You can’t get more left then the LA Times that has to be quite a shock to the Harris campaign
I know what's not shocking: Trump cultists being low information simpletons who question absolutely nothing their far-right overlords tell them.
The Houston Chronicle, newspaper for the biggest city in red Texas did:
If Texas returns to being blue like back in he 80s, you MAGA farmers are in deep doo doo.
No, like Jeff Bezos - who owns WaPo, the LA Times owner - not the editorial board - made the call (for whatever reason) to not endorse Kamala. Doesn't mean tbh.
Billionaires protect billionaires….
This is such a sad commentary on how ridiculously far to the right the overton window is in the US.
You fail to understand: this is the last election we'll have in our lifetimes in the US. It doesn't matter how Texas trends in the future because it won't be enough to win this year, and without a Harris win this year there is no next election. In 2028 Trump will win a sham election with 88% of the vote just like Putin did this year. The supreme court has given him the rights of a dictator and you have to be high on sherm if you think Trump is not going to use them.The Houston Chronicle, newspaper for the biggest city in red Texas did:
If Texas returns to being blue like back in he 80s, you MAGA farmers are in deep doo doo.
I remember like 20 years ago LA Times was heralded as center right leaning while NYT/WaPo were the center left, New Yorker/Guardian etc were pretty far left (and still are), etc.
LA Times used to have a lot of Reaganite, Orange County, old guard GOP influence. IDK if they've moved left in recent years or not or they just don't like Trump specifically.
New Yorker is straight limousine liberal, they're not any kind of hard left.
Nah, New Yorker is very progressive. HuffPost is the one I'd label as straight limousine liberal along with NPR/PBS. The Hill used to be centrist now it's gotten pretty left, too.
They're so nasty. They're so evil. They are actually the enemy of the people
ROFL same low information Snakes who thought Trump would govern as a Democrat wants to pretend Trump won't use his newly granted power to be above the law as long as he calls everything an official act
Last edited by baseline bum; 10-26-2024 at 05:39 PM.
you're not laughing, you're melting down
You don't even know who is going to win yet. Are all you libs going to do this we're gonna losecoping thing before the election?
Won't happen in anyone's foreseeable futureThe Houston Chronicle, newspaper for the biggest city in red Texas did:
If Texas returns to being blue like back in he 80s, you MAGA farmers are in deep doo doo.
Pretty easy to see the Democrats have likely blown this again running a candidate no one wanted except the same party insiders who pushed Clinton in 2016 and she's running a Clinton like campaign focusing on why Trump is incompetent and a pig instead of focusing on tangible things like the $2000 out of pocket cap on prescription drugs in Medicare Part D that Trump will reverse and on how Trump will again defund social security and kill it off for good this time.you're not laughing, you're melting down
You don't even know who is going to win yet. Are all you libs going to do this we're gonna lose
I'll bet you all the money and assets you own (because I'm sure you own less than me) that, in the event of a Trump victory on November 5, 2024, that there will be an election as-scheduled in 2028.
If Covid couldn't delay an election, as it should have at least until 2021, nothing will.
Deal?
Who do you think would have been a better candidate? Whitmer?
There will be an 'election' but it'll be a sham election like the one Putin won with 88% of the vote this year when there are no more checks and balances against Trump after the gop supreme court made him above the law (assuming he wins this election, which looks pretty likely).
Nah, i'm willing to bet my entire net worth and future earnings for life that if Trump wins the Dems take back the House in 2026 and also the White House in 2028.
The twenty-second amendment can't be repealed by the supreme court. It would need 67 Senators and 67% of the House which would never happen. And repealing federal law on women's suffrage would simply make it a states' rights issue again which would only really affect the popular vote and the vote in the deep red states but not the electoral college.
Free and fair elections will prevail. Either Whitmer, Shapiro, or Kelly will take down Vance. That's it and that's all.
Whitmer, Sanders, Shapiro right off hand
he's like 90
Nah I'm good
Dude's still sharp, more than I can say for Trump. He'd get better turnout than Harris and then could hand the reigns to Whitmer or Shapiro in 28.
*Baseline bum folds seven-deuce offsuit c-bet bluff from the small blind*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
