democrats running on nothing but Hate Trump this election

😄👍🇺🇸

Oh that gave me and idea. Thanks.

imgflip.com/i/97djzc

It's what I do 😁👍

It’s all the Left has, Hate and racism.

And killing babies

Didn't I just see that on Twitter....

And she's gonna win :)

I keep hearing on MSM that the Kamala campaign has the Educated voters in her court, and Trump has the uneducated working class, as if that's going to attract more voters? And is that really true?

They're basically insulting the working class, under the pretense that they want to attract those voters.

And yet I never see an ad that's aimed at educated voters from her campaign. It seems like ALL her promotions are aimed at uneducated voters.

When she promises freebies to her voters, like $20K Forgivable loans, she knows good and well that if she tried that with an EO, the SCOTUS would shoot it down faster than they shot down Biden's School loans forgiveness. She also knows it would never pass congress.

And ALL her flip-flops on issues (I think there's like 15 of them) , are simply because Trump has pointed them out to the public, forcing her to flip. And if these so called (cough) "educated" (cough) democrat voters can't see that, then I say they are uneducated.

Her CAMPAIGN makes little sense to me, and the media isn't helping her in this regard imo.

I think it's important to clear up a few things here because there seems to be some misunderstandings. First, it's true that people often say Democrats attract more educated voters, and Republicans appeal to more working-class voters, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of oversimplifying this. Calling one group "educated" and the other "uneducated" is not only unfair, but it also misrepresents both sides. Education and intelligence don't always look the same, and people in both groups have valid reasons for supporting the candidates they choose. Dismissing one group as "uneducated" doesn’t help anyone, and it pushes people further apart rather than bringing them together.

Regarding Kamala Harris’s campaign, you're right that her promises, like student loan forgiveness, have faced legal challenges, and it’s unlikely she could pass something like that through an executive order alone. The Supreme Court already ruled against Biden’s attempt at loan forgiveness, so it's reasonable to be skeptical. However, saying her promises are only aimed at "uneducated" voters isn’t quite accurate. Policies like student loan forgiveness are mainly targeting young, educated voters with student debt, not people without education. She’s addressing a specific issue, even if it’s controversial or difficult to achieve. It's also worth pointing out that offering "freebies" or big promises isn't just a Democratic tactic; Republicans often offer large tax cuts or other benefits that they know might face hurdles in Congress or the courts. Both sides do this to appeal to their base, and we need to recognize that.

As for flip-flopping, politicians from both parties adjust their positions over time. Trump, for example, has changed his stance on various issues like foreign policy and healthcare. It’s a natural part of politics, and sometimes it happens because the public demands it or because the situation changes. We can disagree with a politician's decision to change their position, but it doesn’t mean they’re always doing it just because of pressure from the other side. Kamala Harris has shifted on some topics, but it’s not fair to assume that every change she makes is only because Trump pointed it out. She may be reacting to new information or shifting public opinion, which is something all leaders do.

1/

You can't show me where Trump changed his policy to Kamala's policies, because she made it an issue.

ALSO, it was Biden's Student Loan Forgiveness, not Kamala's.

And her $20K forgiveable Loans is for Blacks only, is racist and unconstitutional. I say it's aimed at uneducated voters, simply because only uneducated voters would believe that crap.

But the same problem exists for the $25K for first time home buyers. AGAIN, she knows it will NEVER past congress, and if she tries an EO, the SCOTUS will shout it down. And again...only uneducated voters would believe that crap AND SHE KNOWS IT.

The reason SCOTUS would shoot these ideas down, is because it's unconstitutional to make the working taxpayers to pay for her little experimental pet projects which were only intended to buy votes. That's why they shot down the Student Loan Forgiveness.

LOL - and she NEVER worked at McDonalds.

Finally, the media does have a role in shaping perceptions, but it’s not always as black-and-white as we think. Some outlets may favor one side, but the important thing is for us to stay informed from multiple sources and not let any one narrative define how we see things. Instead of focusing on how one side or the other is wrong, it would be more helpful to recognize where both sides are coming from and look for solutions that actually work for all of us.

2/2

I'm not sure you and I are living on the same planet. ALL the Major Media sources except Fox, and NEWSMAX (and some minor outlets) are in the bag for Kamala, and echo each other in endless ad nauseam.

ONE More thing... I'm the one upvoting your posts, simply because you're trying to have an actual conversation, expressing your honest opinions. I do respect that.

It’s important to correct a few misconceptions. First, Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan wasn’t Kamala’s, you’re right, but she supported it as part of the administration’s goals. As for the $20K forgivable loans for Black borrowers, that's not quite accurate either. Harris’s housing plan is aimed at providing assistance to first-time homebuyers in underserved communities, not exclusively based on race. Claiming it's racist or unconstitutional oversimplifies the issue and leaves out the broader context of helping marginalized groups facing systemic barriers in homeownership.

Regarding the claim that only “uneducated” voters believe in these policies, that’s a pretty broad assumption. Many educated voters understand that political promises often face challenges in Congress or the courts. It's not about falling for “crap,” but recognizing that these policies signal the priorities of a candidate. Whether you agree with the policies or not, they aren’t aimed at uneducated voters, but at addressing systemic issues, even if they might not pass as they stand.

Finally, suggesting that media bias is universal except for a few outlets overlooks the diversity of reporting available. While outlets lean different ways, we should all look at multiple sources to get a clearer picture. As I said earlier, political divides deepen when we assume only one side controls the narrative. Don't you think FOX controls your narrative? What truly bothers you about this?

I appreciate that you’re upvoting posts for the sake of honest conversation, let's keep it real.

