Who will be the Democratic nominee?
Comments
-
And that poll runs counter to what’s happened in actual elections.0
-
There’s no law that says the vp and pres have to be from different states. Although it makes zero political sense to pick someone from the same state.teskeinc said:
It was between Rubio and Vance. Yeah Jr. wanted Vance but apparently the law that VP and President can’t reside in the same state played a big factor as well.cblock4life said:
Vance was a Donnie Jr. pick.OnWis97 said:
With Harris as the supposed running mate, I was kind of expecting Trump to pick a woman...and at that point, I thought looks would come into play which (while I find it generally gross to objectify this way but it applies to him), is why I never thought for a second it would be Stafinik and figured on Haley, Tulski, or Noem.* I think Vance was more of the "party" pick than the Trump pick, though. I truly believe he was picked because he thought Pence should have found a way to certify for Trump and that he will not certify 2028 for a Democrat regardless of how the votes go.curmudgeoness said:OnWis97 said:
There are a small, vilified handful of Republicans that have stayed true to recognizing Trump for what he is. Haley, like most of them, always comes back to King Donny. I am sure she'd have taken it.curmudgeoness said:mrussel1 said:
Interesting argument. Would she have taken it?Gern Blansten said:You can bet that tRump's camp is wishing they had that Vance pick back. I bet they would go with Haley right now given the circumstances.
I bet she would; she's every bit as ambitious/ craven as Vance is. She would have been a far more palatable option, too, since her foreign policy views are reality-based, at least.
I'm not clear what the Biden decision would make the Trump camp wish they'd picked her instead of Vance though.
Good question. I'd guess: she's more physically appealing/ attractive than Vance is (that matters to T---p!); she's more qualified than Vance; having a woman on the ticket would allow them to point to their own party diversity/ pay lip service to understanding the needs of women. Again, I'm just guessing here.
*I wonder if the dog-shooting story cost her...I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Kamala Harris
It's a provision in the Constitution made before the 12A was ratified and the President and VP were on the same ballot. I agree that it would be a long shot, but in 2000 Cheney changed his address before the election from TX to WY just to be sure. Someone did raise that as a challenge and it was dismissed pretty quickly in court.mcgruff10 said:
There’s no law that says the vp and pres have to be from different states. Although it makes zero political sense to pick someone from the same state.teskeinc said:
It was between Rubio and Vance. Yeah Jr. wanted Vance but apparently the law that VP and President can’t reside in the same state played a big factor as well.cblock4life said:
Vance was a Donnie Jr. pick.OnWis97 said:
With Harris as the supposed running mate, I was kind of expecting Trump to pick a woman...and at that point, I thought looks would come into play which (while I find it generally gross to objectify this way but it applies to him), is why I never thought for a second it would be Stafinik and figured on Haley, Tulski, or Noem.* I think Vance was more of the "party" pick than the Trump pick, though. I truly believe he was picked because he thought Pence should have found a way to certify for Trump and that he will not certify 2028 for a Democrat regardless of how the votes go.curmudgeoness said:OnWis97 said:
There are a small, vilified handful of Republicans that have stayed true to recognizing Trump for what he is. Haley, like most of them, always comes back to King Donny. I am sure she'd have taken it.curmudgeoness said:mrussel1 said:
Interesting argument. Would she have taken it?Gern Blansten said:You can bet that tRump's camp is wishing they had that Vance pick back. I bet they would go with Haley right now given the circumstances.
I bet she would; she's every bit as ambitious/ craven as Vance is. She would have been a far more palatable option, too, since her foreign policy views are reality-based, at least.
I'm not clear what the Biden decision would make the Trump camp wish they'd picked her instead of Vance though.
Good question. I'd guess: she's more physically appealing/ attractive than Vance is (that matters to T---p!); she's more qualified than Vance; having a woman on the ticket would allow them to point to their own party diversity/ pay lip service to understanding the needs of women. Again, I'm just guessing here.
