Tim Scott 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question —

Dude has no family

No top tier degrees / job that took him away from having a family

Like what’s he been doing his whole life?

It’s strange that he’s unmarried and not even dating considering he’s a decent looking guy and a senator. And because he’s talked about settling down and having kids. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find a date. Very odd.

Why is it strange? What happened to live and let live? Who are you (or anyone) to judge his dating life? Oh, wait - I forgot. He's a Republican, so that means you must judge him.

Nah. That’s bullshit and you damn well no it. He is committed to no one and nothing beyond himself. I am a different poster and I judge Booker the same way. It’s unnatural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m pro-life and until Trump, it had been the deciding issue for my vote. I realized with Trump, that issues cease to matter when the nation itself is at stake. If we cede our freedoms to a dictator, advocating our individual positions is futile. All law would be subject to his whim. I voted a straight Democratic ticket last election and am prepared to do it again, in order to preserve the freedom to fight for the issues I care for.

Tim Scott backed Trump during the impeachments, which I feel demonstrates an utter lack of integrity. I would support Hogan, Romney, or Kinzinger and would consider supporting Cheney. Other than that, I think I’d need to see a new candidate that was willing to denounce Trump before I’d vote for any Republican.

Do not mistake my Democratic vote as support for abortion. I’m supporting the right to freely support whatever your position is, which in my case is pro-life. While I may not always like the direction the Democrats take our country, I think the country will endure, which is more than I can say for the Republicans. Moreover, there are many issues I do support the Democrats in, such as universal health care, gun control, and the environment. I agree that college expenses/debt need to be addressed, but Biden’s answer was not the right approach. I agree with the Democrats that ee need to pay our debts and cancel Trump’s tax cuts, but I also think we need to cut spending.

If Democrats were smart, spending would be the real answer to the Republican’s pro-life position. I’ve read on this forum that Republican’s are pro-life because they want population growth. I doubt whoever is saying this had ever actually talked to a Republican. While you can always find someone who supports any given position, the vast majority of Republicans oppose entitlements. If we have a surplus of babies born to parents who don’t want them and may be incapable of caring for them, spending on social services will explode. Women will be working less, with more dependents. There’ll be increased need for food and other assistance, and there’s bound to be an increased need for social workers and foster care, when that system is already overburdened and struggling. Democrats should seize this opportunity and say that since Republicans care about these babies, they surely want to make sure they don’t suffer after they’re born. Run projections and push to have the Republicans fully fund the increased services needed as a result of the abortion ban. Or, go one step further, get a blue ribbon panel of people who are actually experts (not politicians or lobbyists) and commission them to redesign our social service system so it actually functions better.

Then, if you really want to push it, propose government funding for research into developing artificial wombs. Republicans really don’t hate women, and if a fetus is removed from the womb and the woman’s life entirely, does she really care that it lives instead of dies? I suspect this could also help some women who want children, but are unable to carry to term. Surgical techniques and other treatments might eventually be developed to save some babies who are desperately wanted, but are born unable to survive. Of course, in addition to the expense of the research, the expense of the procedures, and the expense of ballooning social services, it opens a Pandora’s box of sticky ethical questions. Nonetheless, it satisfies the main argument of pro-lifers, but leaves them in the classic position of “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

I was going to answer with something substantive, but I actually think, "Wow..." should about cover it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DeSantis, Hogan, Tim Scott - any of the above would have my vote.

So basically anyone with an R after their name. Not exactly a compelling argument to anyone who isn’t a Republican sheep.

Vote Blue, No Matter Who! Right?😊

Exactly. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question —

Dude has no family

No top tier degrees / job that took him away from having a family

Like what’s he been doing his whole life?

It’s strange that he’s unmarried and not even dating considering he’s a decent looking guy and a senator. And because he’s talked about settling down and having kids. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find a date. Very odd.

Why is it strange? What happened to live and let live? Who are you (or anyone) to judge his dating life? Oh, wait - I forgot. He's a Republican, so that means you must judge him.

Nah. That’s bullshit and you damn well no it. He is committed to no one and nothing beyond himself. I am a different poster and I judge Booker the same way. It’s unnatural.

