Tax Cuts Are the Hot New Idea for Democrats | Drudge Retort

Advertisement

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

Tax Cuts Are the Hot New Idea for Democrats

Tax cuts are becoming the hottest new idea in Democratic politics from coast to coast ...

Posted by Idependant97 at 07:31 AM | 71 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

New: Tax cuts are the HOTTEST new idea for Democrats Booker & Van Hollen (2028 prospects) unveil big tax-cut plans. Porter says exempt $100K in income from CA taxes. K.L. Bottoms says exempt teachers from GA taxes. Pitched as an answer to cost-of-living struggles. www.nbcnews.com/politics/ele ...

[image or embed]
-- Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur.bsky.social) Apr 6, 2026 at 8:53 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Make the ------- billionaires pay their fair share.

#1 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-06 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Booker is a sell out and desperate for relevance.

Porter isn't going to win California and her staying in the race will hurt democrats.

Sounds like desperation from democrats hoping for a victory.

Cutting taxes isn't the answer.

The answer is getting the wealthy to pay their share and using that money to build our country and help take care of our citizens.

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-06 01:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

If you taxed billionaires at a 100% it still wouldn't eliminate our deficit

#3 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How about the Democratic Party disentangling itself from Israel's ethnic cleansing for a start?

See results of Tuesday 5 Nov 2024 election for more information.

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-06 04:06 PM | Reply

#4 Which had next to nothing to do with her loss.

#5 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-06 04:43 PM | Reply

#2

You're an idiot and dumbasses like you helped elect this ------- pedophile train wreck.

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-06 09:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#3

That's no reason not to tax them, you fool.

#7 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-06 09:27 PM | Reply

#7 When did I say NOT to tax them? Please point that out to me. I said, that no matter how much you tax them it's not the only answer.

I have NEVER once insulted you, LEGALLYYOURDEAD, and I am not going to start. And NO I DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP, I WAS IN THE HARRIS CAMP ...

LEGALLY, you jump the gun with conclusions. You call me a "fool" when I am not one. Of course we have to tax billionaires, you assuming person you. Jesus ---- Christ. You got an ALLY in me and you're yelling at me? What is wrong with you? Your words are very hurtful, bro.

#8 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 09:45 PM | Reply

#7 Again, please show where I said NOT to tax billionaires.

#9 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 09:45 PM | Reply

You said it wouldn't eliminate the deficit. No ----. An 80 year old pedophile made sure that wouldn't happen. Also, insults are baked into this site "bro", whoever the ---- you used to be should know that.

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-06 10:01 PM | Reply

#10 What do you mean whoever I used to be? I've been here for many years. I think you need to refill your meds, or come over here and smoke some california top shelf weed with me. Either way. :-)

#11 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Idependant97

Ed Hartley

Seniority: 163

Party: Independent

Ideology: Other

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2018/10/26
Visited 2026/04/06

#12 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 10:27 PM | Reply

For ----- sake grow a pair. These are the times that try men's souls.

#13 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-04-06 10:28 PM | Reply

#10 and yes I do know that insults go with the site, whoever the ---- YOU used to be. But insulting stupid ---- is just trying to stir up the pot and get a reaction, which is what you specialize in. Other times you've posted well thought out stuff.

I'm all for insults, but geeze...put some thought into and make it fun....you're smarter than that, despite what your mother said about you.

#14 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-06 10:29 PM | Reply

How about a living wage, dumb-asses? Oh, that's right, the billionaires that fund the donkey don't want that, that's why they push identity politics instead of class warfare.

I hate the party I left for those reasons.

#15 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2026-04-06 10:34 PM | Reply

#15 That's why I am in independent, even if I misspelled when I made my username LOL...

#16 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 04:08 AM | Reply

If you taxed billionaires at a 100% it still wouldn't eliminate our deficit

#3 | Posted by Idependant97

They're the reason we have deficits and debt to begin with.

We only had $5t in debt when Bill Clinton left office. He left W a plan to completely pay it off in several years. Instead, Bush, Dick "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney, and 6 years of Republican unitary control more than double the debt AND the annual budget. All by themselves!

