You’ve been one of the only objective and realistic people that I’ve come across this election cycle from what is the “Rumble Universe” (and most other universes for that matter).
I was drawn to your Substack from the interviews you do for System Update, but I’ll be damned if your writing isn’t actually even better than your great interviews. Your humor comes through in both! Keep up the great work Mr. Tracey. It’s people like you that help us remaining lucid ones remember that we aren’t crazy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for articulating almost exactly how I feel about both candidates. And how tired I am of being accused of a lack of patriotism for refusing to force myself to believe that either of these two will be less than disastrous as president.
I have become more obsessed with foreign policy as US foreign policy has become increasingly unhinged since 9/11 and the adoption of the Wolfowitz doctrine. I actually spent my career on domestic policy, and I fear that either candidate will reverse the singular achievement of the current administration, which is the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement.
I’ll be voting third party because I believe that the current duopoly has become completely dysfunctional and needs some real competition. Of course, this is a long term project that may never work out. But it is the only act of hope I can come up with.
And before you shriek that I am helping to destroy American democracy by failing to vote against the Orange Menace, know that I vote in the District of Columbia. My vote has precisely zero potential consequence for the Electoral College outcome.
I agree with your positions. I'm voting 3rd party as well. We need to change this mess we call elections. It needs a total overhaul! Definitely age and term limits... & abolishing lobbists!! The voters need to take back our government.
so many people seem to feel that if they're not in a swing state, it's 'okay.'
so tired of people snearing that it's 'noble' to vote on 'principles' while they feel obligated to 'do the right thing' and support the current system.
i'm not in a swing state. wish i were. i'd still have voted 3rd party because my 'principles' don't change based on the (fraudulent) electoral college system.
Yes! To long-term project. Denying the value in that is simply giving up and giving in. Feeling bullied into voting for one of the two (when conscience says otherwise) also means buying into a fear-mongering mentality which is never the optimal state of mind for decision-making.
For those who have weighed the two choices and believe strongly that there is a correct choice, fine, have at it. But why must people derive one another for their voting choices? If we’re trying to create a better society, this approach loses the plot. How we interact with the person in front of us is the thing we actually have real control of.
I would argue that voting for Jill Stein is not exactly a fear-based decision since she won’t win. Voting based on fear means you really think you can control the outcome. It’s the reason a good majority of people will vote for Trump or Harris - because fear of the other overrides critique of their own candidate. I was enthusiastic about RFK until he went with Trump but now that he’s off the ballots (after volunteers got over a million signatures for him - thanks for your weasely tactics, democrat party) I’m considered voting for Stein instead of writing in RFK because RFK is wrong on Israel. It’s my only caveat about his stances.
Voting for Stein is fear-based in that I'm sure Harris and Trump will continue the genocide. It's hope-based in that I want to help her get to 5%, which would be really good for the country.
zackly!! i have no more faith in Harris than in Trump for very different reasons.
in the end, i agree with you, Megan. genocide and all that goes with it will continue with either side of the uniparty coin. so why support either one?
and yeah... the 5% is absolutely part of why voting for Stein is a vote for ourselves and our country. hope-based for sure. cheers!
It's an understatement to this is the best commentary I've seen on this election and the horrible presidential characters being inflicted on the republic. Indispenable (at least for my sanity) is a better descriptor for what you offer here.
In particular, however, I congratulate you for noting the pitiable failures of the supposed alt media, something that has bugged me for a while, too, to say the least. Especially its highest-profile figures, notably the ultra-creepy Russell Brand. And that isn't to suggest any lack of creepiness in Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr.. Jordan, Tucker and that Shanahan woman.
Your focus on foreign policy is also much appreciated. It's odd -- although it really isn't -- that Washington's constant, sustained interference and interventions around the world aren't foregrounded or even mentioned even as we maintain something like 800 military bases overseas, many of which nudge right up against the borders of supposed adversary nations. It's almost as if we're trying to provoke something.
"Like I said, I freely accept that I’m an extreme outlier." No, you are not. It is this crazy, ass-backward political reality that is the outlier. We have a World War-II style, US-sponsored armed conflict going on in Europe, a life-streamed, US-supported genocide going on in West Asia and crazy but serious talk about a war with China. If these things are NORMAL and you are the OUTLIER then humanity's future is dark.
It is truly astounding that journalists are not making the threat to free speech a central issue. Most people I talk to are completely unaware—thanks to our media.