*I wonder if the dog-shooting story cost her...0 -
Kamala Harris
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.0 -
Got ya, my bad. I forgot about cheney doing that, great example bud.mrussel1 said:
It's a provision in the Constitution made before the 12A was ratified and the President and VP were on the same ballot. I agree that it would be a long shot, but in 2000 Cheney changed his address before the election from TX to WY just to be sure. Someone did raise that as a challenge and it was dismissed pretty quickly in court.mcgruff10 said:
There’s no law that says the vp and pres have to be from different states. Although it makes zero political sense to pick someone from the same state.teskeinc said:
It was between Rubio and Vance. Yeah Jr. wanted Vance but apparently the law that VP and President can’t reside in the same state played a big factor as well.cblock4life said:
Vance was a Donnie Jr. pick.OnWis97 said:
With Harris as the supposed running mate, I was kind of expecting Trump to pick a woman...and at that point, I thought looks would come into play which (while I find it generally gross to objectify this way but it applies to him), is why I never thought for a second it would be Stafinik and figured on Haley, Tulski, or Noem.* I think Vance was more of the "party" pick than the Trump pick, though. I truly believe he was picked because he thought Pence should have found a way to certify for Trump and that he will not certify 2028 for a Democrat regardless of how the votes go.curmudgeoness said:OnWis97 said:
There are a small, vilified handful of Republicans that have stayed true to recognizing Trump for what he is. Haley, like most of them, always comes back to King Donny. I am sure she'd have taken it.curmudgeoness said:mrussel1 said:
Interesting argument. Would she have taken it?Gern Blansten said:You can bet that tRump's camp is wishing they had that Vance pick back. I bet they would go with Haley right now given the circumstances.
I bet she would; she's every bit as ambitious/ craven as Vance is. She would have been a far more palatable option, too, since her foreign policy views are reality-based, at least.
I'm not clear what the Biden decision would make the Trump camp wish they'd picked her instead of Vance though.
Good question. I'd guess: she's more physically appealing/ attractive than Vance is (that matters to T---p!); she's more qualified than Vance; having a woman on the ticket would allow them to point to their own party diversity/ pay lip service to understanding the needs of women. Again, I'm just guessing here.
*I wonder if the dog-shooting story cost her...Post edited by mcgruff10 onI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Kamala Harris
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.0 -
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Kamala Harris
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.0 -
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Kamala Harris
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.0 -
All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?mrussel1 said:
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.
Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.
Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Kamala Harris
No, they lied. I understand that. My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.Halifax2TheMax said:
All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?mrussel1 said:
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.
Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.
Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.0 -
Joe BidenExclusive: Harris leads Trump 44% to 42% in US presidential race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-leads-trump-44-42-us-presidential-race-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-07-23/
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Joe Biden
Agree 1000%. Even Biden killed Trump amongst younger voters in the last election if memory serves. Kamala will just draw even more from that group.Johnny Abruzzo said:That's a total joke. No way in hell Trump gets 59% of 18-34 vote. Polls are not elections folks.Dallas, TX (November 15, 2013)
Chicago 1 (August 20, 2016)
Chicago 2 (August 22, 2016)
Ft. Worth 1 (September 13, 2023)
Ft. Worth 2 (September 15, 2023)0 -
Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.mrussel1 said:
No, they lied. I understand that. My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.Halifax2TheMax said:
All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?mrussel1 said:
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.
Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.
Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.
Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Kamala Harris
First, there was no case re: abortion in front of the court during any of the nominations. Second, I don't know what you're arguing with me about. I already said that they lied on the stand, as far as I'm concerned.Halifax2TheMax said:
Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.mrussel1 said:
No, they lied. I understand that. My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.Halifax2TheMax said:
All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?mrussel1 said:
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.
Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.
Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.
Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?
