'Republicans for Harris' draws 73,000 attendees Tuesday night

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: Mahogani

lol, Conway is a unhinged Trump hater. He falls into that DeNiro, Olberman, Ron Pearlman, Whoopi, Joy category. Pretty certain he had a lot to do with Kelly leaving the Trump administration. In other words I couldn’t care less about what he and his lil muppets have to say, they’re TDS afflicted delusional individuals. Stage 5 TDS is a tough watch. I feel sorry for Kelly because she seems like a very honest and genuine person. I can only imagine the unhinged bs she has to put up with being around her husband. Everything I’ve heard come out of his mouth sounds like the guy is a total douchebag.

Trump sure seems to take up a lot of real estate with you upstairs.

Yeah, Conway is definitely no Kid Rock, or Dennis Quaid, Ted Nugent, Kanye West, James Woods, Jon Voigt or Roseanne Barr.

And you can label them all with TDS, or whatever, but 73,000 people endorsing the opponent is major news. I think they'd all gladly accept the TDS label if Harris won.

As far as the health and prosperity of your countrymen and country, you better hope she doesn’t win. Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it and you might not like it.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: Mahogani

lol, Conway is a unhinged Trump hater. He falls into that DeNiro, Olberman, Ron Pearlman, Whoopi, Joy category. Pretty certain he had a lot to do with Kelly leaving the Trump administration. In other words I couldn’t care less about what he and his lil muppets have to say, they’re TDS afflicted delusional individuals. Stage 5 TDS is a tough watch. I feel sorry for Kelly because she seems like a very honest and genuine person. I can only imagine the unhinged bs she has to put up with being around her husband. Everything I’ve heard come out of his mouth sounds like the guy is a total douchebag.

Trump sure seems to take up a lot of real estate with you upstairs.

Yeah, Conway is definitely no Kid Rock, or Dennis Quaid, Ted Nugent, Kanye West, James Woods, Jon Voigt or Roseanne Barr.

And you can label them all with TDS, or whatever, but 73,000 people endorsing the opponent is major news. I think they'd all gladly accept the TDS label if Harris won.

You know what would be an even more interesting number? How many democrats are voting for trump? I know of 6 in my small family alone and I hear about countless others that will not vote democrat anymore. If I had to guess it’s in the 1-2 millions, definitely in the 100’s of thousands. Jump on YouTube and do a search of democrats voting for Trump then do a search of people leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat. I know so many people that are done with the Party, I don’t know a single Republican that’s said they want to become a Democrat. Matter fact I can’t think of but 1 or 2 I’ve ever heard in my circle that wanted to jump on the democrat bandwagon. May mean nothing IDK just a observation.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

a reply to: Mahogani

Doesn't it seem reasonable to you that any (or all) voters would like to understand what ALL the candidates have to say??

If Kamala Harris posted a video tomorrow of what she stands for, and the policies which she intends to endorse, I would absolutely watch it! So, I'd be some number statistic like what you use in the OP.

I would venture that as much as 30% of the 1 billion views of the Trump X interview with Musk were probably democrats, at least informed ones (not the ones who just hate Trump and will vote against him even if they elect Stalin or Hitler instead).

So...what's your point? A lot of people, well, not that many, but a few, watched the video in your OP? Do video views now equal votes? Surely you don't believe this...do you? I wouldn't think so.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

can't have productive debate without personal respect

I find it rather odd that you think continually vomiting leftist propaganda on an obscure website is "debating".

When you lose your point you deflect, which I will admit is a debate tactic when you are losing.

I've yet to see you win a point, however.

I personally think you are just playing your part on here for the dopamine high.

Negative attention, after all, is still attention if you are a broken person.

Which is kinda sad and why I don't reply to you a lot.

You are not "debating"

You are mentally masturbating.

Just an observation.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

can't have productive debate without personal respect

No, you can't; this much is pretty obvious.

a reply to: Lumenari

Some 'people' (I use this term loosely) just 'get off' on trolling, so you are correct.

They just enjoy making others mad, and/or causing them to do more work. They really get their kicks from it.

The best response is no response; I completely agree.

I only respond when I know the post will be something someone else will say eventually anyway, so I'm not really responding to the poster, but rather at large.

a reply to: Lumenari

You are mentally masturbating.

I know the term and have used it but never was it so apprepo in context.😁

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

can't have productive debate without personal respect

BTW...How's the weather in Quebec??? Or, should I say..."KE-beck"?

edit - BTW, I'm gonna' be up there next week, so hopefully, well, hopefully...the weather is nice!

