TBayXXXVII

I don't know a single person who thought that ONE talking point as THE reason to vote for Trump. I think anyone who believes that, is telling you how focking stupid they themselves are. In fact, most people I know said, "Yeah, right..."

Nope. Yup, there's tons of evidence. TONS! The last administration kept under wraps for THREE YEARS, how bad Joe Biden was. Who was actually running the country? No one knows. How many people have raised concern on the Left? The answer, is ZERO. GTFOH with this crap about a criminal administration, like if Trump had one, he'd have the only one. Spare me.

What are you even talking about? You know what, never mind. Your act is tired.

Fine, YOU, I'll grant that, but on this board, you are the massive minority. I'm pretty confident that the Republican's are going to run with Vance. I have NO DOUBT what-so-ever that by the time 2027 rolls around, the Democrat party will be calling him a racist, a fascist, what have you, and there'll be more of the same from the left. He'll be a "MAGA retread", and the cycle from the left will continue.

Guilty of being at Epstein's place? Yeah. Guilty of a crime? Anything is possible, just like anything else.

Like I said, I vote for policies/platform, not people. It's common sense really. The Democrats are purely going after Trump, because Trump. Nothing else. No other reason. It's 100% political, 0% ethical/legal... it's why the party never released anything under the Biden/Harris regime. Oh, I am 100% positive that if something came out like this about Newsom, you and everyone else in your party would be calling it a Republican attack piece, so spare me.

The only reason would be to cover up many prominent Democrats. If that were the case, then there's no moral high ground to stand on, because they're just as guilty as Trump.

G.T.F.O.H, Bill Clinton. The Democrats' golden boy is Obama. Once Hillary lost in 2015, the Clinton's lost their standing. Obama winning in 2008 and 2012 shifted the party way further left than Clinton ever was. Their base is, and has been, socialist since then. They knew this when Hillary ran and they forced Bernie out, in the primaries. They knew their base turned far left and feared they were losing the middle but tried to hold on to it. Now that they've completly accepted the far left mindset (Pelosi's out, Schumer is out, Schiff is out, Jeffries is in, Booker is in, Crockett is in), there's no need to pretend any more. There's no need to protect the older regimes. The people who voted for Bill are either indoctrinated or dead. Remember, Bill left office 25 years ago. That's 100 years in political years. As for the rest of your nonsense, the Democrats for over 10 years have been doing anything and everything they can to get Trump of Washington DC. If they had the golden ticket just last July, especially with all the Biden health coverup going on, they would have thrown the Epstein list out there? Why risk Trump winning? Dude, Harris alone, in 3 months, spent 3x more than Trump did in 8. So what if they lost some donors? If they lost THAT many, then what moral high ground is there to bash Trump? Also, if that were the case, then why are the rank and file, people like you, so angered against Trump and don't give two craps about the people you vote for... when they knew all along who was on that list and they kept it quiet? Here's my take on Washington DC. On any of the 365 days in the year, you will find 537 elected officials that are corrupt. Any person who put any personal value on any one of those 537 people are foolish. NO ONE should be voting for the candidate as a person, they'll only let you down, they should ONLY be voting on platform/policy. I don't like Donald Trump as a person, he's an azzhat. I've met him a few times when I was in my 20's (remember, he was a tried and true Democrat back then and the Clinton's (including Hillary), loved him). The guy is a dbag. If he did something wrong, fine. What I put no credence in, is the how Democrats have no problem protecting their own and backing those who are doing it, while trying to single Trump out.

Also, why wouldn't the Biden/Harris administration release it during the 2024 campaign?

Well, he's definitely not getting my vote.

How would it? The average cost of a house just 6 years ago was around $380k. If you needed say, 5% to put down on that house to get the loan, you needed about $19k, right? Today, that average cost of a house is around $510k, so you'd need $25.5k. If people can't afford $25.5k NOW, how would a 50-year mortgage generate such a demand, that more people would want to buy homes that they still can't afford and make the cost go higher and making them less affordable?

Fast & Furious

Had that in my mid-20's. It's no where near as bad to rebound from, as an ACL. IF, I'm inclined to draft him next year, this injury wouldn't impact my evaluation process... who's throwing him that ball, definitely will.

Teams needing a new coach, should target Brian Hartline. He seems to have a complete grasp on how to run an offense. I don't think it's a coincidence that almost every offensive player that's been through Ohio State the last 8+ seasons is making an impact in the NFL. There have definitely been some prior to 2017, like Michael Thomas, Zeke, and Curtis Samuel... but since 2017, McLaurin & Campbell improved dramatically with Hartline, then you have a plethora of guys like Stroud, Fields, Dobbins, Henderson, Judkins, G. Wilson, Olave, JSN, Harrison, & Egbuka. He now has Jerramiah Smith, Carnell Tate, and Julian Sayin. I'm calling it now... Julian Sayin will be pick 1.01 in the 2027 draft. The dude is going to be the next star pocket passer.

How does the results of the DEI initiative not convince people that the Democrat Party platform's sole purpose is to create and capitalize on victimhood? Arguments: According to a the far-left activists group, the ACLU, DEI(A)'s purpose was to: So, DEI(A), was supposed to help people (mainly of color), but also women, at the expense of men (mainly white), but also Asians. So, it promotes racism and discrimination. Aside from that fact, let's focus on the results. The results were that white women were substantially the biggest beneficiary. Looking at this from the perspective of the purpose of the agenda, the past and present remarks of special interest groups and party leaders, they claim that DEI is successful and working. As we, from the outside looking at things, we should see.... Women, mainly white, saying that thanks to DEI women are no longer oppressed and equal. - Note, we're not seeing that. Minorities, mainly black, saying that thanks to DEI, they're getting better treatment. - Note, they are saying that... but the results are not bearing that out. In fact, it's worse. Blacks are being less helped than before, to the benefit of mainly, white women. Women (especially white), are being given special treatment, yet the "Progressive" message is that they're still oppressed. How, they've been getting special treatment? Black people were flat out lied to by the "Progressive" arm of the country, yet the "Progressive" message is that the Conservatives are the problem (even though they're the ones who pushed against the agenda that didn't help [and actually hurt], black people). Just curious on how our left-wingers don't see the reality that the Democrat party actively tries to create victims and then capitalize on them? Also curious as to why @peenie has supported a party that has literally lied to her, her entire life, and still makes policies promotes the degradation of the black community.

Point of the OP was to point out that the Democrat party platform is to champion the cause of helping "marginalized" people. Not only do they not do that, they make things worse. Yet, people still buy the load of crap that they're selling. It's not just one person... it's the party platform . All you gave me is "but Trump". So....

Wrong. None of those have anything to do with deciding who can or can't get married. The government need not be involved. Virtually everything you've noted, can apply to people who aren't married. For example Two (or more), random people who are friends can buy a house together. They could go to court over the dispersal if something were to go awry. Two (or more), random people who are friends can take out a joint loan. They could go to court over those loan agreements. Two (or more), random people who are friends can be involved in taking over parental rights of children. Being married doesn't exclusively tie people to those reasons you mentioned.

I tried in this thread, I should've known better.

When was that?

Yup.

By Democrats?

The younger people are socialists, so yeah, it's ideology.

Terrible.

She's definitely not retiring because she wants to. She's retiring because she lost control of her party to people more extreme than her. Schumer will be next.