stevenkesslar

Communist Jew hater! Poll: Jewish Americans view Mamdani more favorably than Netanyahu Zohran Mamdani's parents are Mahmood Mamdani, a prominent academic and author, and Mira Nair, an acclaimed, Academy Award-nominated filmmaker. Both were born in India

That photo was posted by Trump on "Truth" Social. El Sayed's wife is a psychiatrist whose parents come from India. JD Vance's wife is a lawyer whose parents come from India. Trump's wife is an immigrant who opposes bullying on social media. Sing it, Neil. There's still hope.

Quite, You always think with your mouth full. And yet, somehow, you never use your teeth. I've been jealous of that skill my whole life.

It's more fun to watch stupid shit when the guy saying it is cute. Iran makes dramatic new demands around Strait of Hormuz And don't worry. It's not your fault. And stupid yapping dogs don't even need White Castle sliders for relief. But Trump will probably eat half a dozen to get over it. loser /ˈlo͞ozər/ A loser is a person, team, or thing that does not win a game, race, or contest. Core Definitions In a Contest: A player or team defeated in a game, match, or competition. Habitual Failure: An informal term for someone who struggles to succeed in jobs, relationships, or life goals.

Oddly, I don't talk about penises with her. It's not that she's Canadian. It's that she's my sister-in-law. If I were Straight, it could make a decent porn movie I guess. 🙄

It'll be okay, Sis. I think you need a good stiff drink and some comfort food. But don't eat too much.

I heard fact loss under Republican Presidents is normal. Is the same true under Canada's nasty leadership? And here's a concerning fact. I called my Canadian sister-in-law (who actually lives in the US) about Thanksgiving plans yesterday. She knows I am a political whore, whereas she wisely focuses on hockey, mostly. She wanted a brief analysis of what the fuck is happening, since she was headed to a wedding in Vancouver chock full of Canadians who live in Canada. Some of whom know me and trust me. Ugh! Is the tide turning? I hope so, I said. Will the Democrats take the House? Almost certain, most pundits say. Will the Democrats take the Senate? 50/50, say the pundits. We even talked about whether the Democrats can get their shit together and elect some younger more moderate candidate like Buttigieg or Ossoff in 2028. I forgot to mention that I have been spending quite a lot of time on the internet discussing Jon Ossoff's penis recently. Shouldn't it be concerning that Canadians rely on people like me for information? Fact.

Trump vows to hunt down leakers who revealed missile shortage President seeks jail sentences for culprits while insisting US has ‘massive amounts’ of munitions Apparently Trump and Patriot Pete even clashed about this at Camp David. Hope they had makeup sex! But I was concerned for your well being, Sis. I thought maybe they'd haul your ass before a Committee like Fauci and make false accusations. Then I realized you have an alibi. You can't say much when your mouth is full. Although, given what you say about Zohran's ample loads, I guess your mouth could have been leaking. Anyhoo, I guess all's well that ends well. POTUS can burn lots more Iranian girls to death, lie about it, and still have plenty left to end Iranian civilization. And, by all accounts, Zohran has far more than you need. Seems like America Is Great Again. No doubt soon Canada and Greenland will be begging to join our bliss.

After all these kindler and gentler things Senator Hawley has done for our community, as documented below, shouldn't we be extending our warmth and kindness to him in return? He has lost the love of his life, another deeply humane and truthful Republican champion of our rights and equalities. Josh Hawley Lindsey Graham

