll win the popular vote.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
Republican leaders urge party to avoid racist and sexist attacks against Harris
The GOP wants to focus on Kamala Harris’s record, not her ethnicity or gender – but who will tell Trump?
A lot of Republicans say "DEI" with a hard R.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 7,270
Republican leaders urge party to avoid racist and sexist attacks against Harris
The GOP wants to focus on Kamala Harris’s record, not her ethnicity or gender – but who will tell Trump?www.theguardian.com
A lot of Republicans say "DEI" with a hard R.
Right, it goes like 'Hey guys don't say what you really think we'll lose the independents!!'
Also, seems like Vance is falling completely flat so far with the MAGAotts. Lots of blank states and mouths agape with his 'racist for drinking diet mt. dew' line.
It was a poor pick for VP. He's basically doubling down on the MAGA. Unless Trump plans to win Ohio twice, makes no sense.
If he picked Haley, he would've picked up a lot of votes from moderates and independents
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
No, it's not.
I know you and @triggermaster are concern trolling about how worried you are about democracy (while you simultaneously defend the wannabe insurrectionist), but Biden voluntarily stepped down, released his delegates, and endorsed Harris. No one could've *made* him step down, despite your conspiracy theories otherwise.
Further, Harris said she hoped to earn the nomination, because in fact the nomination was open to anyone who wanted to challenge her at the convention. All the major contenders declined to do so (probably because they think they have a better shot in '28) and instead are endorsing Harris.
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt at a false equivalence to make the Jan 6 / fraudulent elector plot seem less egregious and illegal. The 'blue maga is just as bad as red maga' schtick propagated by you guys and FN would actually be hilarious if the attempt weren't so transparent and sad.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,767
- Reaction score
- 24,234
Pelosi kinda made him step down. I’m glad she did it.
www.nytimes.com
Opinion | The Most Ruthless Political Operator in the Country Is a Woman
The supreme gratification of watching Nancy Pelosi go to work.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,463
- Reaction score
- 3,076
Pretty much the worst kept secret, but many refuse to see it.Pelosi kinda made him step down. I’m glad she did it.
Opinion | The Most Ruthless Political Operator in the Country Is a Woman
The supreme gratification of watching Nancy Pelosi go to work.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 317
Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what The point you are making about workforce participation rate is.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Pelosi kinda made him step down. I’m glad she did it.
Opinion | The Most Ruthless Political Operator in the Country Is a Woman
The supreme gratification of watching Nancy Pelosi go to work.
Pelosi essentially made his pollster show him the polls that he probably wasn't seeing due to gatekeeping (or Biden's own willful ignorance), i.e. the ones that showed that a full 2/3rds of democrats wanted him to step down and the ones that showed how far behind/how much of a drag he was on the downticket candidates.
However, I think a substantive argument can be made that if there was anyone who really coerced him to step down, it was the donor class. And they did it by freezing 90 million dollars in pledged donations.
Remind me, though, wasn't it the right-wing that was bigly in favor of giving the plutocrats this kind of insanely influential power vis a vis Citizens United?
Why are republicans are starting have second thought about JD Vance?
He is against abortion (even the morning after pill, and in-vitro fertilization). He is for no compromise on immigration. He is for tax cut, "small government" etc... He seems to be a clean guy with no baggage like Trump.
He is against abortion (even the morning after pill, and in-vitro fertilization). He is for no compromise on immigration. He is for tax cut, "small government" etc... He seems to be a clean guy with no baggage like Trump.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,862
- Reaction score
- 2,346
This is baggage in a post-Dobbs world.
Baggage in the sense that it makes him/the ticket less electable.
They're popular positions in conservative circles, but the thought is that Trump chose Vance to "run up the scoreboard" when a less Trumpist Republican (one who hasn't already endorsed certifying a fraudulent slate of electors maybe) would be more persuasive to swing state voters.
I see.
After the post-Dobbs world, I put democrat +2-3% automatically in any generic (congressional, senatorial, presidential) polls. While I agree with it, it seems to piss off a lot of women.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 526
- Reaction score
- 677
All of that doubled down against a known entity like Biden and probably strengthened Trump’s base. But if Harris increases turnout with any independent or minority, then that hurts Trump’s chances. Vance doesn’t do much to broaden Trump’s electability. If Trump had a re-do card to play, I bet he’s wishing he picked Haley now.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,767
- Reaction score
- 24,234
Secret is a stretch since it’s all over MSM.
She’s a consummate politician as is Mitch McConnell. They can be admired for it.
Last edited:
It's not too late for him to do that given how unpredictable Trump can be.
It seems like Vance is already a drag on the ticket based on what I am seeing online. Of course, he is not Sarah Palin.
Trump might dump the guy if he continues to have bad press and if Kamala proves to be competitive. There is already some talks online about that.