And you don't need Trump in the WH to institute much of the project 2025. It could be done at the state level easily.0 -
I’m arguing that your spin of Project 2025 being a wish list and not to be concerned about it because of Ukraine, abortion and whatever else you mentioned as priorities is a naive approach to something that serious people with serious resources intend to implement in all seriousness. SCOTUS may not have had an abortion case before it at the time of the appointees hearings but there were certainly cases winding their way through the lower courts, hence the questions and concerns as it related to Roe.mrussel1 said:
First, there was no case re: abortion in front of the court during any of the nominations. Second, I don't know what you're arguing with me about. I already said that they lied on the stand, as far as I'm concerned.Halifax2TheMax said:
Any law is always in “danger” upon reaching SCOTUS and it’s common practice for the senate judiciary committee members to ask questions about existing laws, views, etc. The difference here is that all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees lied under oath regarding Roe. All three were short listed by the Heritage Foundation. In effect, all three were “hired” by the conservatives who back Heritage to overturn Roe and they, the appointees, had no qualms with lying under oath to deliver for their benefactors.mrussel1 said:
No, they lied. I understand that. My point is that Roe was always in danger, that's why those questions were asked.Halifax2TheMax said:
All three POOTWH SCOTUS nominees during their confirmation hearings. Do you accept that they lied when they testified that they believed Roe was settled law?mrussel1 said:
Who said that? That's pretty stupid, even without hindsight. And if that was the case, then why was the question about Roe such a litmus test during SCOTUS confirmations? Obviously the good senators thought it could be overturned because they asked about it. They didn't ask about Dred Scott because of the 14th or any other number of seminal cases.Gern Blansten said:
They said Roe would never be overturned too....mrussel1 said:
I know what they are saying. I'm saying it's nonsense, contradictory and generally a fever dream of things they could never pull off. And the reality is that it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, I'm voting against the candidate that would, in theory, implement it. And I can only vote against him once. So I can't super-vote against him even if I believed the strategy was likely.Halifax2TheMax said:
All of those things that you care about, inclusive of your #1, are mentioned, along with what needs to happen, where and by who. They are telling you what they intend to do. Ignore it and them at your peril. It is detailed and specific and written by people who know what they’re talking about and what levers need to be pulled. A fever dream or wish list is bullet points and not tens of pages on a specific subject and office of government or staffing that deals with said subject.mrussel1 said:
Look, I like to argue things that are at, some level, empirically provable. This isn't one of them. So you guys may be worried about this project, I'm not. I'm more worried about NATO, Ukraine, choice and other more tangible issues. I'll not try to convince you not to worry about it. I think the D's can win on more concrete issue. Abortion is #1.Halifax2TheMax said:
Something that has “no chance” doesn’t come with a link to submit your resume for consideration in a POOTWH executive branch. It’s not a “fever dream.”mrussel1 said:
The document is a series of contradictions, stream of consciousness and right wing fever dreams. No chance.OnWis97 said:
Project 2025 is the future of America.mrussel1 said:
I think project 2025 only animates the D base. It's pretty esoteric to be honest. Abortion is real and we know it drives people to the polls. I wouldn't confuse the issues too much.Gern Blansten said:Yeah abortion and Project 25. They need to hang that around tRump/Vance's necks until the election.
People need to wake up. Or, just rely on the courts to ensure their rights aren’t trampled or Ukraine is handed over to Putin on the ritz. Choice is yours and you are yours.
The irony of it all is that I generally agree Roe was a bad ruling from the beginning. It was rooted in a strained reading of the 14A. I'm glad Roe was the precedent for 50 years and I wish it were today, but it was always a stretch.
Regarding your one vote and not having a super vote and voting for the candidate who opposes Project 2025, it’s all well and good but to dismiss Project 2025 as a fever dream and unattainable is dangerous. The Heritage Foundation, which funded and lobbied for all three POOTWH SCOTUS appointees have studied and funded the analysis of went wrong in 2017-2021, and have laid the groundwork for the “next time.” You see it in the latest SCOTUS “official acts” ruling.
Ignoring the canary in the coal mine is how Hitler came to power and how democracy will die. It may not be POOTWH but Project 2025, its vision and its backers aren’t going away.
Do you honestly believe this court, as currently appointed, won’t or wouldn’t go along with Project 2025 initiatives if and when challenged, particularly in light of the “official acts” ruling? Or that any future POOTWH or other con SCOTUS appointees wouldn’t lie under oath when asked how they might rule or what considerations they’d make if an EO was issued eliminating the department of education? Or if funds for said department were diverted to build a wall, effectively starving it into an inability to function?
And you don't need Trump in the WH to institute much of the project 2025. It could be done at the state level easily.
How does Project 2025 implemented at the state level impact DOD, FBI, NSA, etc,, exactly? And more importantly, the power of the Executive Branch? C’mon man, I know you’re smarter than that.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
tRump is project 25's only hopeRemember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
This cycle. That project and their backers are not going away if POOTWH loses.Gern Blansten said:tRump is project 25's only hope09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help