Correct. It is a strange thing. Harris was often accused of being the DEI Vice President, and therefore a DEI Presidential candidate. Republicans are not calling Donalds a DEI Gubernatorial candidate. So you have a Black man who will make history in Florida because Republicans will support him, but Blacks won't. That's not a judgment, positive or negative. As you point out, it's a fact. My point is that Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Byron Donalds would not be possible in Strom Thurmond's Democratic Party, or Strom Thurmond's Republican Party. My own view is that we are a long way from the idea that what matters is the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Republicans under Trump seem like they could care less about the content of your character, period. But the color of your skin used to be a hard barrier. Not only to be Guv or Senator. Simply to vote. Now it's not. I've said this many times, and I should repeat it. I view this as a Democratic victory. Kevin McCarthy, when he was House Speaker, was very blunt about this. In 2019 at the SOTU he looked around. Republicans were a minority party. And if you looked around, it was almost all White men. Democrats were a sea of color. He says he did the math and figured out Republicans had to do a better job of reaching out to, and electing, House members who were not White men. And they have. So it's a Democratic victory in the sense that we Democrats made the Republican Party look like the party of White men. And some of them, at least, decided that's not what they wanted to be. Like I said, I think Trump himself moved us back on the issue of race, not forward. It is the party of Whites under him, who actively work against the interests of Blacks, I'd argue. If most Blacks see it that way, sounds like my perceptions align with reality. The person I'd give the most credit to for trying is former RNC chair Michael Steele, who is persona non grata now. He calls Trump's party a "zombie party" that will fold as soon as the Democrats get their shit together. But he was the one who, in the wake of Obama, pushed for diversity in the Republican Party. Nikki Haley and Tim Scott were elected in 2010 during Steele's tenure. And he touted them as a Republican version of DEI, which is now discredited. Haley then appointed House member Scott to the Senate when Jim DeMint resigned. Young Black voters are becoming more conservative than their parents. Here's why The thing I'd point to in that article is that only 1 in 10 of the oldest Blacks view the Republican Party as welcoming. But half of younger Blacks do. Again, I view that in part as a victory of Democrats. Obama scared the shit out of Republicans. And I think older Blacks and younger Blacks are both right. A party with Strom Thurmond as Senator is not the same as a party with Tim Scott as Senator. I don't follow it all that closely. But I think Trump pretty much has trashed Tim Scott's efforts to come up with specific race-based efforts, like helping minority-owned businesses. Some Black civil rights leader whose name I don't recall said something like this: "Lots of Blacks are conservatives. They'd vote Republican a lot more if the Republican Party wasn't so damn racist." Polls consistently show that, right or wrong, Americans are moving away from race-based criteria. Most Americans support Supreme Court's ending of affirmative action, poll finds Black Americans were most divided in their responses, while white Americans most strongly supported the measure. If the DSA is smart, THAT should be their rallying cry. Not some of the nonsense that turns me off, like getting rid of the US Senate. Focus on building an America where all poor people and all working class people get help climbing the ladder. What we have under Trump is crumbs like no tax on tips to workers while Elon Musk is flooded with tax cuts and government contracts.

"We just showed them the Michigan way. And that's what we're gonna do in November when we beat Mike Rogers."

Hassan says he is Christian. That's the funny and sad thing. I know nothing about the guy. But it does seem like it boiled down to what his name sounds like. And now for an opposing point of view. This whole interview shows how on message El-Sayed is. But what he says that I timestamped at 17:40 is really an election winner. And, in the spirt of the open-minded and big-hearted America we are building: There have only been three Black Governors in US history. He would be the fourth, if he wins the Florida race. Which the polls say he will, with Trump's help. He will be the first Black Republican Governor. I've followed his career enough to be be able to make a few good guesses. Donalds cracked a pretty simple code. If you compliment Trump and are obedient and loyal, he's on your side. Until you give him a reason to throw you under the bus. If you want a deeper dive, listen to what Donalds told the folks at Breakfast Club about Jan. 6th. Total Trump bullshit, in my mind. But definitely a loyal guy. Second, Donalds is running against the guy many presume DeSantis wanted as his heir. So it's another way for Trump to stick it to DeSantis. Tim Scott said he is a Republican Senator from South Carolina due to a "change of the Southern heart." I take him at his word. You don't get to be a Republican Senator unless a lot of Republicans vote for you. I would go back to what El-Sayed said. I think this is all good news for America. It's two steps forward, one step back. I see Trump much more of a step back on race. I think people like Tim Scott and Byron Donalds are rising as much despite him, as because of him. What happened to Hassan does say something about the White Republican base. And for lots of reasons, as someone from the North, it makes sense to me that a Black Republican would actually have a harder time in the North than the South. King said he thought he knew racism pretty well. And then he got to Chicago and Mayor Daley. While there's not a lot of data about it, I think that Blacks are the one race in America who are slightly more likely to be Republican if they are college-educated, and younger. Donalds is a poster child for that. And it makes sense. When Jim Clyburn was a young man, Democrat Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party because it supported Black civil rights and was opening up to leaders like Clyburn. The same Black young man in South Carolina today has a Black Republican US Senator. Hopefully a young Muslim man in Michigan will soon have the same symbol of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Oh. That's right. DEI is a four letter word in Trump's America.

