Search the Community

In seriousness, we really are as divided as we've ever been. Trump ripped into Biden and the Democrats at many points and they responded with hooting and insults throughout the speech. There's real animosity. And I feel that way myself. The anger and rage. After all the bullsh*t lawfare they put President Trump through, the left has really honed him into someone anxious to get things done and giving zero focks about them and their priorities. There is no playing nice with these people. I share the opinion that the Democrats are vile and evil scum. Just ignore them, run them over, then back up and run them over a second time. I know its not a healthy way to run the country or feel about the opposition but its where we are since both sides just kept escalating until the good guys won. And now every day is great. Its just so ecstatic and liberating to see President Trump cut through seemingly impenetrable and permanent fixtures of bureaucracy and leftoid rule. The swamp is actually being drained and DEI, trans-insanity, and wokeness under seige and rooted out. Need another eight years of JD Vance or Ron DeSantis after this to make every ember of this garbage go cold, salt over leftoidism, and make the cultural shift permanent. The leftoids aren't dead yet but their popularity is the lowest its ever been, their ability to censor seriously curtailed, and the power/stature of the institutions they've co-opted been reduced. Have to make sure these reforms take hold and succeed.

Talking about trans stuff. Geek club is activated!

They've talked about a lot of things, but I don't think they will do this. I expect lots of walkouts and perhaps some boos. It's going to be a shitshow one way or another. In the audience will be someone who was injured by a trans woman during a sporting event, so you clowns will get your tranny fix tonight and have other feather in your obsession cap. Woo!

Yes yes, Michelle is really a trans man, but Trump has her medical records now. Release the Truth about Michelle Obama!!

In a January 2025 New York Times poll, a whopping 79% of Americans believe trans athletes shouldn't be allowed to compete in girls' sports. That includes 67% of Democrats. It’s the gift that keeps on giving - the Democrats are self-imploding on this issue. They can’t stop themselves.

I read it as he was a gay ally of the trans. but thinking of it gays aren’t really trans friendly

Doesn’t say where, but a judge blocks trumps orders banning government funding of trans surgeries performed on kids. Shame. 2 Samuel 2:8. He raises up the poor out of the dust and lift up the beggar from the dung hill to set them among the princess and to make them inherit the throne of Glory, for the pillars of the Earth are The Lords And He has set the World upon them. Indeed God is in control of all things. Amen Thanks

That might be the most immoral thing I have ever heard anyone accuse Trump of. I don't even think the furthest left socialist trans-purple-hair-whacko would suggest Trump condones serial murder.

The only reason the conspiracy group voted for Trump was because they believed he was a part of Q, and he was going to help dismantle that relationship. Knowing that most of our issues start with Isreal. All the DEI, trans, woke, cancel culture, corrupting our kid, Hollywood rape problem, politicians not being pro American, that all comes from Isreal and their influence. It's really not hard to track that all down. I'm not anti Jewish. I'm anti anyone who wants to enslave America and destroy our country. Not all Jews are Zionists, but most of the prominent ones are. If he genuinely is 100% pro Israel, then idk how we get out of the mess that the left started. It all ties back to Israel, and Trump is in on it with Clinton, Obama, Pelosi etc.

Maybe because you folks keep talking about Trans, who are only about 1% of the US population at best.

Agreed. Pretty Barbie doughnuts don't mean trans, although I'm open to hear what I'm missing. Otherwise, he has a very weird obsession with trans stuff.

No it is actual, real news, but most folks in this country are more concerned with the price of eggs and other groceries rather than a trans athlete competing in a women's sport event.

Plus Maximum Overkill (aka League Champion) could be one of the channel's hosts, since he talks about trans 24/7 anyway (or so it seems).

The trans obsession here never ceases to amaze me.

Bill Maher. Dems will lose every election over kowtowing to trans ideology. Indeed Exodus 14:14. The Lord shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace. Indeed Amen Thanks

They didn't have trans-oceanic phone lines until the late 40s. Anything in the 20s/30s would have been radio based/telegraph. The first actual cable wasn't laid until the 50s and it didn't work very well. I am sure they "talked" other ways.

All of the Pride Months need to stop NOW! No more Black History Month! No more Hispanic History Month! No more Trans/Gay Month! NO MORE

Was it a trans-Atlantic flight?

Why are all Liberals gay, trans or non-binary?

I've explained it: progressives will not stop until trans people are considered the other sex, period, full stop, no restrictions or consideration for their long-term health or the well-being of others. If you wake up tomorrow and feel trans, you are trans. Get with the program, comrade.

