i love it. you make a claim. someone asks for evidence. you provide a link that doesn't support your claim. someone else calls you out on it. you provide a link (presumably after doing some research) and then state "i'm not doing your research for you." I hear that evangilicals eat placentas and that's why they want abortions banned.
You’re not wrong but I would prefer ads that clearly state the candidates intentions over ads that try to tell you what the other candidate wants.
It is fair that they state what they plan to do but, their positions of the past matter because that would determine their character and truthfulness. Politicians as a whole, make a lot of empty promises and even change positions once, in power. US voters deserve an objective view of what the candidate actually stands for and believes in. Nothing more telling is the candidates speaking and recorded on video in the past. They cannot lie about what they actually said in their past positions. Kamala Harris claimed in the debate that she did not change her positions including, on fracking. However, there are videos where Kamala Harris said she is against fracking in the past.
I disappointed that Trump didn't take a Viagra at the start and tell her that if she got too uppety, he'd rape her like he did Ivana.
It was a free starter kit for some of the chuckleheads here who prefer some procedural bullshit instead of actually knowing what the facts are. But, you do you
When red states block abortions for minor sexual assault survivors so they can virtue signal about being pro life, you are nowhere to be seen to spout facts. But ya, some woman getting late term abortion to save their own lives is procedural bullshit.
Trump is even losing the GOPers in Texas. So sad. Lifelong Republican will now vote for Harris after Trump's ABC debate performance https://www.the-express.com/news/po...al-election-kamala-Harris-Donald-Trump-debate