Yes Lisa, for me the single most important issue. Governments all of the world are striving to control the internet. Glen Greenwald, Michael’s “daddy”, has done a wonderful job covering this topic. But I guess Michael somehow is not really concerned…
Unlike Greenwald, who of late has thrown any pretense of objectivity overboard and joined the camp of Trump partisans, Tracey has maintained the impartiality needed to report intelligently and sensibly on the shit show known as US party duopoly.
I appreciate Greenwald's commentary on and passionate support of transparency and free speech, but his lopsided bashing of the Harris/Biden/Clinton/Obama/Pelosi party, as deservedly as it is, while rarely if ever mentioning that the Trump/Rubio/Pompeo/Cotton/Hayley mob are just as horrendous, is getting old and damages his reputation imo. Just look at his last 4 days of tweets. https://x.com/ggreenwald
One can only hope that once this election is over, GG reverts back to being the evenhanded journalist I know him to be.
Andre, if this is your "single most important issue" you've had plenty of time to address it. US government censorship has been in place for over a century. During WWI, Pres. Wilson ordered dismantling and closing of all radio stations: "In conformity to the Radio Act of 1912, the President in time of war, may authorize any department of the Government to close all radio stations."
Censorship is always a problem, but things had changed considerably for the better since 1917. But we're going backwards fast. The net for who gets censored is bigger than it's ever been in my lifetime. It's basically for anyone consequentially challenging the liberal establishments lies and orthodoxies. See Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop. the demonetizing of YouTube channels, the withholding of Paypal donations. The global alliance between Big Tech and governments is very alarming and the Democrats are definitely in the vanguard on that.. Shrugging at it because Woodrow Wilson seems very silly.
Mike, WWI censorship "net" captured 100% of US dissent. The reason I brought it up is it shows the mentality of US elites. When given the chance, they'll withhold 100% of information from Americans. That's why they're hysterical today wishing the 3 tv nets were back. Harry Truman had no problem dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians in 1945 but he was ruthlessly obsessed with censoring the damage it had caused. Finally, exactly one US reporter was allowed to go there to "report" on effects.
"We are losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to do something. [...] Maybe in certain areas closing that internet up in some way. Somebody will say 'oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We gotta maybe do something with the internet, because they are recruiting y the thousands."
If it suits his agenda, he would censor just the same as any Democrat. Don't kid yourself.
He announced he wants anyone burning the flag locked up for a year, and, ever the uber-Zionist, said he'd deport people speaking out against Israeli war crimes.
So the whole "free-speech-champion" Trump myth is just that, a myth, a tale told to gullible pundits believing anything to feed their confirmation bias.
Possibly. But the Democrats have been actually acting on this. The Twitter Files clearly showed the federal government, under Biden, acting aggressively to censor thousands of citizens. This happened. What Trump would or would not do is speculation at this point. As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled by their radical embrace of censorship. On this issue, I don’t think there is currently equivalency.
Sure. Democrats have a dismal record of protecting free speech. At a federal level anyway.
Look at the state level though and you'll find that red states are just as eager to stomp out speech they don't like, such as the anti-BDS laws which ensure state contracts include a clause that “the support or participation of a boycott of Israel shall be grounds for termination of the contract.” Or something to this effect.
Or take Florida, where Republican DeSantis is making sure opinions he doesn't like are being stifled. Check out First Amendment Watch ( https://firstamendmentwatch.org/topics/florida-v-free-speech/ ). Quote: "FAW has compiled our coverage of Florida’s extraordinary number of serious violations of First Amendment rights. These include the state’s attacks on academic freedom, book bans, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ attempts to silence private companies, attacks on the media, anti-protest measures and a social media censorship law."
What I'm trying to say is: both parties are in the authoritarian camp. Given the power and a strong enough ideological urge, they all can't resist telling people what they are allowed to say.
And whilst Musk to his credit has brought back a lot of the accounts suspended in the wild years leading up to him taking over Twitter, shadow-banning continuous and account suspensions are also happening under his reign.
Anyhow, I hope you are right, and Trump if he does win the election will not use governmental powers to quash freedom of expression when it comes to calling out the insane mass murder and war crimes his zionist masters have unleashed on the Levant.
It’s implied in everything he said about the fact that the problems with Kamala’s candidacy are widely covered in alternative media and understood by these audiences. The details of the article are about the things nobody is talking about in any of the circles he’s a part of.
