Share this:
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
Louisiana Voice 
Do you think it would have been better with Kamala Harris??? Our choices were pretty slim. She really seems incapable of pouring piss out of a boot. She made Sara Palin look good!!!!!
Slim choices, yes. But making Sara (sic) Palin look good is dang nigh asking the impossible. Even MTG would be better than Palin.
Yes things would have been better with Harris. But that debate is impossible to have with anyone capable of making excuses for Trump. Making excuses for Trump demonstrates the utter absence of a moral compass and a mean cynicism toward government, the rule of law, and the hopes and dreams of the Founding Fathers. Are Democrats and other liberals without flaw or fault? No. But they aren’t fascists and MAGA is. Period. Finis. End of story.
Ahhhhhh….the ad hominum attack-a great way to end an argument. Reminds me of a five year old calling another five year old a poo poo head and then claiming victory.
Well you win!
You’re right. It’s a personal attack. I was being courteous but obviously blunt honesty works better. It’s a personal attack because there is no legitimate point to make in the defense of Trump, and no defense is weaker than “whatabout Kamala?” There is nothing to debate, not even the character of those who support Trump. Supporting Trump defines one as the problem and we don’t debate with problems; we eliminate them and move on.