You sound really articulate and bright.

[Anonymous]

Tim Scott is now at 3% he was at 1% on Monday!! Up 300%!!!! Yes we can

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question —

Dude has no family

No top tier degrees / job that took him away from having a family

Like what’s he been doing his whole life?

It’s strange that he’s unmarried and not even dating considering he’s a decent looking guy and a senator. And because he’s talked about settling down and having kids. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find a date. Very odd.

Why is it strange? What happened to live and let live? Who are you (or anyone) to judge his dating life? Oh, wait - I forgot. He's a Republican, so that means you must judge him.

Nah. That’s bullshit and you damn well no it. He is committed to no one and nothing beyond himself. I am a different poster and I judge Booker the same way. It’s unnatural.

You sound really articulate and bright.

Aww. You sound angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question —

Dude has no family

No top tier degrees / job that took him away from having a family

Like what’s he been doing his whole life?

It’s strange that he’s unmarried and not even dating considering he’s a decent looking guy and a senator. And because he’s talked about settling down and having kids. Shouldn’t be too difficult to find a date. Very odd.

Why is it strange? What happened to live and let live? Who are you (or anyone) to judge his dating life? Oh, wait - I forgot. He's a Republican, so that means you must judge him.

Nah. That’s bullshit and you damn well no it. He is committed to no one and nothing beyond himself. I am a different poster and I judge Booker the same way. It’s unnatural.

You sound really articulate and bright.

Aww. You sound angry.

And you sound like an illiterate bigot. Who cares if he's married or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tim Scott is gonna win Iowa and that’s gonna give permission for whites in subsequent states to vote for him a la obama

Not sure if he’ll get it over the hump with trump but calling it now - RdS is gonna be third or lower in Iowa and Scott will win Iowa

GOP does not like gays or blacks.

You're an idiot. Get out of your bubble.

Look at George Santos. He is an actual drag queen and the GOP voters elected him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tim Scott is gonna win Iowa and that’s gonna give permission for whites in subsequent states to vote for him a la obama

Not sure if he’ll get it over the hump with trump but calling it now - RdS is gonna be third or lower in Iowa and Scott will win Iowa

GOP does not like gays or blacks.

You're an idiot. Get out of your bubble.

Look at George Santos. He is an actual drag queen and the GOP voters elected him.

True. As long as the candidate says the right things (i.e., addresses the list of Repug grievances), Repugs will vote for practically anyone. Tim Scott doesn't seem to be as depraved as Trump, DeSantis, Santos, etc. so I'm not convinced he'll make it that far.

[Anonymous]

hahaha Tim Scott, Westley Johnson and John James said the wrong stuff about Florida's AA education standards and now all the white conservatives hate them.

Mmmmm you love to see it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hahaha Tim Scott, Westley Johnson and John James said the wrong stuff about Florida's AA education standards and now all the white conservatives hate them.

Mmmmm you love to see it

I am a white conservative. I don't hate them. I do disagree with them because it was one line out of hundreds of pages--and it did not say that slavery was a good thing. It is also true that skills enabled some slaves to purchase their own freedom.

I would vote for Tim Scott. I don't think James is running. I don't know who Westley Johnson is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hahaha Tim Scott, Westley Johnson and John James said the wrong stuff about Florida's AA education standards and now all the white conservatives hate them.

Mmmmm you love to see it

Um, who hates him now? Be specific and provide citations. We'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hahaha Tim Scott, Westley Johnson and John James said the wrong stuff about Florida's AA education standards and now all the white conservatives hate them.

Mmmmm you love to see it

Um, who hates him now? Be specific and provide citations. We'll wait.

The hit dog is hollering about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This man has the intelligence of a cactus.

Lucky for him the Republican voters have the intelligence of rocks.

Stop Insulting cacti and rocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird. A lot of red state voters won’t vote for a black guy in the privacy of the voting booth. Fact.

You do know which state he represents? That is--where he won the GOP primary and the general election?

South Carolina also went for Biden! Scott doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Hades,!