"Thus, there seems to be a special obligation for US citizens to take that into account when selecting political leadership, however much people might want to endlessly whinge about abortion and Trans Women In Sports, or whatever the latest Culture War bugaboo is in any given year."
At the end of the day, people's daily lives matter to them the most. If you send your kids to public schools or to universities, or work for the public sector or even for a large corporation, you cannot escape the relentless attack on reality (like the long menu of possible genders your child could choose from) and on basic humanity (like the right to make a bad joke without losing your livelihood) that you call 'culture war'. People have had enough of being lectured about what to think and say. Hence the desire to vote out the people who are ultimately behind these manipulation tactics.
I agree with your critique of Trump, and as you say it is good for a journalist to not vote and thereby feel some attachment to a candidate. And as you have said before, neither supporters nor critics want to admit that once in office Trump governed like George Bush. But I still hope Trump wins, for these reasons:
-In the choice between George Bush and the Democrats who hate me, I prefer George Bush.
-If Hillary had been president instead of Trump, she would have bombed Damascus and Syrian military bases to hand over the country to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Trump's actions toward Syria were despicable, arming the Marxist Kurds and helping them occupy the oil field in the east, but he didn't do that.
-Trump gave the Israel lobby almost everything they wanted, but he did negotiate with the Taliban to end the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. After that the Taliban no longer attacked any U.S. soldiers, and the U.S. prepared to leave. Today Trump pretends, to sound tough, that he actually ended the attacks on U.S. soldiers by threatening to bomb the homes of Taliban leaders, a la Israel. But the fact is that he began the end of the war. Biden simply followed the plan already in place.
-The Democrats want forums, blogs, tweeters banned, even prosecuted on flimsy pretexts. They want the U.S. to be like in Britain where people are arrested all year round for "hateful" online criticism of mass immigration. They won't rest until this is done.
-A Democrat president picks Democrat judges. A judge has many ways to manipulate the outcome of a case, so we have criminals walk free after they have shot a White woman in the back, or shot a White man sitting in his parked car. Because the criminal was a Latino or a Black. While there are Whites who are prosecuted for defending their store, their pub or home against criminals.
-While Trump betrayed many of his election promises, the establishment prosecutions of him were on a Nicaraguan level of oppression. (Except for the one that was actually correct, that he stored tons of classified documents in his home, illegally.) If the Democrats win the coming election, these oppressive prosecutions will have been vindicated. A very dangerous future awaits in that case.
In short, while Trump is a disappointment in many ways, with him in the White House, or at least without today's left-wing-extremist Democrats in the White House, other people have the chance to do something. Without being imprisoned for it.
Thanks, you articulated that much better than I could have. I'm not even American and cannot vote but I do think there won't much of a county left if it stays much longer in the hands of the democrats with their beyond warped agenda.
When they call Kamala an extreme leftist or communist I want to gnash my teeth. The ruling class has done a neat trick, siloing class resentment on the right without class analysis. Dead end by design.
Congratulations on sitting on the sidelines for an election that will determine if we keep our constitutional rights. Bookmark this for when Kamala packs the court, gets rid of free speech, and sends IRS agents with guns to take our guns.
Journalists shouldn’t be promoting one party over the other. They should be objective and non partisan. Just present the facts as best you can and let everyone decide for themselves. Thank you.
You’ve been one of the only objective and realistic people that I’ve come across this election cycle from what is the “Rumble Universe” (and most other universes for that matter).
I was drawn to your Substack from the interviews you do for System Update, but I’ll be damned if your writing isn’t actually even better than your great interviews. Your humor comes through in both! Keep up the great work Mr. Tracey. It’s people like you that help us remaining lucid ones remember that we aren’t crazy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for articulating almost exactly how I feel about both candidates. And how tired I am of being accused of a lack of patriotism for refusing to force myself to believe that either of these two will be less than disastrous as president.
I have become more obsessed with foreign policy as US foreign policy has become increasingly unhinged since 9/11 and the adoption of the Wolfowitz doctrine. I actually spent my career on domestic policy, and I fear that either candidate will reverse the singular achievement of the current administration, which is the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement.
I’ll be voting third party because I believe that the current duopoly has become completely dysfunctional and needs some real competition. Of course, this is a long term project that may never work out. But it is the only act of hope I can come up with.