Last edited:
Yea, taking away a women's right to make her own healthcare decisions might make her angry..
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
The Democratic party winning the election to beat Trump is more important to them than who's name is on the ticket. They're showing unity. Even if there was a secondary primary, Harris doesn't have any real competition because everyone understands the stakes and is choosing to unite behind her.
Trump is furious he's no longer competing with Biden and many Trump supporters are worried she will inject energy into the Democratic party. I don't put much faith in poles but shes leading by 2 points over Trump. Shes already received 100 million in donations. Something else to consider... Trump is now the only old person in the race. Will this matter? Who knows.
Let's spin this a different way: Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee. Let's say he has a massive stroke tomorrow or withdraws for whatever reason. The Republican party unites behind Vance without holding a second primary. Would you be furious and accusing the Republican party being of being anti-democratic? Would you be accusing the leaders of being in cahoots? Trump having a major medical event isn't a remote possibility.
I agree that the way Harris became the candidate isn't ideal, but one can't plan and prepare for every possibility. Both parties have a pre-ordained process for choosing a candidate under these circumstances. You've been presented with solid answers as to why a second primary in less than a month isn't feasible, but you've ignored every point. To suggest all 50 states can set up a second primary vote in a month, logistically (and not even considering allowing for who may run as candidates or how the public would have time to learn about the candidates running and decide) shows little real world understanding of how federal and state governments work and how slow bureaucracy moves. There would be court challenges for a completely unestablished process. There's no law or court precedent, to my knowledge, defining this process for each state.
You that practice medicine should understand this...Treatment options are often not ideal, are often made with limited information (especially when the decision has to me made quickly) and each option has risks and benefits. You make the best decision based on the patient's individual circumstances, your experience and the information available to you. Even when the best decision or treatment is chosen, the outcome is not alway optimal. This situation is unprecedented. Once Biden decided to step down, the Democratic party made what they thought was the best decision under the circumstances given the limited time available to them. You don't like it? Change the law. That's how a democracy works.
Suggesting the printing and mailing of tens or hundreds of millions of ballets after verifying who to mail them to alone would take weeks or months, and to think these can all get mailed back AND counted and then certified FIFTY times with what are often very disparate rules and procedures from state to state for how the primary process is carried out, in less than a month, is delusional. This wouldn't be a federal or nationwide primary. Again, it's 50 primaries in 50 states.
Lastly, no one has a crystal ball. Anyone making sweeping, definitive declarations about Trump or Harris winning the election is making a specious argument and is a fool. No one knows what will happen.
No one thought Trump would win the Republican nomination much less become president and he did. But now, this is not just a choice between Trump and Harris, but between Trump and not-Trump. The number of people who aren't necessarily enthusiastic about Harris but choose her because they abhore Trump might surprise you. Her being a woman may help her get more votes from women. The #1 contender for VP is predicted to be Shapiro, who as some of you have suggested would easily beat Trump if he was running for president. He would make a strong running mate and would further unite the party behind her. The Govs. of KY and NC, both moderates, are also good choices. Now all of this is purely anecdotal speculation. Likewise, the poster claiming no black man will vote for Harris based on his or her vast sample size is FOS. It's a BS anecdotal claim. Back it up with legitimate polling or stop making such sweeping claims.
Lastly, I feel personally that an individual who never had the ambition to be president but is asked to serve in that role, thrust into the situation, has a good chance of succeeding in that role because they will listen to others and put serving the people before their own political ambitions. Maybe that's also anecdotal BS, but notice I'm saying it's my opinion and I'm not making a sweeping claim. Take my opinion with a grain of salt because I also thought Trump had tremendous potential to be a great president but I was wrong. I may be wrong again. I'm humble enough to say that. Humility is an important trait in a public servant. Trump has no humility and is all ego.
Tl
r...A major party decision had to be made very quickly. The outcome may be less than ideal, but what's done is done. It's now Trump vs Harris. GTF over yourself and move forward, change the law, or quit your whining. This bickering nonsense isn't contributing anything positive to the situation. Hell, those of you who think Harris is unelectable should be ecstatic. Some people will never be happy.I'm personally disappointed that Biden did not address the elephant in the room with his speech tonight. I feel let down. I wanted him to address his health issues.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
Haley's campaign was very anti-Trump. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where she jumps at being his VP.
She did ultimately endorse him.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
Vance has also attacked Harris for not having children.
"Years before he was selected as Donald Trump's running mate, Vance gave an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in July 2021. During the conversation, Vance said the U.S. was being run, under Democratic leadership, by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.
It's just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children," Vance, 39, told Carlson. And how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?"
Vance went on to say that those who "actually have kids" are "the people who have a more direct stake in the future of this country."
