CouchPotato

He should have put it in a different sub forum. That is true.

No one said you had to participate in this vital topic.

Yes, that's an industry. You have to pay them back. That is a lot different from a politician encouraging people to donate to cover the bail of protestors. One is a business. It is not personal. They are not making a declaration of support for their clients, and they do not claim to represent the public at large. Kamala does represent the public.

It's really nothing like that at all. A bail bondsman does not pay a violent person's bail for them or encourage others to do it. Glad you noticed. That's probably why it's a bad idea for politicians to weigh in on the justice system like this and campaign to raise bail money for violent protestors.

Downplay it all you want, CdnFox. Canada was on the brink as well. Some guy created his own country online. Pierre Poilievre even shook his hand once. Scary stuff.

That's not pandering, gatomontes99. That's code switching! Get with the program, man. Everyone does that. It's perfectly normal.

Oh how you wish it was so. You need your boogeyman.

This thread is about her putting on an accent. Pay attention. But yeah Trump is saying she claims she is black or Indian depending on the audience. Once again, I am not defending that claim. I simply said it's not racist to accuse someone of playing up different racial identities in front of different audiences.

Once again, he is not concerned what ethnicity she is. He is saying she uses it to play politics. You may think he is incorrect. But it is not bigoted.

There is nothing racist about accusing someone of faking an accent. You can believe that someone is doing that without believing one race to be superior to another. And the accent sounds "put on". That's because it is. She is just not that good at it.

Donald Trump is their boogeyman. They need him to be their boogeyman. They have a place for all their rage and fears. If you take their boogeyman away, then they have to question themselves.

Tell you what, you show me how concerned you were with Obama being associated with a guy who belonged to a group that wanted to kill 25 million Americans, then I will take your concerns seriously.

So, liberals do not like Project 2025. Trump does not endorse it. Then, the head of the project gets fired and the liberals find a reason to complain about that. It's almost like distancing himself from something he didn't support in the first place is a bad thing. It would have been better had he changed his mind, I guess, and then started supporting Project 2025.

He meant he will fix the problems so that it won't be necessary for them to vote next time around. You don't like to vote, but we need your help this time. Everyone in the audience understood that. You know why I think people on your side don't. Because they really, really don't want to. They are so locked in. And I understand it. I've seen our side locked in like this before. The big concern is not that Trump will be a terrible tyrant. That's not what really scares the left. They are scared he won't be a tyrant. They are scared their team will be wrong. That is more important.

I listened to that entire speech. He was talking to a Christian audience and urging them to vote. He was talking about the fact that a certain segment of Christians do not want to be involved in politics, and he said that it was important for them to vote. You don't like to vote, but just do it this once. Then, you won't have to -- not you won't be able to. The way it has been spun is pure sensationalism.

I absolutely did. I went into that thread. I spoke with myata. I outlined reasons why I don't trust the Democrats. myata, simply dismisses them and anyone who possibly sees things differently as liars.

That is precisely one of the messages this thread is intended to make. I am sure you have noticed that there was a thread that predates mine accusing the Republicans of being a lie machine.

See, now I look at your argument, and I see you willing to die on an even worse hill. You do it constantly as long as you can get someone to make a one argument that is not well thought out, and then you focus on that and hammer them with it. You are quite good at it, too. Maybe CdnFox did not phrase his argument well in that other thread. But nonetheless his standard for labeling someone as a Nazi was much higher than yours. You don't know the personal thoughts of people in a large crowd. He is providing statements made by the guy. And now you have dug yourself into the pit of arguing he is not one simply out of spite for CdnFox. You care about you being right. Not about Nazis.

myata, you don't really make any points. You don't explain why he is a liar. You don't explain why he is any worse a liar than other politicians. You simply make a long rant about hatred and lies, lies and hatred, lying hatefulness and hateful lies. This is what we mean when we talk about derangement syndrome. You say you are worried about totalitarians. But you rant like you are one. You never address another's arguments. You claim to be the voice of reality. All your statements are objective truths and everyone else is a liar.

Except he did not insult any race. He did not say that it was bad to be Indian or bad to be black. He insinuated that she picks and chooses which one she is based on which audience she wants to appeal to. Maybe he is wrong. But the only insult here is directed at Kamala.

This argument is going to go on for 20 years. Black Dog. In one thread you were arguing that you could conclusively label everyone in a large group as a Nazi. CdnFox is arguing that one guy is a Nazi. That in itself is a more realistic charge to make. On top of that, CdnFox has more evidence about this one guy than you do about everyone in that group. He has statements from the guy. Holocaust denial, etc. You do not know what everyone in that group thought or believed.

That isn't racist. He is accusing her of using her racial background to gain favor when it is convenient. You can argue that he is wrong. But it is not racist to accuse someone of using their race, even if, for the sake of argument, it is a wrongful accusation. It does not mean he favors one race. You are essentially accusing Donald Trump of being racist and playing racial politics because he dared to accuse someone of playing racial politics. Maybe you are racist? This is another thing I notice that leftists do. When a political opponent mentions race or suggests that someone of another race could play a race card or a gender card, that itself is labelled racist. This is one way they have dominated the racial debate for years and conservatives have caved to it. Even if one is wrong in their accusation it does not automatically follow that they believe one race is superior in anyway. You know how I know she is not being who she is and that the accent is not some natural phenomenon. Because she does it really badly! She sounds more like Michael Scott than a southern black person. It's a fake accent because it sounds fake.

The argument here is about her accent.