3 massive tax cuts since Bush started systemic deficits and debt. Time to undo them. "Trickle Down Economics" is nothing but urine.

#17 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-04-07 10:42 AM | Reply

Tax Cuts Are the Hot New Idea for Democrats

LOL!

#18 | Posted by Maverick at 2026-04-07 10:57 AM | Reply

Aipac supporters want another shot.

#19 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-04-07 11:35 AM | Reply

The last time we had a surplus was during Clinton, but remember CONGRESS makes the budgets. It was a JOINT effort between the Republican controlled congress, who made the budget that Clinton signed.

Since then at the beginning of these administrations:
Bush...Republicans had the white house and congress....SOARING DEBT
Obama...Democrats had the white house and congress....SOARING DEBT
Trump...Republicans had the white house and congress....SOARING DEBT
Biden...Democrats had the white house and congress....SOARING DEBT
Trump...Republicans has the white house and congress....SOARING DEBT

It's been a joint effort to give us debt...yet they ARE capable of working together to do things right...but they are like, "---- AMERICA"

#20 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 11:47 AM | Reply

If you taxed billionaires at a 100% it still wouldn't eliminate our deficit

#3 | Posted by Idependant97

Mmkay... So which parts of discretionary spending shall we cut to eliminate the deficits? I'd bet you can't come up with enough to eliminate deficits without also raising taxes, especially on the wealthy. It takes both spending cuts AND tax increases.

#21 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2026-04-07 01:05 PM | Reply

So which parts of discretionary spending shall we cut to eliminate the deficits?
- whatswrong

Let's get rid of the fraud and see where the deficit is at?

You up for that at least?

#22 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-04-07 01:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let's get rid of the fraud and see where the deficit is at?

So we're dumping the Republican Party?

Great suggestion.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 01:51 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by Idependant97

When you garner a little more financial intelligence, comment then.

The REASON Obama and Biden even HAD debt was because they were left with trillions in more "systemic debt" (Google it) by their predecessors.

More debt=more interest payments

More tax cuts= more borrowing and more interest payments.

Massively INCREASING annual expenditures, as Bush and Trump did, only adds to it.

#24 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-04-07 02:15 PM | Reply

"Let's get rid of the fraud and see where the deficit is at?"

Ah, the "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" cackles come out.

It's always the magical answer, and then you get the DOGEbags who have no idea WTF they're cutting.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-04-07 02:22 PM | Reply

You can't expect OneTrumper to know what he's talking about.

100% of his posts are recycled from X.com

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 02:27 PM | Reply

How about a living wage, dumb-asses? Oh, that's right, the billionaires that fund the donkey don't want that, that's why they push identity politics instead of class warfare.

I hate the party I left for those reasons.

#15 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2026-04-06 10:34 PM | FLAG: How about you tell us what a real 'living wage' is. How would it apply to two individuals doing the same job, but one is single and the other married with a child. Now tell us how a small business with 15 employees can pay that mythological 'living wage'.

FACT IS: Companies' employee pay is what they labor is worth to the company. NO ONE is required to stay with a company in this country if they are unhappy with the pay - they are more than welcome to seek employment with another company, assuming they have the work credentials to to be hired in that higher paying position.

REMEMBER: No one take an employment position [signing on the 'dotted line' without knowing they pay and pay scale of the business, so if they accept the position they have made the decision to work for that pay.

Actually, it is up the the individual to do whatever is necessary if they need more income - whether by taking on a part-tie second job, or maybe taking evening courses to up their work credential for seeking a better paying position. It is NOT the responsibility of a company to give one more money just because they want more.

#27 | Posted by MSgt at 2026-04-07 04:30 PM | Reply

The one thing I've noticed over the years, is that most of the liberals here have little to no knowledge of management or economics, or finance - but hey, they have a lot of emotion, often misdirected.