I'll be 100 miles off-shore, but in the neighborhood.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Lumenari

Some 'people' (I use this term loosely) just 'get off' on trolling, so you are correct.

They just enjoy making others mad, and/or causing them to do more work. They really get their kicks from it.

The best response is no response; I completely agree.

I only respond when I know the post will be something someone else will say eventually anyway, so I'm not really responding to the poster, but rather at large.

I understand what you are saying... a lot of times I don't post something as a rebuttal, but rather as something like-minded people can read and agree with.

As for this one, it appears to be the ATS version of South Park's Timmy.

Just rolls through all the threads screaming "TIMMAY!!!" and eventually we just get used to it and it is a part of the show, as it were.

Still kinda sad.

South Park's Timmy was at least a relatable character.

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: Lumenari

You are mentally masturbating.

I know the term and have used it but never was it so apprepo in context.😁

If you know you know...

"Threat to Democracy" .....



...........











In UKRAINE 🇺🇦

Where the top Democrats and their families launder and make alot of their money.

They definitely don't wanna lose that cash cow

originally posted by: Mahogani
This was virtual, of course. Nobody could pack 73,000 Republicans in one room. Twenty five Republican current or former politicians also attended the virtual rally and gave speeches. Some also went on TV and opened up to interviews, encouraging Republicans to vote for Harris in this election. They give various reasons for endorsing Harris, but there is one unified message from all of them - the preservation of our democracy.

If you listen to any of them in the video, then go to around 0:55s mark, where the interview with Geoff Duncan starts, the Republican former Lt. Gov. of Georgia.

Just because you vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 doesn't mean you're a democrat, it just means you're a patriot. You're doing your duty as an American to step up to the plate, and reclaim this country's future.

He talks more about an opportunity to rebuild the Republican Party into 2.0, and it reminded me of an op-ed I read in the NYT from David French.

David French is a hard-core Republican, a lawyer for the evangelicals who takes on constitutional cases, a columnist for the National Review, anti abortion and so on. Anyways, this is his take:

The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles isn’t to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his ideological transformation of the Republican Party. If Harris wins, the West will still stand against Vladimir Putin, and conservative Americans will have a chance to build something decent from the ruins of a party that was once a force for genuine good in American life.

Now, I'm not a fan of David French; to me he's a very far-right Republican, sitting in the middle where I wallow, but that a prominent, and an influential Republican is saying these things, and openly endorses Harris - that is something you don't see in elections. You don't get 73,000 of one party to hold a rally and endorse the other side. This is not normal. But neither is anything else around Trump.

Link

National Review? Sounds more like a bunch of neocons to me.

a reply to: Mahogani

"Evangelicals for Harris" ??

She's the 'abortion czar'. Made it her main talking point.

Not very 'evangelical' of them to supposedly support her.

Not buying it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Mahogani

Harris/Walz is a gateway TO dictatorship.

It's sad and frustrating that so many willfully ignore that.

^^ That.

Socialists and cancel culture and dictatorship.

And yet the 'save democracy' lemmings will vote for them.

Idiots.

'Republicans for Harris' draws 73,000 attendees Tuesday night

How many were actually republicans?

How many were bots?

How is it that you think that 73,000 online viewers is a lot when there are around 80,000,000 registered republicans that could have showed up and didn't?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Mahogani

"Evangelicals for Harris" ??

She's the 'abortion czar'. Made it her main talking point.

Not very 'evangelical' of them to supposedly support her.

Not buying it.

It's not actually crazy. The Evangelicals into the 70s believed abortion was a "catholic issue".

In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

This only changed after Paul Wemouth(one of the founders of Heritage Foundation) wrote a letter to politically connected Evangelical leaders who were angry the government no longer allowed tax exemptions to segregated schools. They wanted different politicians in charge, but knew they could not rally their base around racism and chose abortion as the issue. Their first big backed candidate was Reagan.

Politico 2014

The Religious Right and The Abortion Myth

Not hard to believe that she could get support as it's a political motive, not a true religious motive.

originally posted by: frogs453
The Evangelicals into the 70s believed abortion was a "catholic issue".

This is 2024.

a reply to: FlyersFan

And? If any were on the fence, know their historical stance on it, or as I've seen from those posting about the zoom call, that many of the teachings of Christ are in direct conflict with messaging coming from the right in many areas, or if they have had a loved one affected by these new abortion laws in their state(which has many examples of women being denied and almost dying) they could certainly support another candidate.

a reply to: frogs453

It’s laughable to even suggest evangelicals would ever vote for somebody who is the very embodiment of racism, sexism, pro abortion, and pro child gender mutilation.