I did check with Tom. He said be patient, have rizz, and keep your mouth full. 🤔 Sometimes it just happens naturally. No. I didn't provide public service, Sis. I could never do that to Zendaya.

No spoilers. But inquiring minds do want to know. Who will save us? No, Tom! Nice try. But it's the wrong movie. Next time, read the book.

And that is the question for 2028! Hmmm. Pining for Daddy! 🫢 So I could make a good case for Daddy Dem. Gavin Newsom is no Matt Damon. But he probably comes closest to the Daddy look. (Carney is straight out of central casting, if we want to locate Ithaca somewhere in Canada.) Kamala Harris is no Anne Hathaway. But we can take more liberties with the epic and say maybe it is time for Mommy Dem. All those conservatives were right. A Black Athena was only the start of it! Which leads to the question. Who are these young people? And do they know what the fuck they are doing? Are they ready to fight, and lead? Don't wanna spoil the ending that is 3000 years old, which as Well Rounded Adults we all should supposedly know. Holland himself says he never read The Odyssey. Love ya, Tom. But maybe we don't need Daddy, or MDE. Or Mommy, or AHE. Maybe we need somebody young. THY. He's got that Tom Holland Youth thing. With a touch of Clark Kent. If we're gonna do Daddy, can we at least do young Daddy? Chasten adds a touch of AHE, too! So many choices. I'll consult with Tom Holland and see what he thinks.

Here's a ranking of four Senators HAE: Heritage Action Energy. Fair enough, Sis. Surely, you do make distinctions between a 6, and a 7, and a 12. Right? 😁 Gary Peters: 6 % Raphael Warnock: 6 % John Fetterman: 7 % Jon Ossoff: 12 % That GovTrack analysis I posted above clearly states that Fetterman is more liberal than Warnock, Peters, or Ossoff - who are among the three three most conservative, or centrist, Democrats. But it doesn't tell you how it got to those scores, Heritage Action spells out specific votes. Since they are measuring the last Congress, one way to think about it is that all four of these extremists supported disastrous Biden policies and pro-choice murder and bad stuff like that 9 times out of 10. The average Senate Democrat score is 11 %. So Ossoff is the only one who has slightly more HAE than the other three. Maybe it's excess BDE spilling over? When they cum a lot, as you well know Sis, it gets everywhere. Joe Manchin: 21 % No surprise there. I would have guessed that Manchin is the kind of Democrat who would be more in tune with Heritage Foundation priorities. Although, on the face of it, he was with the Biden cabal four times out of five. Bernie Sanders: 45 % That's the real shocker. Bernie's lifetime Heritage score is 11. So for some reason they liked Bernie better in the last Congress, where he got a 45 % score. Since Bernie agreed with Heritage on a number of defense bills, I'm gonna guess Bernie opposed Biden-era defense bills that he saw as warmonger bills, Heritage saw as wastes of money, and most Democrats voted for party line. But that's just a guess. It's also been called a blood sport. And it seems likely that it is a game Fetterman does not particularly like. Who knows. If I had to bet, he'll just decline to run again. But some of that will depend on what happens in 2026. If El-Sayed loses, Fetterman will look like he was right. If El-Sayed wins, hopefully they will kiss and make up. (Sorry. You won't be able to get that image out of your mind, either.)