#28 | Posted by MSgt at 2026-04-07 04:33 PM | Reply

Tax cuts let the private sector taxpayers to keep more of their hard earned monies, which in turn most gets spent in the private economy [consumption of goods and services]which drives it up. Companies gain from that in turn they pay in more tax revenues. When people have less money, less consumption of goods and services which either relates to a stagnant or even a shrinking economy which leads to recessions and fewer revenues to the government.

AI Overview
Rising taxation generally slows economic growth by reducing disposable income, decreasing consumer demand, and disincentivizing work, savings, and investment. A 1% of GDP tax increase can reduce real GDP by 2-3%, as higher rates limit business expansion, reduce corporate investment, and lower household purchasing power, often resulting in higher unemployment.

AI Overview
Lowering taxes generally boosts the economy in the short term by increasing disposable income for households and cash flow for businesses, encouraging spending and investment. However, if not financed by spending cuts, tax cuts often increase government debt, which can raise interest rates and hinder long-term economic growth.

Your economic lesson for liberals of the day -- and you're welcome : )

#29 | Posted by MSgt at 2026-04-07 04:39 PM | Reply

- the billionaires that fund the donkey

Billionaire spending in the 2024 election favored Donald Trump... by far:

"Billionaire spending in the 2024 federal election cycle heavily favored Donald Trump and Republican causes, with a record-breaking influx of cash that dramatically outpaced donations to Democrats.

Reports indicate that over two-thirds (approximately 70%) of billionaire-family contributions went toward supporting Republican candidates and conservative causes, compared to less than a quarter backing Democratic efforts"

more

Which is just one reason you clown's Fact-Free postage here is SO laugh out loudable.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2026-04-07 04:40 PM | Reply

RCADE WHEN WILL YOU CUT BACK ON THESE ------- ADVERTISEMENTS?

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 04:42 PM | Reply

"Rising taxation generally slows economic growth"

That depends on WHERE the taxation occurs.

Higher tax rates incentivize reinvestment, be it a plant, workers, or training.

Lower tax rates incentivize taking out profit.

Remember when NO CEO raised his hand saying he'd use the tax cuts for worker pay raises??? The Trump goon was so stupid, he didn't realize that's EXACTLY what the tax cuts were doing: DIS-incentivizing worker raises. And training. And reinvestment into the company.

Your AI is suffering from a GIGO problem. What prompts did you give it???

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-04-07 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So did Harris have more billionaire donors than Trump and why did Harris win the over $100,000 annual income category? Just curious...it dumbfounded me, personally. I mean why did the people with the money vote for Harris?

#33 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:24 PM | Reply

Supposed to say: Why did have Harris have more billionaire donors than Trump.......

#34 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:27 PM | Reply

Trump got the vote of the morons and rubes.

People with money knew Trump would destroy this country and the value of the dollar.

Only the Epstein class, who have been personally benefiting from Trump's polices and games are benefiting.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:27 PM | Reply

Forbes and multiple outlets tracking wealthy donors report that more billionaires publicly backed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump during the 2024 cycle " Forbes counted roughly 83 billionaires for Harris and 52 for Trump in its October/November rollups

#36 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:28 PM | Reply

Also.

Lots of reports out that Trump and Musk fixed the 2024 election.

Trump personally thanked him for Pennsylvania.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:32 PM | Reply

more billionaires publicly backed Kamala Harris
#36 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

The word "publicly" does a lot to explain your question.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:35 PM | Reply

ropercenter.cornell.edu

Under $50,000 annual income Harris-48% Trump-50%

$50,000-$99,999 annual income Harris-46% Trump-52%

Over $100,000 annual income Harris-51% Trump-47%

How did this happen???

#39 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:35 PM | Reply

more billionaires publicly backed Kamala Harris
#36 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

The word "publicly" does a lot to explain your question.

#38 | Posted by ClownShack

------------
But aren't donations public record?

#40 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:38 PM | Reply

Over $100,000 annual income Harris-51% Trump-47%

Over $100,000 annual income?

What if you have an LLC and you any pay yourself $50,000 so you can be in a cheaper tax bracket?

What if you're a billionaire who doesn't have an reported income?

