daz28
-
Posts
4,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by daz28
-
-
6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Amen. What you point out here is that the "mainstream media" (I guess they consider Politico as such, even though it is a relative newcomer to that status) does at least try to investigate and to approach people who may be on the other side with an opportunity to comment. Do you ever see Julie Kelly or Jack Posobiec or any of the other faves of the alt right even mentioning an opposing viewpoint, much less seeking out the subject of one of their postings for comment?
They want to be fed a heavy dose of people who have no facts whatsoever, but say, "this suggests", "raises questions", or "has the appearance of". Somehow this hack trash becomes their Bible. If all they did was accept that something may be awry, then I'd be right there with them digging into the meat and potatoes of it. If any member of the lyin' GQP suggests something, then they get right in line with it. The House has been nothing but unproven conspiracy crap for 2 years, and they STILL eat it up. Congress is for legislating, not for campaigning on lies and supposition.
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
PUSH PLAY.
Then why did he want to "head down to the Capital" to hang out with the white nationalists?
-
1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:
I hope you're right.
But these people will stop at absolutely nothing. I have no idea what they'll do this time, but I'm certain it will be massive and overt.
Think routine terrorist bombings at early voting centers in red areas of swing states type stuff.
Maybe some people don't want the entire federal government gutted, and replaced with hack loyalist brownshirts? Do I want more Biden? Nope. Do I want Nazis even less? Yup.
-
1
-
-
The House is the GQP's little sandbox for discontents, who throw sand at the other children when they don't get the pail and shovel when they want it. Who wants 2 more years of this complete dysfunction and partisan lawfare???
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
So Finding Qanon linked to one of its "reliable" media sources.
It's the same outlet that still to this day has this story proudly posted on its site.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
Thanks for proving your hackery Finding.
Where exactly is the 'bad reporting' in this article? Are you saying the reporters should have claimed that it wasn't Russian disinfo, when they weren't sure, and 50 guys signed a letter saying it has the marks of it? They even reported that Ratcliff said it WAS NOT Russian disinfo. Once again, you're trying to display some kind of 'gotcha moment' that doesn't actually exist. If you could get paid for this kind of nonsense you pull constantly, you would be off on Epstein Island sipping margaritas, and not here posting the same nonsense after nonsense tweets.
3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:No, it doesn't exonerate Trump, but it's indicative of the strategy the SC has chosen to pursue this matter. Now that it is quite apparent it was a staged photo shoot, it's fair to wonder what other funny business or misleading statements have been made. When you add in seizing tax records, information protected by attny-client privilege etc, and now mistakes on process, it's fair to wonder about motive.
I said this before--in my opinion, the government should be the shiny beacon on the hill in case like this. They hold virtually all the power, and if the case is rock solid, they should behave in a way that's beyond reproach. To the extent they don't, they deserve to be criticized and their motives questioned.
If you believe that courtrooms, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers are all squeaky clean, and only act in the strict standards of legal ethics, you're in for a rude awakening.
-
1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I'm hung up imaging a world where classified/top secret documents are treated as discarded lottery tickets for some, and a life sentence for others.
I agree. I get that cooperation goes a long way in enforcement and prosecution, but the letter of the law is important, too. In reality, if any of trumps cases came sooner, he might actually be going to prison, but the questionable delay on all of them could be seen as giving him the same free pass the rest of them got/get, if he's elected. Neither the lack of justice, or perceived/real selective prosecution doesn't do none of us any good.
-
5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
When you referred to her as a hack judge, I assumed that there were some rulings of hers that you disagreed with based on your sound legal knowledge. I didn’t realize it was just her experience or lack thereof that you object to.
My "sound legal knowledge"? What credentials, specifically, do you base your chat forum opinions on? You do realize she had NEVER even been a judge, before she was appointed a Federal judge, right? She has only handled a handful of cases, including this one, and you're free to look them up, too:
In a 2023 federal trial of an Alabama man accused of running a child pornography website, Cannon closed the jury selection to the public on the basis of space restrictions and also failed to swear in the jury. This was described as "a fundamental constitutional error" by legal experts. According to court transcripts from June 12, 2023, Cannon was repeatedly asked by both prosecutors and the defense attorney to open the courtroom. The public defense attorney objected to closing the courtroom, arguing that doing so violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which Cannon overruled. She was forced to restart the jury selection process before the trial ended in a plea bargain without the jury deliberating
-
1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Come on Frank, you're like Gumby here.