That Vance, who has three children with wife Usha Chilukuri Vance, called out three "childless" Democrats by name is particularly noteworthy — in part, because it's not true. One of them, Harris, became a stepmom to her husband Doug Emhoff's two children in August 2014. Now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Harris has for years spoken openly about her close relationship with her stepchildren, who refer to her as "Momala."
people.com
This can't help him or Trump. I personally think this makes him sound looney. Almost like something Trump would say.
"Years before he was selected as Donald Trump's running mate, Vance gave an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in July 2021. During the conversation, Vance said the U.S. was being run, under Democratic leadership, by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.
It's just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children," Vance, 39, told Carlson. And how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?"
Vance went on to say that those who "actually have kids" are "the people who have a more direct stake in the future of this country."
That Vance, who has three children with wife Usha Chilukuri Vance, called out three "childless" Democrats by name is particularly noteworthy — in part, because it's not true. One of them, Harris, became a stepmom to her husband Doug Emhoff's two children in August 2014. Now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Harris has for years spoken openly about her close relationship with her stepchildren, who refer to her as "Momala."
JD Vance Once Called Kamala Harris a 'Childless Cat Lady.' Now Real-Life 'Cat Ladies' Have Thoughts
Comments made by Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance about Kamala Harris and others in a 2021 interview are resurfacing — and stirring conversation.
This can't help him or Trump. I personally think this makes him sound looney. Almost like something Trump would say.
Vance is full on MAGA.Vance has also attacked Harris for not having children.
"Years before he was selected as Donald Trump's running mate, Vance gave an interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in July 2021. During the conversation, Vance said the U.S. was being run, under Democratic leadership, by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.
It's just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children," Vance, 39, told Carlson. And how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?"
Vance went on to say that those who "actually have kids" are "the people who have a more direct stake in the future of this country."
That Vance, who has three children with wife Usha Chilukuri Vance, called out three "childless" Democrats by name is particularly noteworthy — in part, because it's not true. One of them, Harris, became a stepmom to her husband Doug Emhoff's two children in August 2014. Now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Harris has for years spoken openly about her close relationship with her stepchildren, who refer to her as "Momala."
JD Vance Once Called Kamala Harris a 'Childless Cat Lady.' Now Real-Life 'Cat Ladies' Have Thoughts
Comments made by Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance about Kamala Harris and others in a 2021 interview are resurfacing — and stirring conversation.
This can't help him or Trump. I personally think this makes him sound looney. Almost like something Trump would say.
That was tone deaf. There are people who would like to have kids but can't for some reason. Also, Vance is the same guy who is against in-vitro fertilization. What was the purpose of these statements? You can't be in government if you don't have kids...
Sen. Mark Kelly-bald, white and male. Combat aviator during the Gulf War, astronaut, and scientist. He would appeal to the moderate of both parties and independents, the resume speaks for itself. I mean Kelly did actual combat missions unlike Vance who was a literal war correspondent for the Marines.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,463
- Reaction score
- 3,076
Are you talking about Kamala Harris?
Didn’t she literally run for President in 2020??
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
It seems she did. I didn't realize that.
Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,891
- Reaction score
- 1,535
Weird way to downplay that particular part of his resume. If nothing else, he isn’t a correspondent for the marines, he’s a marine that went to Iraq as a correspondent.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
Thank you for clarifying. That was my understanding as well.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 643
I’m not even against abortion and I find this straw man argument tiresome.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,538
- Reaction score
- 8,023
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
Here's food for thought: a few states use an open blanket nonpartisan primary ballot. This means that all candidates regardless of party compete amongst each other in the same primary election. There's different rules on how these states chooses which candidates go onto the general election. My point is that if we were to have a second primary in these states, the Republican candidates would also have to go on the ballot for the primary vote. The laws in these states don't allow a one party primary election to happen. You can see how this would get really complicated really fast and 4 weeks is not time to address this problem. In California and Washington, the top 2 candidates regardless of party go onto the general election. The Republicans would risk losing their nomination for Trump if Harris and Shapiro duked it out and were the 2 candidates with the most popular votes.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Nonpartisan blanket primary - Wikipedia
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
Other states hold presidential caucuses instead of primaries. With caucuses, it is usually a form of indirect voting. Each individual does not vote directly during the presidential state caucus.
en.m.wikipedia.org
United States presidential primary - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 643
You do know that no pro-life people are motivated by their desire to control a woman’s body or healthcare decisions. 100% are motivated by the opinion that fetuses are defenseless people who need defending against murderers.
I don’t feel that way, but it’s still pathetic that the pro-choice won’t face their views head on. They always lie about the basis of the argument. It’s cowardly.
Kelly participated in direct combat missions while Vance did not. Voters may care that one was a leader and who put his life on the line with each combat mission.