We're missing some information.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:42 PM | Reply

Yup, there's FEC filings, and so it's in official records. More billionaires supported Kamala than Trump

=================================================================

Billionaires Who Support Harris: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes

thomaswictor.com

=================================================================

#42 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 07:48 PM | Reply

But aren't donations public record?
#40 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling me.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:51 PM | Reply

#42 So?

Billionaires have but one vote each.

Gosh, if only their money had as few votes, as well.

#44 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 07:53 PM | Reply

#42 A scam link?

Really?

#45 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 07:55 PM | Reply

#42 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

There's a lot of money in politics that isn't public.

A lot of wealthy democrats publicly supported Harris in order to create momentum for her.

That's where the "publicly" comes in.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 07:57 PM | Reply

A scam link?
Really?
#45 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

I see.

So a troll indeed.

It's a shame the only people who support Trump seem to be objectively awful people.

They can only communicate by trolling or being openly hateful.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 08:00 PM | Reply

#47 Spot-on observation, Clown. Thanks.

#48 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 08:01 PM | Reply

whoa whoa whoa! I did not know it was a scam link.....is it??? I'm truly sorry....but all the links above are still valid except this one

#49 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 08:05 PM | Reply

#49 " ... valid expectation this one ... " is like claiming that she's more pregnant than you.

One is either credible ... .

... or not.

You reside in the former category.

You're welcome.

#50 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 08:09 PM | Reply

I quote Forbes and MSNBC. Those for sure are not scam sites, right?

You're ignoring the question...instead of coming up with POSSIBLE answers, why not enjoy sharing ideas on WHY would wealthy Americans vote more for Harris than they did Trump?

This is what I'm talking about...The dems needs to STOP going "oh well...it probably happened because of blah blah blah..." Well MAYBE...but what IF there's other reasons???

But, you know, if I'm not allowed to make a "boo boo" by accidentally posted a scam site which I did not realize it was, then that's on you. I'm looking for honest discussions, not just some quickie answers.

I have never trolled here in the 8 years I've been here. Look it up.

#51 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2026-04-07 08:12 PM | Reply

POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

Okay.

So for the sake of discussion, let's take all the information you provided at face value.

What's your question?

How did Harris lose to Trump?

Multiple reasons.

The democratic party never truly united behind her. Americans, weren't ready for her.

She was launched into the candidacy in July, after Biden frozen up on stage. There was a lot to do with little time. Saving face being a big hurdle.

Despite all this, she got a huge portion of the votes.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 08:31 PM | Reply

WHY would wealthy Americans vote more for Harris than they did Trump?

I already responded to this question.

Perhaps respond to that instead of just asking the same question.

Makes it look like you're not really interested in the conversation and more about making some point.

#53 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 08:34 PM | Reply

#52 Our friend, Clownshack asks, "How did Harris lose to Trump?"

Here we go again...

Throughout the month of October, 2024, the Trump campaign (and associated entities) spent $300,000,000.00 on ads in all 7 swing states during televised NFL and NCAA football games. The topic of all of those ads? Then-CA Attorney General Kamala Harris' 2019 response to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming (read: trans) care for federal inmates.

And the amount of money the Harris campaign spent countering those ads in the swing states during NFL and NCAA football games? You know, to point out the truth that she was simply responding to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming for federal inmates? To counter the deceptive, the lying-by-omission ads run by Trump & company?

Zero dollars

The efficacy of this strategy was born out election night, 2024, when Steve Kornacki was calling individual counties (starting with Pennsylvania) and highlighting that the Harris/Walz ticket was falling short of votes as opposed to the votes in the 2020 election for the Biden/Harris ticket. His reporting was, in effect, a death by 1,000 cuts for Harris/Walz.

Trump & company knew that all it would take would be the suppression of Biden votes in 2024 by just a point or two for Trump to carry those counties, all 7 swing states and, ultimately, the election. They judged, correctly, that men - men of color and white - would be turned off enough by the "pro-trans" Harris that they voted for Trump, or didn't vote at all.

Either way, mission accomplished.