- The 'mistake' may or may not be intentional, but as I understand it, the acknowledgment of the action was reactionary, not proactive. It's not on the casual observer or Trump legal team to accept the rather convenient explanation.
True, but what is the gravity of the said situation? It certainly doesn't seem to justify letting the defendant off the hook. If anything, sanction Jack Smith(if necessary) and move on. Instead, the judge just said, 'Everbody it's LIMBO TIME', right when the optics of it couldn't possibly be worse.
-
3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Like everyone else here you have an opinion on everything. For some reason you cannot even put forth a thought on the conduct Jack Smith. But that judge!
Right now the facts are barren. I'm not going to judge on biased media reporting and partisan talking heads. I'm judging the judge on her basic lack of experience, which is a public record. I'm also not going to jump to a conclusion to satisfy a fellow poster. Also, I don't really have a big track record of saying, "I think" this or that based on my own intuition.
-
8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Not really, it's more a reflection of mismanagement and government at the highest levels of our country. When presidents, senators and representatives are allowed to make up their own rules, run their own game, and--as evidenced by Clinton/Biden--do pretty much as they see fit, confusion about what's right or wrong is almost certain to follow. It's human nature, just as it was human nature for those who rather naively postulated that Trump was the only one holding on to documents because their guy hadn't been outted yet. When it became apparent it would be hard for a senator/vp/president to be more guilty of reckless handling and potential disclosure....well, then came slippage.
With respect to the big picture, it seems obvious that when laws are written, and selectively enforced, by definition the person who broke said law are above it, or outside its reach. Comey made a point on that issue, as I recall.
This idiot Supreme Court ruled the Constitution is not self-executing, so that opens a can of worms that can NEVER be undone. Imagine a world where a president can commit any crime in the world, including treason or a coup, as long as his party holds the House, and refuses to impeach him. Basically, saying the House is above the Constitution. Very very sad times.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, 4th&long said:
That’s all they got. All these cases trump did what they said he did. Like I told my brother once “are you going to try to tell me I didn’t hear what trump said on that phone call to the Georgia Secretary looking for 11,000 votes? “ I’m just happy teeter are some republicans with some morales.
While I'm 100% certain the phone call was to pressure them, and any jury is likely to feel the same way, I'm not sure he was demanding for them to commit a crime. I've listened to the entire call a few times. I think that call and several other similar moves were to create smoke and doubt, so people would fall for the fake electors plot, and accept it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JDHillFan said:
Based on what you have seen and read do you think it’s likely Smith took certain “liberties” or unlikely?
I have no idea. If and when there's an explanation, I'll decide then, but it's ultimately up to a qualified judge. I already don't believe Cannon is qualified, and is in way over her head. There likely isn't many judges who do have any experience in this, though.
-
2 minutes ago, 4th&long said:
Oh so he didn’t have all these docs at his house? Right!
The problem here is that the maga clowns are forgetting that even if this evidence was tainted, it was never shown to a jury yet, but somehow that equates to mistrial and TOTAL EXHONERATION! Fantasy land. At worst, Jack Smith should be replaced IF true. It's basically the same ad Fani slept with a coworker = TOTAL EXHONERATION! Funny how they are rooting for the criminal to get off on technicalities here, but every black guy wrongly shot by police was a dirtbag anyways.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, JDHillFan said:
Notice you didn’t mention Jack Smith. Is it your belief that his actions have all been above board?
In this instance, he was basically Mark Fuhrman IF the accusations are true. Anyways, if Trump committed his crime, AND Jack Smith misrepresented evidence, then they BOTH should face consequences for their actions.
-
On 5/3/2024 at 11:04 PM, BillStime said:
LOL, while this is EXACTLY the kind of crap the GQP tin foil hats do daily, it is funny as hell.