Well it's pretty much just you and I here that's probably seeing it, which is another reason I upvote from the Kamala people, because if nobody upvoted them, the comments don't actually get read.

But as I remember it, there was Kamala's first freebie was $25K for 1st time Homebuyers (which I never said was based on race), which was different from offering $20K forgiveable loans to Black people.

In both cases... the point I'm making is that She knows it will never pass, but she won't tell you that, because she's trying to buy votes. Only the educated people know that it won't pass. Go figure.

Secondly, that she's only offering $20K to Blacks is racist. And I say the same thing about Reparations... another thing She knows will never pass.

And finally... these Freebies she keeps offering is blatant socialism by forcing the people who earned their money to give it to people who didn't earn it. That is unconstitutional.

Trump's plan is to improve the economy, and bring back jobs to the USA, which helps Blacks too. This is why the Black unemployment was the lowest ever during his first term under his policies.

You're right that some policies like the $25K for first-time homebuyers or $20K for Black borrowers face significant legal and political hurdles, but it's not fair to say they're purely "buying votes." Politicians on both sides make proposals that reflect their values and priorities, even if those policies might struggle to pass. It's a strategy to show voters what they stand for, much like Trump’s tax cuts aimed at benefiting corporations and working-class Americans.

As for the $20K aimed at Black borrowers, it's part of an effort to address racial wealth gaps caused by historical inequities. Labeling it as "racist" ignores the larger context of systemic inequality. Like I said before, many educated voters, (and non-educated voters) both for and against these policies, understand they face tough paths through Congress. It doesn’t mean the people who support them are uneducated; they might just prioritize different issues.

On socialism, offering social programs like homeownership aid or student loan forgiveness isn’t unconstitutional. The government has been redistributing wealth in various ways, like Social Security or tax breaks, for decades. These proposals might not align with your views, but they're part of broader debates about the role of government. Trump's economic policies did benefit some groups, including lower Black unemployment, but it’s important to recognize that both sides have complex plans for improving the economy.

It’s not "blatant socialism" because these programs, like student loan forgiveness or housing assistance, are targeted forms of government intervention aimed at addressing specific social and economic issues, much like tax credits or subsidies. They’re part of a long-standing system of mixed-market capitalism, where the government provides support in certain areas without fundamentally changing the private ownership of businesses or wealth.

I think we will never agree on this. You can't show me where in the constitution it says that Gov't should "address racial wealth gaps caused by historical inequities" by redistibuting wealth.

It's simply not in there. See ya Nov 5.

(Sorry for deleting the three messages, thought I'd combine them into one for coherency/cohesion)

You're right, the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention addressing racial wealth gaps or redistributing wealth. However, policies like housing assistance or tax credits are rooted in Congress's power to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). The government has long used these tools to address economic inequalities and help all citizens, as part of its responsibility to ensure a functioning and equitable society.
Also, I'd like to address this error you seem to be stumbling on...

Just because something isn’t explicitly stated in the Constitution doesn’t automatically make it unconstitutional. The Constitution is a framework, and many laws and policies have been developed based on its principles and the powers it grants, like the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8), which allows Congress to pass laws needed to carry out its powers. Many government programs, from Social Security to infrastructure spending, aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but have been upheld as constitutional through court interpretations and legal precedent.
I'm not trying to make jabs at your relative intelligence... But I think whoever taught you what the word "unconstitutional" means, may have been mistaken in its usage.

"Unconstitutional" means that a law, action, or policy violates or goes against the principles, provisions, or rights outlined in the Constitution. If something is deemed unconstitutional, it means it exceeds the powers granted by the Constitution or infringes upon the rights it protects. This determination is typically made by courts, especially the Supreme Court, which interprets whether laws align with the Constitution.

"address racial wealth gaps caused by historical inequities" is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Thus, it *cannot* be unconstitutional.

It's common for people to disagree with how their tax dollars are used (and I understand your frustration), but taxes fund a wide range of services that benefit society as a whole, even if we don’t always agree on every expenditure. That balance between individual rights and collective responsibility is one of the ongoing debates in a democratic society. So the saying goes, "United we stand, divided we fall."

Let me know if I could clarify anything further.

Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

None of that matches a thing you're saying. The general Welfare of the United states does not mean some citizens get freebies at other citizens expense.

But you know what... if Congress rules on an amendment to the Constitution / Bill of rights... that is their right... BECAUSE it's in the Constitution that they have that right.

The SCOTUS job is to interpret what is written in the constitution, and that is why they put an end to Biden's student loan forgiveness bullshit. And Biden doesn't like that which is why they keep trying to add more judges to pack the court.

But the Constitution gives the President the right to pick a Judge, and congress must approve or disapprove. But the President does not have the authority to simply ADD more judges.

This is why the left would do away with the Constitution if they could.

You don't need to clarify anything, as you've been pretty clear about what you think... we just disagree. See ya Nov 5.

You're right that the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and it doesn't explicitly mandate that some citizens get "freebies" at others' expense. However, the interpretation of what falls under "general welfare" has evolved through centuries of legal precedent. (Again) Programs like Social Security, public education, and Medicare - all of which are funded by taxes- were debated in similar terms when they were introduced. They are seen as part of promoting the general welfare, even though they involve redistributing resources for the common good.

You're also correct that SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and they ruled Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan overstepped executive authority, which aligns with the separation of powers you mentioned. On the issue of court-packing, you're right again that adding judges would require congressional approval, not unilateral action by the president. These checks and balances exist to prevent any one branch from overstepping its power, which is what keeps our system functioning.

I think we both agree on the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law, even though we might interpret some of its applications differently - despite precedence.