#54 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 08:45 PM | Reply

#51 Flag:

#55 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 09:18 PM | Reply

#51 Flag:

#56 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 09:18 PM | Reply

On Tuesday 5 Nov 2024, the incumbent Democratic Party lost 6,265,888 voters they had on Tuesday 3 Nov 2020.

And still the DNC doesn't release the official autopsy report of what happened to their erstwhile supporters.

Progressives vote for policies and don't care if their candidate is a Man of Color, like Barack Obama (2008 and 2012 winner) or a woman, like Hillary Clinton (2016 popular vote winner, but loser because of the medieval Electoral College).

Policy matters.

Supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and the "Forever Wars" against Arabs and Iranians in the Middle East is just bad policy.

This poor policy bankrupts the US economy and makes unnecessary enemies of America in the Middle East.

Iran President Masoud Pezeshkian's open letter to the American people emphasized that Iran does not pose a threat to the US and that Iran harbors no hostility toward the American people.

How is this illegal and costly war against the people of Iran on behalf of wealthy, nuclear-armed Israel, which has universal healthcare for all its residents unlike us, in America's best interest?

#57 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-07 10:54 PM | Reply

#57 Is your message that Democrats are bad.

And that Republicans, who control everything, are wonderful?

Is that what you're saying, C0RI0LANUS?

#58 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 10:56 PM | Reply

Clownshack asks, "How did Harris lose to Trump?"

Me asking? No.

I was trying to figure out what Idependant97 was asking.

What the point of all his stats and questions about "wealthy" people and public donations where getting at.

I'm assuming if he comes back he'll let us know.

As for me, I had no delusions, I knew Harris never stood a chance at winning. She was selected to take the fall. I'm impressed she did so well.

I'll save you heartache by letting you know I did vote for Harris/Walz. I would have voted for anyone democrats selected to prevent another Trump presidency.

Yet here we are.

There are many theories as to republicans having cheated in 2024 to win Congress and the presidency. But since I can't prove it other than to point to some odd statements by Trump and Musk, and some of the ideas of Project 2025, I'll have to ignore it.

I'm curious to find out what November brings. I'm curious to find out where our country is headed.

It's interesting times we live in. Wish it weren't so expensive.

#59 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 11:00 PM | Reply

#57 C0RI0LANUS again ignores American political reality with his misdirected comment: "On Tuesday 5 Nov 2024, the incumbent Democratic Party lost 6,265,888 voters they had on Tuesday 3 Nov 2020."

Yeah?

And why is that?

Here we go again...

Throughout the month of October, 2024, the Trump campaign (and associated entities) spent $300,000,000.00 on ads in all 7 swing states during televised NFL and NCAA football games. The topic of all of those ads? Then-CA Attorney General Kamala Harris' 2019 response to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming (read: trans) care for federal inmates

click graphic above for actual She's for They/Them ad
And the amount of money the Harris campaign spent countering those She's for They/Them ads in the swing states during NFL and NCAA football games? You know, to point out the truth that she was simply responding to a question about a Trump administration dictate on gender-affirming for federal inmates? To counter the deceptive, the lying-by-omission ads run by Trump & company?

Zero dollars

The efficacy of this strategy was born out election night, 2024, when Steve Kornacki was calling individual counties (starting with Pennsylvania) and highlighting that the Harris/Walz ticket was falling short of votes as opposed to the votes in the 2020 election for the Biden/Harris ticket. His reporting was, in effect, a death by 1,000 cuts for Harris/Walz.

Trump & company knew that all it would take would be the suppression of Biden votes in 2024 by just a point or two for Trump to carry those counties, all 7 swing states and, ultimately, the election. They judged, correctly, that men - men of color and white - would be turned off enough by the "pro-trans" Harris that they voted for Trump, or didn't vote at all.

Either way, mission accomplished.

Show anything that comes close to that when it comes to the votes in 2024, C0RI0LANUS...

... other than your attempt at playing Casiodorus in a play where you take credit for something to which you are not entitled.

#60 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-04-07 11:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Is that what you're saying, C0RI0LANUS

I'm pretty sure it's something like, everyone has to suffer for there to be change.

