In another blow to Vice President Kamala Harris, the International Association of Fire Fighters announced Thursday that it would not be making a 2024 presidential endorsement. The union, which represents more than 300,000 career firefighters and emergency responders, was the first to endorse President Biden’s 2020 White House bid and has a long history of backing Democratic presidential candidates. IAFF’s decision not to endorse a candidate in the 2024 race comes two weeks after the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has also long backed Democrats, defied the will of its pro-Trump membership and declined to make a presidential endorsement.
two weeks after the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has also long backed Democrats, defied the will of its pro-Trump membership and declined to make a presidential endorsement.Vegas » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ This is now the second union that told Harris to pound sand. Harris, who supposedly is the queen advocate for the hard working middle class American, isn't ringing well to the blue collar workers. They don't believe her nor do they trust her.
Kamala Harris snubbed by another major labor union — that was first to back Biden in 2020: ‘It’s a big shift’ (msn.com)
So you didn't read the op. Believe me when I say that nobody is surprised that you didn't read a post before you answered to it.Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ two weeks after the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has also long backed Democrats, defied the will of its pro-Trump membership and declined to make a presidential endorsement.
Is the opposite true?
I quoted directly from your source.Vegas » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ So you didn't read the op. Believe me when I say that nobody is surprised that you didn't read a post before you answered to it.
Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I quoted directly from your source.
You should read it.
How **** stupid are you?
We know you didn't.
What is true is that they told Harris to pound sand. They won't be making a 2024 presidential endorsement, though they supported Biden in 2020.Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ We know you didn't.
Stop hiding behind questions.....
Is the opposite true?
If not, then you have debunked our media comment.......again.
Stupid,Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ What is true is that they told Harris to pound sand. They won't be making a 2024 presidential endorsement, though they supported Biden in 2020.
If you had bothered reading it, then you wouldn't need to hide behind your stupid question.
1. You will ask the same question after I answered it right there in the bolded ^^^
Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Stupid,
In reference to the excerpt from the citation you failed to read.
No...You didn't read your citation......because you are a moron.Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ So you admit that you **** up. It's about time.
Illiterate *******.
Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No...You didn't read your citation......because you are a moron.
I did.
Now is the opposite of what it reported true?
For reference, here is your repeatedly debunked Media comment
Lol. No stupid ***. Here, let me narrow it down for you. Whatever your stupid liberal sources say ie...CNN, MSNBC, and your brainless legtwing blogs you love, if you take the complete opposite of what they tell you to think, then you will find the truth about Trump.
Idiot. You may have read it, but you obviously didn't comprehend it.Blackvegetable » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No...You didn't read your citation......because you are a moron.
I did.
Now is the opposite of what it reported true?
For reference, here is your repeatedly debunked Media comment
Lol. No stupid ***. Here, let me narrow it down for you. Whatever your stupid liberal sources say ie...CNN, MSNBC, and your brainless legtwing blogs you love, if you take the complete opposite of what they tell you to think, then you will find the truth about Trump.
Vegas » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Idiot. You may have read it, but you obviously didn't comprehend it.
I would ask you what you interpreted, but we both know how you are with questions, so I won't even bother.
My media comment has again been proved, per your own admission.
I would ask you what you interpreted, but we both know how you are with questions
Nothing has ever been so thoroughly debunked as your media comment.....as per your concessions...My media comment has again been proved, per your own admission.
I don't ask you questions, because you evade. I won't chase you around simply because you are a coward.Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Yea....Go ahead.....
Nothing has ever been so thoroughly debunked as your media comment.....as per your concessions...
Vegas » Today, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑ So you didn't read the op. Believe me when I say that nobody is surprised that you didn't read a post before you answered to it.
Let's see you prove it then...Vegas » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I don't ask you questions, because you evade. I won't chase you around simply because you are a coward.
Nothing has been so thoroughly proven as my media comment...as per your admission.
Narcissists and manipulators refuse to answer questions while insisting others do for the following reasons:
- Control: They maintain dominance by directing the conversation without reciprocating.
- Avoid accountability: Refusing to answer avoids admitting fault or revealing vulnerabilities.
- Deflection: They shift focus onto others, avoiding scrutiny of their own behavior.
- Manipulation: By demanding answers, they put others on the defensive, while withholding their own to keep power.
- Superiority: They believe they are above being questioned but expect others to justify themselves.
- Ego protection: Avoiding answers helps protect their fragile self-image from criticism or challenge.