It’s also fascinating to me that the jerks who openly brag about caring nothing about women’s athletics are the same dudes who express the most concern about trans athletes competing in women’s athletics.

Yep. The Neo-Confederacy. The New Trans Flat-Earthers. Also, Science deniers and reality resisting racists. I haven't seen them this mad and unhinged since we took away their slaves.

Real Power! Yeah, that's what I got here over the people who keep starting threads about me (5 now to my count!). And, no, sorry to disappoint the trans haters, the vocalist Beth Ditto is not a drag queen, she is an actual born female.

You act like Kameltoe is far Tight on free trade and tariffs. She’s not. Good article in The NY Times: With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues. In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.” But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known. William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.” In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.” Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change. While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.” Her skepticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was also partially related to its impact on the environment. She expressed concerns in an interview that it might undermine California’s environmental laws. As a senator, Ms. Harris also sponsored the Green New Deal, an expansive set of policies aimed at addressing climate change. That has given rise to speculation among trade experts that, if elected, Ms. Harris might lean more on trade as a tool to fight climate change — for example, by striking more limited deals that encourage trade in cleaner products and raise barriers for trade in dirtier ones. “A Harris presidency would continue and build upon Biden’s trade policy,” said Todd Tucker, the director of Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy and research organization. “Where I would expect to see Harris go even further than Biden is on integrating trade and climate policy.” Politicians have only recently turned to trade policy as a tool to fight climate change, and not much has yet been accomplished in the area. But it is an approach that is gathering support. In negotiations with the European Union, the Biden administration pushed for trade measures that would encourage makers of steel and aluminum in Europe and the United States to cut carbon emissions. While those talks have faltered, they could be a model for more actions under a Harris administration, trade analysts said. Greta Peisch, a former trade official with the Biden administration who is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, said that the Biden administration had been on the cusp of pushing the United States to use trade tools to address climate change. “With the Harris administration, that would be a trajectory that she would be on as well,” she said. Ms. Peisch added that Ms. Harris could also potentially push forward nascent policies addressing how the United States should work with foreign countries to regulate digital trade. Ms. Harris is familiar with the tech industry from her time in office in California, she said, and could help to set the agenda for how tech issues like artificial intelligence and privacy regulation factor into trade negotiations. Both Republicans and Democrats have adopted more protectionist stances on trade in recent years, moving away from a time when “free trade” was often an unquestioned pursuit for many politicians. While the Trump administration imposed large tariffs on foreign products in an effort to gain leverage and renegotiate trade deals, the Biden administration has declined to pursue traditional free-trade agreements, instead focusing on domestic investments and other kinds of international partnerships. Many Democrats now view free trade deals as a reason that American companies have shipped jobs overseas — a view that seems likely to carry into another Democratic administration. Ms. Harris has emphasized reorienting U.S. trade policy to prioritize the impact on American workers, rather than big companies that would prefer to cut costs by outsourcing jobs. She has also taken a more critical stance against China in her appearances as vice president and her voting record as a senator. And she has denounced the Trump administration’s more aggressive and broad-brush approach to dealing with trade partners, describing the tariffs on China as a tax for American consumers. In a 2019 presidential debate, Ms. Harris described Mr. Trump’s trade policy toward China as erratic and full of bluster. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” she said. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.” Mr. Biden was also critical of Mr. Trump’s tariffs during that campaign. Once in office, however, the Biden administration ultimately chose to maintain Mr. Trump’s China tariffs and recently added some new ones, saying they were necessary to prevent cheap foreign products from flooding the United States and protect new factories that have received federal funding. Mr. Trump has upped the ante in his current campaign for president, proposing tariffs on most foreign goods and floating a tariff of 60 percent or more on goods from China. The Biden administration has said that level of tariffs could damage the U.S. economy, widen the gap between the rich and poor and spark global trade wars that would hurt U.S. exporters. In her role as vice president, Ms. Harris took part in the administration’s push to lessen the dependence of supply chains on China, including by promoting new partnerships for apparel manufacturing in Central America. In speeches, she often took a hard line on China, rebuking the country during two trips to Asia for its maritime clashes with countries like Japan and the Philippines. As a senator, she condemned the persecution of Uyghur and minority women in western China and sponsored a bill by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican of Florida, to impose sanctions on those responsible for human rights abuses in the region. She was also a sponsor of Mr. Rubio’s Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which was a response to China’s increasing control over the former British territory. “They steal our products, including our intellectual property,” Ms. Harris said in a 2019 debate. “They dump substandard products into our economy. They need to be held accountable. We also need to partner with China on climate and the crisis that that presents."

He couldn't find something for his trans thread du jour so he turned to some Maddow bashing.