-
1
-
-
Unqualified hack judge over her head=prosecutor is a criminal. LOL
This is the equivalent of OJ was innocent, because Mark Fuhrman. It's about all they have left in the playbook at this point. Sure, Mark was a dirtbag, but that doesn't TOTALLY EXHONERATE! the scumbags he locked up. If this was George Floyd, he wouldn't be getting a free pass from any of you, either.
-
1 minute ago, 4th&long said:
I didn’t say he is sharp as a tack, I said the people I know are. I’m not a doctor, I never met the man. But to say he’s a bumbling idiot who lost it and can’t run the country? That’s quite the stretch. Every president has a cabinet they take advice from. Just like Biden, I hope trump listens to his.
I’m not making excuses for Biden, if you don’t like his policies more power to ya. You don’t hear me saying anything about trump and his age related issues, and his are showing also.
Apparently, an old guy with poopy pants dozing off at his criminal proceedings is better than some other old guy with poopy pants sleeping in the oval office. They're both HORRIBLE options.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Completely different hearing.
SHE is not accused of anything, NPR is.
She is the head of NPR.
This is pretty basic stuff.
.
I'll go back to that fact she's only been there 2 months. My point is which of their complaints was she at the helm for? Probably none. Let me inform you of some facts. NPR gets 8% of their funding from CPB(government non-profit). The CPB supports over 1500 media outlets nationwide, mostly local. You can be assured that almost every single one has a bias based on their location. What's going on at NPR is no different than any of those stations. They're simply larger. This is just some crap Elon stirred up. Nothing 'new' is happening at NPR or anywhere else.
-
1
-
-
Just now, JDHillFan said:
This lady should have to explain her public comments, comments that even most of the lefties here would classify as extreme, if she is going to lead a taxpayer funded organization.
We tried that with Supreme Court nominees, and it didn't work. I'd worry about that a lot more than I would someone running a partially govt funded media source. If it were Congress job to vet someone for that position, it might be different. Otherwise, maybe they should wait until she is actually accused of something. Can't wait to do that though, because they might lose their right to run the carnival in 6 months.
-
Just now, JDHillFan said:
If you believe perhaps she just needs more time to settle in why do you think she cited a meeting as her reason for not attending rather than “I need more time to settle in”? LOL
Because she knows the people who wanted to ask her questions are very unserious partisan hacks putting on political theater instead of legislating? I'm not defending NPR, because it does have a left slant, but the idea that politics plays into every single persons decisions at their government jobs is deep state bs. NO ONE is more partisan than a House Committe right now, so it's like the giant pot calling a little kettle black. Their version of lawfare is lucky it gets any response at all.
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
So an audit=a tax INCREASE? Just how dumb does Arynne think people are? Well, apparently she does know how dumb her followers are.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, B-Man said:
'Here's One Big Reason' the CEO of NPR Declined to Testify at Today's Bias Hearing
The House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is holding a hearing today titled “Examining Accusations of Ideological Bias at NPR, a Taxpayer-Funded News Entity.
”NPR's CEO declined to appear at the hearing about bias in the media operation she runs:
A spokesperson for NPR confirmed to Fox News Digital that Maher would not be appearing as requested before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, citing an all-day meeting with the organization's board of directors.
Why did Maher decline to appear at a hearing about bias at NPR (that gained steam with former editor Uri Berliner's recent article)? The top answer couldn't be more clear, as Joe Concha pointed out:
Another "big reason" might be that she's only been CEO for 2 months??? Nah, let's just put on the tin foil hats instead, and claim it's because she supports a political party, like most Americans do. I'm sure twitchy and Joe Concha have no bias of their own either/ LOL
-
2 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:
Just wait until they try to seize Alabama.
Putin already runs the GQP
-
2
-
2
-
-
So now radicalization is drag queens instead of blackshirts, brownshirts, and Bolsheviks? How terrifying. LOL
Trump 2024?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
ZERO, and neither will the nutbars. One just posted this 2 hours ago, "Think routine terrorist bombings at early voting centers in red areas of swing states type stuff.".
But no, they're not in a cult. LOL