Senate panel votes to hold Fauci in contempt And there ya have it. A completely partisan witch hunt. It's telling that Paul doesn't want to go through the full Senate. Because he knows he doesn't have the 60 votes. A full Senate vote would also probably give Susan Collins one of her moments to show how she finds certain Trump behaviors "disturbing." I timestamped that interview with Rand Paul to 8:00 because I think Rand Paul answers a question Piers Morgan asks in a way that really illustrates why Paul is on a witch hunt. Morgan asks Paul why he doesn't do something that 85 % of Americans support (in a clearly unscientific poll): offer Fauci full immunity in return for telling Americans "the truth." That 85 % is an interesting number. I'd guess about half or more of Americans, including me, believe Fauci did tell us "the truth" as best he could, given the ambiguities of a deadly and evolving virus that experts disagreed about. But I'd guess a lot of the MAGA hardcore, who no doubt think Fauci lied to them, are pragmatic enough to say let's just focus on getting "the truth." Paul will have none of it. He says Fauci is not capable of telling the truth. Rand Paul is clear in his mind that Fauci is a criminal. So the only way he's willing to think about this is how do I take the criminal down. That unscientific poll suggests most Americans just disagree. They are more focused on "the truth" than branding Fauci a criminal, and taking him down. There are no scientific polls to prove that. Yet. But I don't think Paul is winning either the political or legal argument. What's fascinating is that if the goal is to get "the truth", both Morgan and Paul say things is this interview that I think are clearly untrue. Morgan, who says he is or at least was mostly supportive of Fauci, says that science flip flopped. First they said getting vaccinated meant you could not spread the virus. Then they said "it makes no difference," to quote Morgan. Neither are true. I don't think Fauci or Birx ever said that this is simple and black and white. The science now says that getting vaccinated reduced viral load and the chances that you would infect someone else. But that became less true as the virus mutated into Omnicron, and itself because less fatal. Paul definitely wants to take all kinds of shades of gray things, assign them a "truth" as he sees it, and brand Fauci a criminal because he does not agree with Paul. The one thing I like about this is that Paul is beating a drum about the dangers of "gain of function" research. But he completely lies about the past, as far as I can tell. Fauci did fund some scientist from the Netherlands to do gain of function research a decade ago that many scientists thought was dangerous when the findings were publicized. It seems clear that Fauci himself built a consensus that we should pause this research while we evaluate its value. The research Fauci did fund years later that subcontracted with Wuhan studied a virus that, according to scientists, was simply different than the COVID virus. Rand Paul has never disputed this fact. So to allege that Fauci "may" have been culpable for unleashing the COVID virus, you just have to make a lot of shit up. The saddest thing about this is it confirms that we are not at a point where we can do what Dr. Birx wants: evaluate the science, and what we could have done better. To me, personally, she was one of the best people. But she made an emotional and personal plea that turned out to be at least politically wrong. I cited the story about her grandmother's guilt for basically unintentionally "killing" her own young Mom by bringing the Spanish flu home from school. When Birx said that, I took away this bumper sticker: "CLOSE SCHOOLS NOW." Turns out, as we now know, COVID was thankfully not as lethal as the Spanish flu. In 1918 the average life span dropped by almost a decade for one year because so many young men and women died.. Nothing like that happened during COVID. The average life span is now longer than it was during COVID. Birx, like Fauci, seems to be the kind of scientist that is open to having an honest discussion about what we can learn, and how we can do better. Fauci has done that, publicly, again and again. I don't think that is what Rand Paul wants. I think he has proven, in his own words, he is a zealot on a partisan witch hunt.

