Hodad

She's not the incumbent. Not any more than G.H.W.B was running as an incumbent to succeed Reagan or Gore to succeed Clinton. VPs are their own people.

The complete image is not AI generated. AI is awful with fingers, sure, but even worse with logos, words and fonts. It's not going to get any of that right, let alone composed properly. It's just a still, so somebody could have photoshopped a piece of it or used AI to modify a piece of it. I have no idea who that guy is, so have no context for the question.

So whenever terrorists blow up military personnel it's because the POTUS made "gaffes"? Or only Biden? Trying to figure out this new rule.

Personally, I'm sure he's like a punch card guy--buy 9 and the 10th is free. Publicly, like the rest of his "platform" it's whatever is convenient in the moment.

"Oh, are you here filming campaign material?" "No, we're just filming stuff... to use later in our campaign."

WCM complains about Trump's comments being misrepresented. Then turns around an (99% chance) does the EXACT same thing to Trudeau, and hence chose not to provide the actual quote. No honest. No shame. No decency.

For sure. They'll probably do crazy things like give the executive immunity from criminal behavior and give corporations unlimited political influence.🙄

Nope. The obvious answer is a conspiracy going back decades and across all economists. 🙄 Just like climate science and epidemiology.

That's the long and short of it. After seeing a Black man in the Oval Office half of Republicans just lost their minds and dropped the facade. Suddenly someone as previously unelectable as Trump became electable. No more pretense of decency.

Yes, I know that is a now a popular claim in right-wing kookville. Thanks for reinforcing that by posting an opinion piece. What none of you can produce is a single quote from Harris even remotely indicating that she "wants" to build a wall. Again, that dumb claim is extrapolated from her continued support for the bipartisan border bill. Which is not even a "flip flop." The Biden administration supported the bill all along. Bipartisan bills are compromises that include things for both parties. If you had actually read the Axios article instead of a conservative pundit's recharacterization, you would understand this. Let me get my spoon out... Driving the news: In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last week, Harris said she would sign the recent bipartisan border security bill — which Trump had ordered his allies to kill, fearing it would help Democrats in the November elections. That bill, negotiated by senators such as James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), requires hundreds of millions of dollars of unspent funds to be used to continue building a wall on the border. "It requires the Trump border wall," Lankford told Axios. "It is in the bill itself that it sets the standards that were set during the Trump administration: Here's where it will be built. Here's how it has to be built, the height, the type, everything during the Trump construction." Harris' campaign says the border deal is a whole lot more than continuation of wall funding — and a tiny fraction of what Trump has proposed. Lankford's office estimated the legislation would spend $650 million on a wall, down from the $18 billion Trump requested in 2018. The bill, which Murphy described as a "compromise" also included provisions with more money for asylum lawyers and judges for the overloaded immigration system. It also gave the president the authority to shut down the border if more than an average of 5,000 migrants crossed per day. The other side: Harris advisers note that the bipartisan border proposal didn't include any new money to continue building the wall. It just extended the timeline to spend funds that had been appropriated during Trump's last year as president, they say, although the legislation has new restrictions to ensure the money is spent on barriers. After reading this^^ if you can't understand why saying that Harris "wants" a wall is wildly dishonest then I can't help you with that. It's teaching your parents should have done.

She pledged to push the bipartisan border bill through. That doesn't mean she "wants" a wall. It means she's a farking grown up who understands that things get done through compromise. In a bipartisan bill, there are things for both sides. That's the way reality works. Republicans want a stupid wall? Fine. If that's a necessary price to pay to get meaningful immigration reform, so be it. Unless Trump manages to lose the Republicans a lot of seats in the legislature as well and they lose their leverage.

Sure, the people who support a man who tried to overturn democratic rule and seize power through a coup MUST be patriots. 🤣

No, Trump will be busy making license plates. Which will, by the way, finally be a Trump product made in the USA, so that's nice. And this phony "Harris wants a wall" bullshit is not helping. Nobody is buying it.

Now that you've been revealed as dishonest and exploitative you want to move the goalposts again? Fine. Biden should not have said that. It was false. Even though he lost far fewer service members than Trump, there were casualties. Your problem, again, is that Trump told the exact same lie. Any (fake) sadness or anger you feel at Biden must be applied to Trump as well. Next? Gold Star families have earned the right to feel angry and to criticize the commander in chief. It's a fact that Biden and Harris were respectful and deferential to the criticism from gold star families. Contrast that with Trump attacking the gold star Khan family after they criticized him. Next? You phony fark. Just leave the soldiers out of it. It's gross. Those are real people, not political fodder.

Bullshit. What happened 4, 8, 12 or whatever years before Trump took office is NOT what he inherited. What Trump inherited was an Afghanistan without significant conflict and a rate of 16 deaths per year. That's a fact. You called Biden incompetent and blamed that incompetence for "so many" deaths--16 deaths. 4x as many service people were killed by hostiles were under Trump. Is Trump 4x as incompetent as Biden? Is that a point you want to make? Of course not. You were just being a dick, playing cynical, ignorant politics with dead soldiers. You had no idea whether what you said was true or false--and you didn't give a fark. You just saw dead soldiers and a cynical opportunity to exploit those deaths.

And according to every buffoon who claims that life begins with conception.

You said that Trump did much better than what he inherited from his predecessor. That is a lie. Trump inherited a situation in which combat was essentially over. Deaths actually increased slightly under Trump relative to the rate he inherited. You said that due to Biden's incompetence "so many" lives were lost. Many more lives were lost under Trump than under Biden. You were being dishonest. You literally had no idea of the casualty rate of one relative to another--you didn't know and didn't care. You simply wanted to use dead soldiers to try to score cheap political points. You're disgusting.

You are still doing it, you disgusting, dishonest creep. Here is what Trump was actually "handed" by his predecessor: Hostile deaths by year: 2015 - 16 deaths 2016 - 16 deaths 2017 - 22 deaths (first year Trump) 2018 - 14 deaths Stop telling lies about dead soldier for cheap political points. The idea that Trump has a legit record of success here is pure fantasy. Trump didn't do any better than what his predecessor "handed" him and he lost far more military personnel than Biden. Lie about other things. Leave our dead soldiers out of it.

You lie 65 killed by hostiles under Trump 16 killed by hostiles under Biden (Official records are not updated for this year, but I believe 13 in 2022 and 3 earlier this year is the full count) The truth is that you absolutely don't give a single solitary shit about dead soldiers. You think this is an opportunity to score cheap political points. You are exploiting dead soldiers for cynical political gain. You're disgusting. Stop it.

This is the third anniversary of the deaths. Do you have some expectation that the president will just show up annually? And for every soldier lost or just some? What is your actual expectation of presidents with regard to fallen soldiers? A) You don't have any such expectations. You really don't give a shit. You are just politicizing these deaths as cynically and casually as they have been politicized from the moment they happened. It's gross. This was a photo op, plain and simple. Trump wasn't graveside last year and he won't be graveside next year.

"I honor you with this photo op of meeeeeee!" 😁👍

Why are you always reposting random shit from Twitter? What is the point?

Yeah, gross.

In fairness, he might not have gone for the photo op. He might just have wanted to deliver a final jibe to the "suckers and losers."

If they can convince their viewers to keep watching after there's documented proof that the organization deliberately lies to them on a massive, orchestrated and deliberate scale, I don't think there's much they're viewers can't be convinced of.🤷‍♂️