And before you shriek that I am helping to destroy American democracy by failing to vote against the Orange Menace, know that I vote in the District of Columbia. My vote has precisely zero potential consequence for the Electoral College outcome.
I agree with your positions. I'm voting 3rd party as well. We need to change this mess we call elections. It needs a total overhaul! Definitely age and term limits... & abolishing lobbists!! The voters need to take back our government.
so many people seem to feel that if they're not in a swing state, it's 'okay.'
so tired of people snearing that it's 'noble' to vote on 'principles' while they feel obligated to 'do the right thing' and support the current system.
i'm not in a swing state. wish i were. i'd still have voted 3rd party because my 'principles' don't change based on the (fraudulent) electoral college system.
Yes! To long-term project. Denying the value in that is simply giving up and giving in. Feeling bullied into voting for one of the two (when conscience says otherwise) also means buying into a fear-mongering mentality which is never the optimal state of mind for decision-making.
For those who have weighed the two choices and believe strongly that there is a correct choice, fine, have at it. But why must people derive one another for their voting choices? If we’re trying to create a better society, this approach loses the plot. How we interact with the person in front of us is the thing we actually have real control of.
I voted for Jill Stein because of my fear for the Palestinians. Harris supporters vote for her because of their fears for themselves.
I would argue that voting for Jill Stein is not exactly a fear-based decision since she won’t win. Voting based on fear means you really think you can control the outcome. It’s the reason a good majority of people will vote for Trump or Harris - because fear of the other overrides critique of their own candidate. I was enthusiastic about RFK until he went with Trump but now that he’s off the ballots (after volunteers got over a million signatures for him - thanks for your weasely tactics, democrat party) I’m considered voting for Stein instead of writing in RFK because RFK is wrong on Israel. It’s my only caveat about his stances.
Voting for Stein is fear-based in that I'm sure Harris and Trump will continue the genocide. It's hope-based in that I want to help her get to 5%, which would be really good for the country.
I hear that.
zackly!! i have no more faith in Harris than in Trump for very different reasons.
in the end, i agree with you, Megan. genocide and all that goes with it will continue with either side of the uniparty coin. so why support either one?
and yeah... the 5% is absolutely part of why voting for Stein is a vote for ourselves and our country. hope-based for sure. cheers!
It's an understatement to this is the best commentary I've seen on this election and the horrible presidential characters being inflicted on the republic. Indispenable (at least for my sanity) is a better descriptor for what you offer here.
In particular, however, I congratulate you for noting the pitiable failures of the supposed alt media, something that has bugged me for a while, too, to say the least. Especially its highest-profile figures, notably the ultra-creepy Russell Brand. And that isn't to suggest any lack of creepiness in Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr.. Jordan, Tucker and that Shanahan woman.
Your focus on foreign policy is also much appreciated. It's odd -- although it really isn't -- that Washington's constant, sustained interference and interventions around the world aren't foregrounded or even mentioned even as we maintain something like 800 military bases overseas, many of which nudge right up against the borders of supposed adversary nations. It's almost as if we're trying to provoke something.
In sum, thank you.
"Like I said, I freely accept that I’m an extreme outlier." No, you are not. It is this crazy, ass-backward political reality that is the outlier. We have a World War-II style, US-sponsored armed conflict going on in Europe, a life-streamed, US-supported genocide going on in West Asia and crazy but serious talk about a war with China. If these things are NORMAL and you are the OUTLIER then humanity's future is dark.
America eats its young - The Grayzone live – OUTSTANDING – Max and Aaron
https://rumble.com/v5l7os4-america-eats-its-young-the-grayzone-live.html
I'll "waste" my vote on a third party. That sends a more ominous message to the political establishment than voting for a cartoon character.
check out rangevoting.org aka score voting NOT fraudulent garbage RCV
No proof, but I suspect you're not as much of an outlier as you think, although you can't gauge that from social media.
My inclination was to say "who cares" but I think I prefer journalists who do not vote. I think it allows you to remain objective. So good on you.
I’m surprised you do not mentioned once the issue of free speech but you think of yourself as a journalist.
It is truly astounding that journalists are not making the threat to free speech a central issue. Most people I talk to are completely unaware—thanks to our media.
Yes Lisa, for me the single most important issue. Governments all of the world are striving to control the internet. Glen Greenwald, Michael’s “daddy”, has done a wonderful job covering this topic. But I guess Michael somehow is not really concerned…
Unlike Greenwald, who of late has thrown any pretense of objectivity overboard and joined the camp of Trump partisans, Tracey has maintained the impartiality needed to report intelligently and sensibly on the shit show known as US party duopoly.
I appreciate Greenwald's commentary on and passionate support of transparency and free speech, but his lopsided bashing of the Harris/Biden/Clinton/Obama/Pelosi party, as deservedly as it is, while rarely if ever mentioning that the Trump/Rubio/Pompeo/Cotton/Hayley mob are just as horrendous, is getting old and damages his reputation imo. Just look at his last 4 days of tweets. https://x.com/ggreenwald
One can only hope that once this election is over, GG reverts back to being the evenhanded journalist I know him to be.
Andre, if this is your "single most important issue" you've had plenty of time to address it. US government censorship has been in place for over a century. During WWI, Pres. Wilson ordered dismantling and closing of all radio stations: "In conformity to the Radio Act of 1912, the President in time of war, may authorize any department of the Government to close all radio stations."
On April 6, 1917 he carried out the order....https://manifold.umn.edu/read/the-perversity-of-things-hugo-gernsback-on-media-tinkering-and-scientifiction/section/cdcb03db-416b-4bf4-8df9-70c9b6bfb8d5...During WWI it was illegal, even "treasonous" to own a radio: "For the duration of the war it became illegal for private U.S. citizens to even have an operational radio transmitter or receiver--in fact, it was Treason to Possess Wireless Stations according to one zealous city manager, reported on the front page of the April 23, 1917 San Jose Evening News."
Censorship is always a problem, but things had changed considerably for the better since 1917. But we're going backwards fast. The net for who gets censored is bigger than it's ever been in my lifetime. It's basically for anyone consequentially challenging the liberal establishments lies and orthodoxies. See Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop. the demonetizing of YouTube channels, the withholding of Paypal donations. The global alliance between Big Tech and governments is very alarming and the Democrats are definitely in the vanguard on that.. Shrugging at it because Woodrow Wilson seems very silly.
Mike, WWI censorship "net" captured 100% of US dissent. The reason I brought it up is it shows the mentality of US elites. When given the chance, they'll withhold 100% of information from Americans. That's why they're hysterical today wishing the 3 tv nets were back. Harry Truman had no problem dropping two atom bombs on Japanese civilians in 1945 but he was ruthlessly obsessed with censoring the damage it had caused. Finally, exactly one US reporter was allowed to go there to "report" on effects.
Let me quote Trump himself:
"We are losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to do something. [...] Maybe in certain areas closing that internet up in some way. Somebody will say 'oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We gotta maybe do something with the internet, because they are recruiting y the thousands."
https://x.com/juan_moment/status/1842872626819297539/video/3
If it suits his agenda, he would censor just the same as any Democrat. Don't kid yourself.
He announced he wants anyone burning the flag locked up for a year, and, ever the uber-Zionist, said he'd deport people speaking out against Israeli war crimes.
So the whole "free-speech-champion" Trump myth is just that, a myth, a tale told to gullible pundits believing anything to feed their confirmation bias.
Possibly. But the Democrats have been actually acting on this. The Twitter Files clearly showed the federal government, under Biden, acting aggressively to censor thousands of citizens. This happened. What Trump would or would not do is speculation at this point. As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled by their radical embrace of censorship. On this issue, I don’t think there is currently equivalency.
Sure. Democrats have a dismal record of protecting free speech. At a federal level anyway.
Look at the state level though and you'll find that red states are just as eager to stomp out speech they don't like, such as the anti-BDS laws which ensure state contracts include a clause that “the support or participation of a boycott of Israel shall be grounds for termination of the contract.” Or something to this effect.
Or take Florida, where Republican DeSantis is making sure opinions he doesn't like are being stifled. Check out First Amendment Watch ( https://firstamendmentwatch.org/topics/florida-v-free-speech/ ). Quote: "FAW has compiled our coverage of Florida’s extraordinary number of serious violations of First Amendment rights. These include the state’s attacks on academic freedom, book bans, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ attempts to silence private companies, attacks on the media, anti-protest measures and a social media censorship law."
What I'm trying to say is: both parties are in the authoritarian camp. Given the power and a strong enough ideological urge, they all can't resist telling people what they are allowed to say.
And whilst Musk to his credit has brought back a lot of the accounts suspended in the wild years leading up to him taking over Twitter, shadow-banning continuous and account suspensions are also happening under his reign.
Se also: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/opinion/republicans-democrats-free-speech.html
Anyhow, I hope you are right, and Trump if he does win the election will not use governmental powers to quash freedom of expression when it comes to calling out the insane mass murder and war crimes his zionist masters have unleashed on the Levant.
It’s implied in everything he said about the fact that the problems with Kamala’s candidacy are widely covered in alternative media and understood by these audiences. The details of the article are about the things nobody is talking about in any of the circles he’s a part of.
The issue is the future of free speech in America. Unbelievable that Michael does not address it.
Agree.
"Thus, there seems to be a special obligation for US citizens to take that into account when selecting political leadership, however much people might want to endlessly whinge about abortion and Trans Women In Sports, or whatever the latest Culture War bugaboo is in any given year."
At the end of the day, people's daily lives matter to them the most. If you send your kids to public schools or to universities, or work for the public sector or even for a large corporation, you cannot escape the relentless attack on reality (like the long menu of possible genders your child could choose from) and on basic humanity (like the right to make a bad joke without losing your livelihood) that you call 'culture war'. People have had enough of being lectured about what to think and say. Hence the desire to vote out the people who are ultimately behind these manipulation tactics.
I agree with your critique of Trump, and as you say it is good for a journalist to not vote and thereby feel some attachment to a candidate. And as you have said before, neither supporters nor critics want to admit that once in office Trump governed like George Bush. But I still hope Trump wins, for these reasons:
-In the choice between George Bush and the Democrats who hate me, I prefer George Bush.
-If Hillary had been president instead of Trump, she would have bombed Damascus and Syrian military bases to hand over the country to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Trump's actions toward Syria were despicable, arming the Marxist Kurds and helping them occupy the oil field in the east, but he didn't do that.
-Trump gave the Israel lobby almost everything they wanted, but he did negotiate with the Taliban to end the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. After that the Taliban no longer attacked any U.S. soldiers, and the U.S. prepared to leave. Today Trump pretends, to sound tough, that he actually ended the attacks on U.S. soldiers by threatening to bomb the homes of Taliban leaders, a la Israel. But the fact is that he began the end of the war. Biden simply followed the plan already in place.
-The Democrats want forums, blogs, tweeters banned, even prosecuted on flimsy pretexts. They want the U.S. to be like in Britain where people are arrested all year round for "hateful" online criticism of mass immigration. They won't rest until this is done.
-A Democrat president picks Democrat judges. A judge has many ways to manipulate the outcome of a case, so we have criminals walk free after they have shot a White woman in the back, or shot a White man sitting in his parked car. Because the criminal was a Latino or a Black. While there are Whites who are prosecuted for defending their store, their pub or home against criminals.
-While Trump betrayed many of his election promises, the establishment prosecutions of him were on a Nicaraguan level of oppression. (Except for the one that was actually correct, that he stored tons of classified documents in his home, illegally.) If the Democrats win the coming election, these oppressive prosecutions will have been vindicated. A very dangerous future awaits in that case.
In short, while Trump is a disappointment in many ways, with him in the White House, or at least without today's left-wing-extremist Democrats in the White House, other people have the chance to do something. Without being imprisoned for it.
Thanks, you articulated that much better than I could have. I'm not even American and cannot vote but I do think there won't much of a county left if it stays much longer in the hands of the democrats with their beyond warped agenda.
When they call Kamala an extreme leftist or communist I want to gnash my teeth. The ruling class has done a neat trick, siloing class resentment on the right without class analysis. Dead end by design.
Congratulations on sitting on the sidelines for an election that will determine if we keep our constitutional rights. Bookmark this for when Kamala packs the court, gets rid of free speech, and sends IRS agents with guns to take our guns.
"and sends IRS agents with guns to take our guns"
Here is a video of someone else who wants to take your guns: https://x.com/juan_moment/status/1842872626819297539/video/2
With two equally as shitty candidates on offer, sitting on the sidelines is exactly what you want to do.
May there be millions more extreme outsiders like you. That's exactly what we need to save our precious planet.
Journalists shouldn’t be promoting one party over the other. They should be objective and non partisan. Just present the facts as best you can and let everyone decide for themselves. Thank you.
Omg I haven’t even read this yet and BLESS you for speaking out loud, in the title, what my plans are and how unsafe this feels socially.