Taro T

Plus, Flynn never saw what the FBI agents originally said he'd said when he spoke to them the 1st time. So, he was told (falsely) that what he told the FBI initially wasn't true (though he actually was truthful per all accounts recorded immediately after his "interview") which basically made him believe he'd inadvertently perjured himself per the limited & false information he had available to him. He also was being told they were going to go after his kid if he didn't admit to the perjury charge. So, he was led to believe his recollection of events was incorrect (though, for not having notes in front of him, it was incredibly accurate) & therefore believed he had effectively lied/perjured himself. So, there's a bit of sophistry in claiming he "admitted he lied." And this is all VERY enlightening and shows that those who claim the deck is stacked against the little guy might be closer to the truth than any of us want to realize because General Flynn is nearly as far from a "little guy" as anyone in this country can be and the full weight of the system fell on his head. (Please make corrections if that isn't quite accurate.)

In an ordinary election, would agree w/ you. But considering it appears pretty clear that the D's plan to manufacture a post-election win via "finding" mail-in ballots, they need that oversampling to get people to believe the polls were accurate and all those ballots miraculously appearing after the game's been played are legit & not a repeat of Al Franken's playback.

And yet even this will just get dismissed by the MSM as nothing worth looking into. Frustrating.

Billy Bob Thornton & John Cusack. Great movie.

Absolutely that should be investigated & if they find out who did it, charges should be pressed. But wouldn't surprise me if this was a set up from the other side. It's only 9 ballots total & would expect people crooked enough to tamper w/ the election to burn ballots for the opposing candidate rather than simply "discard" them.

And that's where hopefully these ridiculously long lines we see for early voting puts a crimp in their plans. It'll be difficult (though certainly it'll be tried) to claim credibly that a 45 lead of 100,000 after all 50,000 mail in votes recieved by election day in a particular state gets overturned by 200,000 votes postmarked at 11:45PM on November 3.

Wait a second; the Obamas are telling people to vote by mail & also to "vote anyway they can?" Thought the wailing about 45 telling people that if they vote by mail then they should still go to their precinct on election day to verify the ballot was recieved and everything was in order for it to be counted and should there be something wrong or it not to have been recieved to then vote in person that somehow that was encouraging them to commit voter fraud & was illegal. (It isn't & it isn't.) But will those that were so appalled at 45's suggestion be similarly appalled at 44 & wife's suggestions? Yeah, that's rhetorical.

In fairness, conservative media predominantly held the Democrats' current position back in '16.

WTF let all the mewling cats out of their cages?

Because occassional rolling brownouts/ blackouts simply aren't often enough.

Sadly, really expect that is what the organizers of these events are hoping for. Pretty sure they're actually disappointed that they've only gotten their own shot by "the other side" in Kenosha to date.

Speaking of showing cards, yours are clearly on the table.

Should he win, he won't contest the results. Should he lose on the 3rd, he won't contest the results. Should a few million vote popular vote margin w/ 300+ EC votes eek its way into a razor thin electoral loss a day or 2 before the EC convenes, heck yes he will contest. (& the D's will have been litigating for well over a month. But, but, that's different. )

Probably not the exact right place for this comment, but will put it here anyhow. Watching both sides really digging in to play for keeps with items like this SHOULD have people from both sides of the aisle wanting LESS federal government influence overall. If they're willing to spend so much on keeping power, the value of it has to be all that much greater. NO government employee should EVER get rich doing their elected or appointed duties.

Pretty sure back in the day that Mythbusters would end up ranking that one as "PLAUSIBLE."

Good luck with it. Hope your wife is home safe.

Good luck getting THAT through the House.

Who can blame him. Wouldn't you be angry if that was the only lap dancer you could afford?

Wtf? Who does he expect the NG to allow to vote that wouldn't have otherwise? Maybe he really is as dumb as Fredo.

What secrets did she expect to get out of the teddy bear by waterboarding him?

Had Sweden managed to protect their elderly, would've said they nailed it. But they definitely could've done better there.

Have had Sabres seasons for about 25 years, so easily 1,000. Tack on football, baseball, & concert tix would guess the total is ~1,500. The reason: clearly for entertainment.

Not trying to pile on here, really do appreciate having another rational liberal poster on this board that an & will carry on a cogent discussion, but did not find her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh remotely credible. Though agreed that they were worthy of additional investigation when 1st alleged, and they were investigated. There was no corroboration at all of her story, not even from people that were her friends & family. Details changed. He had several people corroborate his version of the party. She never brought these claims forward earlier, she attempted to bring the charges anonymously. She lied about her fear of flying. That's just for starters. You give her being a trained psychologist as a reason to give additional credibility to her story. IMHO, her having been trained in that subject lowers her credibility if it moves the needle either way as she'd almost definitely been trained in how to act & speak to appear credible. She may very well have been assaulted at some point in her life, but nothing she said credibly identified Justice Kavanaugh as having attacked her. That additional "victims" came forward with even more ridiculous & debunked claims is circumstantial but also lowers the believability of her allegations. Ymmv on that one.

Thanks for your response to my question in the other post. Your question about COULD a nominee reach 60 isn't quite the appropriate one now, unfortunately. Because pretty sure there isn't a single judge on the SC bench that would get to 60 TODAY. Though believe that all of them that were SCJ's 2 days ago (w/ the possible exception of Sotomayer) SHOULD recieve near unanimous approval were they coming up for nomination today. The appropriate Q IMHO is SHOULD the nominee get to 60. The system for selecting judges has become broken. IMHO the biggest part of that is due to Harry Reid's hubris, though that's not the entirety of it. Need to look closer at Barrett's or the judge from Miami's history, but right now expect either SHOULD be approved should she be nominated. (44's last nominee probably should've been approved as well, though truth be told am glad he wasn't.)

Capco, thanks for you comments so far on Justice Ginsberg. Am curious about the bolded. She didn't seem to hold this same opinion back in 2016. With that being the case, her view that a D should pick her replacement (let's be honest about why she was so adament about staying on the SC until 2021) sure seems to be based on politics rather than morals. Why do you view it as a moral stance rather than a political one?