I'm so proud of you, Sis. You're as courageous as Matt Damon, navigating yourself through all those deep seas of sperm. I got on a "how badly are Democrats screwing ourselves?" kick last night and watched a bunch of videos. Some of which you won't want to see. The theme of this thread is Big Tent Energy. And at the core of it is the idea that Democrats have to unite moderates and liberals to win. And moderates are going to outnumber liberals . That's not politics or ideology or my own preferences. It's arithmetic, based on the charts above. In 2024 it seemed like maybe Zoomers were taking a turn to the right by going for Trump in larger numbers than expected. Maybe. But now it seems just as likely it was a reaction to Bidenflation and Biden age. And in some cases to Biden and Harris not being liberal enough. This 2026 Gallup update of the long term ideological trends I posted above is encouraging to liberal me. So in 2026 28 % of voters say they are liberals. An all time high. 35 % of voters say they are conservative, an all time low for Gallup. The rest are moderates. On the face of it, whoever gets the moderates wins, as Sean Trende said in that video from RCP above. 59 % of Democrats say they are liberal, up from only 25 % in 1994 when Clinton ruled. I think that explains why both John Fetterman and Francesca Hong have problems. What works for a majority of Democrats simply does not work for the nation as a whole. You won't want to watch that, Sis. Swallowing those rough seas of sperm is more than enough public service for now. 😍 You don't have to swallow Fetterman, too. But Fetterman is NOT saying he does not want to be a Democrat. The opposite. He is saying he wants Democrats to win. And in 2024 we had a problem. There is no question that "defund the police" and "abolish ICE" were not good messages in 2024, if the goal was winning. He talks about how he traveled a lot stumping for Harris in 2024 and he knew there was a problem. Recall that Pennsylvania was the only swing state that lost a Democratic Senate seat in 2024. It could have been far worse. Democrats almost lost Michigan. And Nevada. And Arizona. And Wisconsin. That fact backs up what he is saying. If we can't keep Pennsylvania, we sure as shit can't elect a liberal in West Virginia. Fetterman is saying things that he knows appeals to moderates in Pennsylvania. A Pennsylvania Republican elected in 2028 may be more fashionable. But we won't like the way he votes better. I think the problem with Fetterman is he is telling liberal Democrats - the majority of the party - that we are wrong. Of course that is not a popular thing to say. No doubt people at the margin will hear it and say, "He's an asshole," like El Sayed said. Fetterman managed to win in a swing state in 2022. It's not clear El Sayed can do that yet. Stated differently, John Fetterman is no Bill Clinton. And he's no Raphael Warnock or Jon Ossoff, who actually vote more conservative but are beloved and BDE. Poor guy! El Sayed: Abolish ICE The story, or wishful thinking, going around is that El Sayed is a new Bill Clinton. Clinton was the other speaker when El Sayed gave his graduating commencement address. The story going around is that Clinton said to El Sayed, "If you speak like that, you should be in politics." We'll know soon. I was surprised. There's a YouGov poll out that say about half of America is open to abolishing ICE, and only 40 % or so oppose the idea. The pro-immigration stance El Sayed articulates in that video is wildly popular these days, after 2+ years of Trump Cruelty. And El Sayed's family embodies the idea that you come to America to work hard and make America better. My main point is that what you see with El Sayed is a liberal building a coalition with moderates on his terms in real time. What you see with Fetterman is a guy who votes liberal alienating liberals. I think El-Sayed is a better politician. That little gem was actually spoken by El-Sayed in 2018, during the Guv race. He did apologize after he said it. But that GOP sound bite writes itself. It's pretty much Exhibit A in Fetterman's case that Democrats should not engage in political suicide. Who's the asshole now? The context is the statement was directed to a specific Republican, Patrick Colbeck. Colbeck is a 2020 election denier who made a right-wing election denier video with The Pillow Guy. He ran for Guv in 2018. He was baiting El-Sayed about how he's part of the Muslim Brotherhood who wants jihad in America. El Sayed took the bait, then walked it back. It's the equivalent of Bill Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." Only worse. I feel confident that El-Sayed is a pretty gifted politician. He just proved it. No other politician has survived $60 million in AIPAC and special interest money and still won. Francesca Hong seems more like the anti-Fetterman. Every video I have seen so far she mostly spouts lefty jargon when she is challenged. Which is fine with me. But there's a reason Democrats are worried that she won't be persuasive to moderates. We'll see. Polymarket gives El-Sayed a 60 % chance of winning and Hong a 60 % chance of losing. It does seem like El-Sayed and Hong will have the wind at their backs, if they don't make a lot more unforced errors like the one I quoted above. Chucky S and Abdul are now having a love fest. It warms my heart. Almost as much as your courageous public service to New York's Mayor.

Why am I not surprised? Big Tent Chuck Schumer's Senate Majority PAC apparently got the memo. They already released this.

Donald Trump’s fans are not happy he backed Amir Hassan.

https://truthsocial.com/@TrumpIsBanksy/posts/117000590038822250 'Have you lost your mind?' MAGA melts down at Trump over late-night endorsement Bark, dog, bark!

With a few apologies to the stupid barking dog. First, I prefer YouTube to TikTok. Fucking Boomers! Second, I prefer facts to bullshit.

Amir Hassan Thomas Smith