People sitting comfortably at home couldn't care less.

What's unfortunate is many people did this to themselves.

America was the best nation on earth.

Now we're universally hated.

Well, except in Russia.

Where Trump is a hero.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-04-07 11:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hi Clownshack

The millions of antiwar Samaritans who didn't waste their vote on Jill Stein on Tuesday 5 Nov 2024 do care.

They just couldn't stomach either AIPAC candidate.

I held my nose (as did my family) and voted for Kamala Harris because that was POTUS Jimmy Carter's last wish.

The same predicament happened to the incumbent Democrats on Tuesday 5 Nov 1968.

The millions of antiwar Samaritans-- "hippies" and angry Vietnam War vets-- didn't waste their vote on either of the two warmongers (Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon) or segregationist George Wallace.

They took to the streets.

Both the 1968 and 2024 DNC conventions excluded the antiwar pacifists from speaking.

In 1968 the enemy was the "-----" and "Commie pinkos;" in 2024 the enemy was Muslims, Arabs, and "hostage-takers."

Bibi Netanyahu, an MIT grad, played the 2024 US election year perfectly with the help of AIPAC and an Israeli-friendly MSM, as we can all see.

The outcome?

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz (who could have been VPOTUS is thinking of retiring), and Joe Biden are all in the wilderness while Bibi is enjoying a quarter century in power.

Meanwhile, upwards of 75,000 Palestinians were murdered.

And still the DNC won't release the autopsy report.

#62 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-08 12:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#63 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-04-08 01:28 AM | Reply

"Meanwhile, upwards of 75,000 Palestinians were murdered."

A question to the group, and potential Dem voters in particular, how important an issue is the Israel/Hamas conflict to you? Is there anything Harris could have done with regard to this conflict changed your vote? Should she have sided with the "from the river to the sea" crowd, stayed out of it, or taken another path?

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-04-08 10:39 AM | Reply

I know two Gen Z who didn't cast a vote for Harris because of her backing the Israel policies of "Genocide Joe". I tried my best to warn them about Project 2025. Wasn't good enough. Journalist Yashar Ali was sounding the alarm that October 7th really fcnked the Dems' chances months before everyone else never found out

#65 | Posted by hamburglar at 2026-04-08 11:36 AM | Reply

"It's been a joint effort to give us debt"

Now do it by trajectory. Worlds of difference.

Next, do it by market return. Worlds of difference.

Sincerely,
Actual Math

cc: Real-World Investing

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-04-08 12:32 PM | Reply

Gosh, if only their money had as few votes, as well.

#44 | Posted by A_Friend

Their money buys political ad time, judges, politicians, TV networks, ...
Money's not "speech", it's the volume knob that drowns out others' speech.

#67 | Posted by morris at 2026-04-08 02:25 PM | Reply

"I know two Gen Z who didn't cast a vote for Harris because of her backing the Israel policies of "Genocide Joe"."

Did they vote for Trump? Or just not vote?

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-04-08 04:14 PM | Reply

and potential Dem voters in particular, how important an issue is the Israel/Hamas conflict to you?

Not very important, but it was a political litmus test for few people (like those on this website).

Is there anything Harris could have done with regard to this conflict changed your vote?

She could have said anything; I guess that she hoped/polling her position would garner the most votes.

Should she have sided with the "from the river to the sea" crowd, stayed out of it, or taken another path?

It would have alienated a majority of the party. She really didn't do badly, she just lost.

Money's not "speech", it's the volume knob that drowns out others' speech.

Then why didn't it matter?

Harris Outspends Trump by $5 Million a Day After Donor Surge
www.yahoo.com

How does giving to "judges" or "tv networks" drown out others speech?

#69 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-04-08 05:27 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure it's something like, everyone has to suffer for there to be change.

Change is coming, and everyone but the rich will suffer.

#70 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-04-08 05:28 PM | Reply

Change is coming, and everyone but the rich will suffer.

#70 | Posted by oneironaut

Thanks to dopes like you who support the party of rich pedophiles

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-04-08 05:29 PM | Reply

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy