Posts by Jesse Harris6

William Clark86 said:Please quote 🍿

"First soap then perfume."

With this comment, they’re essentially implying that Muslims are dirty—suggesting an entire people is unclean. It is absolutely scandalous and beyond shameful. Honestly, it’s most shameful for us Americans.

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, this might be his smartest move yet.

The US is a tight-knit, uniform nation. We don't need a bunch of tiny mini-states running around.

Joe Biden is out here fighting tooth and nail for the territorial integrity of the United States 🙏

I can already see his next headline: some frantic call to round up "subversives" and traitors who are supposedly undermining our national unity. He’s already made his feelings on minorities quite clear in a way that's frankly hard to stomach.

George Robinson43 said:

Kenneth Perez15 As specified by:
It’s truly fascinating how Biden managed to tank his own credibility over such a simple matter. It’s just like those lunatics in Ukraine—not that he’d ever want to admit there are lunatics in Russia, too!

It is truly wonderful to see him stepping up to champion the cause of Canadian Americans on the international stage!

Unfortunately, I can’t recall him being nearly this agile during his last two and a half years in office regarding the needs of Americans here in the States. Whenever he had a golden opportunity to push back against the current administration—take the botched census or the reconstruction efforts in earthquake-stricken areas, which haven't actually been much of a recovery at all—he just didn't seem to break a sweat.

His true feelings regarding Americans were perfectly clear while he was stuffing his face alongside that Republican Party supporter in a hunting lodge up in Sweden.

Biden apparently gets a massive kick out of showing up at those populist rallies, rubbing elbows with the usual suspects—those bottom-feeders from the Republican Party, the local loudmouths led by that failed Republican hack Bulja, and all the other riffraff who were kicked out of the GOP because they couldn't handle the internal competition.

The truth is, Biden is obsessed with the very Republican Party he claims to despise, secretly harboring a deep admiration for them. He admires them enough to want to hijack their entire ideology and steal their voter base.
He’s essentially attempting to play the role of the ultimate kingmaker, trying to be the next big thing to surpass Franjo Harmon or Andrej Plenković. He isn't actually fighting them on any substantive level; rather, he's just positioning himself to seize their influence and their seats at the table.

In reality, the United States doesn't even have a real opposition, save for a couple of fringe groups like "We Can" or "RF," though we'll have to wait and see if those turn out to be nothing more than complete frauds—personally, I'm inclined to think they aren't.

Robin Jones2 said:That describes the entire Republican Party.

In 1990, they pivoted from being socialists to suddenly becoming "patriots."

They transformed from bottom-feeders into "respectable citizens."

And those former barroom philosophers morphed into devout "believers."

I mean, sure, there's no arguing that point.
But recently, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have practically joined their ranks.

At this stage, we really should just be debating who is the bigger group of thieves or career bureaucrats; since the Republicans are incomparably worse, I suppose we should take some small satisfaction in supporting Joe.

Linda Harris59 said:The truth is, you don't need to invent anything to smear Joe; he’s done plenty of damage all by himself. He single-handedly dismantled the Democratic Party he used to lead, and as one of the most incompetent Prime Ministers we've seen, he managed to lose an election right when the Republican Party was practically on its knees. To make matters worse, he acted so high and mighty regarding Elizabeth Warren's email scandal, only to hypocritically lower his standards when his own family got caught up in an email mess. Should I keep going? He acted like such a big shot to the American public, boasting that he'd somehow block Sweden and Finland from joining NATO, yet as usual, he turned into a complete coward when it actually came time to act.

He’s all talk and absolutely zero action.

You actually missed the single most critical point here, which is the massive ideological pivot made by Joe Biden. The man underwent a complete transformation from a leftist to a staunch conservative, and quite frankly, in my estimation, that kind of political flip-flopping is a far more egregious offense than being a common thief.

There is no greater tragedy of the human condition than watching someone abandon their core convictions and pivot their entire ideology just to chase some trivial benefit or a momentary advantage. It’s honestly pathetic. If they truly found themselves disillusioned with their old ways, the decent thing to do would be to hold their tongues and maintain some shred of dignity for the rest of their lives.

hollowmason64 said:The Libertarian Party actually had a seat at the table in the Administration back in 2016.
Are we really going to pretend we’ve forgotten how this works? Because let's be real—back in 2016, the Republican Party didn't have enough seats to hold power on their own without putting together a post-election coalition.
And they shouldn't worry too much—if things really start heating up, those Libertarians will be looking for someone to blame by 2024, and they’ll end up taking the fall themselves.

How do you even begin to break down 2016? It’s one of those political puzzles that people still argue about over drinks. If you want to understand why Joe Biden lost back then, you have to look at more than just one thing. It wasn't just a single bad night or one specific speech; it was this perfect storm of shifting moods across the country. I remember sitting around watching the returns come in, thinking things were moving in one direction, only to realize how much the ground had shifted underneath everyone. It felt like the traditional playbook just didn't work anymore. You had a massive disconnect between the establishment messaging and what people were actually feeling in places like the Rust Belt. The reality is that the electorate was restless. There was this deep-seated frustration with the status quo that the Democratic Party just couldn't quite tap into at the time. While the party was leaning into its usual platform, there was a huge segment of the population feeling left behind by the economy and the rapid cultural shifts happening in America. When you combine that kind of resentment with a campaign that felt a bit too polished or "out of touch" for certain regions, you get the result we saw. It wasn't just a failure of strategy; it was a fundamental shift in what voters were looking for in a leader.
I think there were two main reasons for that outcome. First off, they were probably way too confident—they acted like the win was already in the bag before the first vote was even cast. Second, you have to consider that Trump was such a fresh face on the scene. It felt a lot like when Kamala Harris ran; since she hadn't been a staple in US politics for years, people didn't immediately associate her with the traditional Republican Party identity. Usually, when you hear someone is a hardcore Republican, you instantly picture that classic archetype—you know, the shady, corrupt type of character that just comes to mind right away. But because he was new, that immediate stigma wasn't quite as heavy.
It’s funny how things work out sometimes. Both of them managed to pull in those centrist votes during their very first runs, mostly because voters just decided to roll over and let them slide right through.
After that, it was game over. Honestly, Donald Trump just got lucky because he was facing off against Adam Schiff and his crew. Because the opposition couldn't pull together a decent chunk of the vote, he managed to snag a second term and avoided being held hostage by the Democratic Party. Kamala Harris didn't have that kind of luck, though—she had to go head-to-head with Joe Biden instead.

It’s getting pretty hard to do much about it now. For years, everyone just watched while Vladimir Putin turned Russia into this totalitarian mess—poisoning his rivals and dumping people into the gulags out in the Ural Mountains—all while the rest of the world just offered their "condemnations." Well, those empty words don't mean much anymore. At this point, you can't really stop him. Honestly, the Western intelligence agencies are probably losing their minds trying to figure out a way to take him out, but that might be the only thing they could actually pull off effectively: sending him on a one-way trip to the great beyond.

Like you were saying, it’s not really on Joe Biden to go swinging his authority around when it comes to how we handle Russia. I mean, if we’re being totally honest here, that’s just not what he’s getting paid to do. 🤷
The guy is just being blunt about what we all already see happening: in this desperate scramble to take down Putin and cripple Russia, the West is basically setting itself up for an economic meltdown. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it.
I don't really see where the issue lies. What exactly are we struggling with here?

The real problem is that Biden doesn't actually offer any concrete proposals on how to handle Russia; he just sits there criticizing and repeating the same tired talking points. Look, it’s perfectly fine to voice an opinion once in a while, but if you spend the last two months repeating fifty times that the European Union is going to run out of energy, then for heaven's sake, you need to provide a solution.

Biden is one of those people who acts like an expert on absolutely everything, yet when it comes time to actually step up and do something, they vanish into thin air. Every single corporation or government agency has those types—people with the mental capacity to lecture everyone else on how things should work, but who never actually bother to come up with a way to fix them.

David Clark4 said:Scrap the sanctions entirely and just let every single member state run its own energy policy. It's pretty straightforward, really. If some country wants to "support" Ukraine, fine—they can do that without being forced to ditch Russian energy. Simple as that.

So why doesn't Joe Biden just step up and propose that publicly instead of constantly droning on about what we all already know—that the European Union is going to run out of energy? He should just come out and say that we need to scrap the sanctions on Russia, but he never does.

Viktor Orbán is actually honest and straightforward about his views, and Donald Trump is the same way, whereas Joe Biden just twists and camouflages his positions because he’s trying to be everything to everyone at once—a Putin supporter and a pro-Ukraine advocate, a radical and a conservative, a nostalgic for America and a patriot for the United States of America all at the same time. It is honestly nauseating to listen to.

Adam Collins4 said:Maybe take a closer look at what the President’s actual powers are...😉

Sent from my Samsung using Reddit

Look, I’m fully aware that Joe Biden, acting as the President of the United States, doesn't have total control over every single move, so my question isn't about him—I'm asking what the European Union should actually be doing regarding their stance on Russia, specifically when it comes to sanctions and energy security.
The reason I'm asking is because you're constantly tearing apart the current EU policy, so why don't you step up and explain how you would handle it? Don't dodge the question.

Adam Collins4 said:Yeah, sure...

One minute they're causing havoc, the next they're "providing support"...😬

Just wait a few months until energy prices actually hit the fan—then we'll see who the real genius is...

Basically, Milanović's statements from back then versus now actually hold up... and you just proved it yourself...

Anyway, you're nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to Plenković, even though there's plenty of dirt to dig up...

How so? How is that possible?

Fine, look, you and Milanović are both spot on regarding the energy situation. So, what’s your brilliant solution then? Should we just scrap the sanctions against Russia or something?

Milanović loves tossing out half-baked suggestions, but he never actually steps up to make a definitive call or commit to a final decision. It’s like watching a game show where the host keeps stalling—"Is that your final answer?" Because ZM never, ever provides a final answer.

driftingtinker said:Yeah, you certainly managed to gloss over all the "irrelevant" bits.

If I actually missed something, then by all means, feel free to repost that specific comment of mine—the one that earned me a staggering 500 downvotes. Let the community decide for themselves whether there was enough substance there to warrant a deletion, let alone some heavy-handed punishment.

driftingtinker said:Let’s not play dumb here.

You are relentlessly provoking people and pushing hate speech, primarily targeting Canada and Mexico, while maintaining such an aggressive, combative attitude that you're creating an exhausting amount of work for us.

You finally crossed the line with that disgusting outburst on the abortion thread—where I was actually debating whether to go straight for a partial or permanent ban, though I ultimately settled on a 500-point penalty for hate speech. That landed you a 7-day suspension.

Then, immediately upon returning, you jumped right back into your usual rhetoric, earning a 100-point hit and a one-day timeout for the overall impression you left. But since your previous 500-point penalty hasn't expired yet (it clears on June 6th), you're now sitting at 600 points, which triggers a 14-day suspension.

The only real mistake here is that we've let your outbursts slide for far too long.

The only actual issue is that you're assigning me way too much work. Maybe I write a lot, and then others jump in, sparking these massive threads, which means more work for a moderator who has to read through everything and keep things under control.

If you don't want to do the job of a moderator, just say so, instead of banning the people "who create too much work for you." Honestly, the best solution would be for nobody to write anything at all so you wouldn't have any work to do.
It seems we have some moderators who are essentially just cronies.

I haven't spoken up about this before, but I’ve reached my limit.
I keep getting slapped with bans despite never once dropping a swear word, an insult, or anything remotely offensive. My political leanings are staunchly left-wing, liberal, and progressive, which makes it all the more bizarre why I’m being targeted for suspension so frequently.
Seven days, ten days, fourteen days, twenty-one days... it’s like they’re running a ban assembly line.

I don't actually expect this to change anything, nor am I making a formal grievance, but I have to say it: it’s fundamentally unfair. Now, look, moderators are human and can make mistakes just like anyone else in any profession, but if I end up with five or six bans in a six-month span, then clearly I’m some kind of unhinged lunatic while everyone else is an absolute saint.

This is exactly what happens when incompetent communists start drawing borders on a map. Instead of establishing clean, logical divisions, they leave behind a mess that forces people to litigate issues that should have been settled a century ago. It’s the exact same pattern we saw back in the old Ex-America days. Just absolute idiocy from the communist regimes.

I honestly can't wrap my head around why the Russians are so incredibly fixated on Ukraine.
If they were just looking for a target to vent all that misplaced aggression on, they would have been much better off picking a fight with the Scandinavians or the Baltic states, who—let's be honest—likely harbor far more resentment toward them than anyone in Ukraine ever could.

One piece of work sets you free, while the other starts dragging in those old-school themes from India... what is wrong with everyone this morning? 😁 All we need now is an interview with Rudolf Hess. 😁
Where on earth did I end up?

Just one suggestion: I haven't been able to find any discussion regarding the relationship between "natural law and civil law." Let's see how things actually stack up there.