Taro T

Pretty much this. If Biden wins, all pressure to investigate Hunter goes away. Also, all the other goodies that Joe steered towards his other relatives disappear back under the radar as well.

Haven't seen a "good reason" for Sullivan's actions since the DoJ tried to drop the case. Have no reason at all to expect this won't drag out past the election.

Except reports have said he lived less than 20 miles from Kenosha & worked at the car dealership he was helping guard. If those are accurate, then your 1st point is not correct. The point of being there, whether wise or not, was to help protect the dealership from the expected riots. There are definitely photos showing him removing graffiti earlier in the day at the car dealership. So, again, wisely or not, it seems he had good intentions initially. There also are videos that appear to show him acting as a medic helping . Not sure if they are accurately depicting that. With your 2nd point, are you saying that because there were active "protests" (personally, would call them riots by the time the shooting started, but poe-tay-toe, pah-tah-toe) on going he was fair game to be attacked? If he was helping as a medic (which is debatable, to say the least) does that alter your conclusion? And, not sure how being armed, in and of itself, justifies someone else hitting him in the head with a skateboard nor chasing after him and throwing stuff at him. Each time, until he falls, he IS retreating. Still haven't seen a video showing why the 1st guy is chasing after him. Based on video from earlier at the dealership would guess/expect that it was on the guy who got shot, but that is byno means necessarily the case. Also don't know why he left the dealership nor why police didn't let him pass back through to the dealership from the same route he'd left it.

Remember, 50% of Americans are dumber than the average American.

Well, it should be. But, when the inmates run the asylum ...

'Bout the only thing that might work is what Buffalo Gal has been telling you since you came back, flat out ignore or at a minimum don't engage at all w/ the sock puppets. Well, exceptin' for Tibs. He's kinda grandfathered into the place.

Umm, 20 late '70's college kids and a coach from the frozen lakes of Minnesota say 'hi.'

Yep. He won the national championship for Bama in '64 & it was a huge coup the he ended up w/ the Jets of the upstart AFL rather than in the NFL. He added a huge degree of respectability to the AFL. As somebody said upthread, he was far and away tue most visible football player of the late '60's. It helped being based out of NYC, but he was the face of the AFL and was probably even more recognized than Unitas, Butkus, or Starr. And nobody expected the Jets to keep the SB close, much less actually win it. Even without the prediction, with all the rest, as soon as they won the SB he became an eventual lock for the HoF. OP brings up Jim McMahon.. Very few people speak of McMahon & he was overshadowed on that '85 team by Sweetness, the Fridge, & Singletary (Even Ditka & Buddy Ryan are more recognizable & remembered today IMHO). NOBODY overshadowed Broadway Joe.

Awesome! Danke, Scott.

That stinks. The neighborhoods that will likely suffer the destruction already have more than their share of problems. Hopefully the expected destruction doesn't materialize.

Funny, pretty sure the bolded can be said about you. But if you don't realize that polling questions can be, and are, tailored to get a preferred result very often, Biden has a bridge to sell you.

They aren't "faking" the numbers in so much as they are (presumably) actually getting these results. But, pretty sure they are tailoring the Q's in a way, and also tailoring their samples, to still end up with only slightly more people than 50% to say they'd choose Biden. Which is effectively faking the #'s. Prior to the conventions, they just needed to oversample D's to get there. Now, it appears, they have to oversample D's and also ask very tailored questions that they'll still get D's to say 'yes, they'll vote for a senile man that they know won't last 4 years' without getting R's to tell them to go #### themselves. Because a poll showing Biden up by 50 points + would not be believable to anyone but Biden & Clinton. Watching clips of both candidates, have to believe that is a very fine line to walk. And they have to keep Biden close in the polls to have any chance of people believing their "no, no, no, it only LOOKS like 45 won because every single Democrat in the country voted by mail because it was too scary to enter the voting booth" gambit to have any plausibility at all.

So, the DC committee that recommended "removing, relocating, or recontexualizing" the Washington & Jefferson Monuments (among others) WASN'T bullschiff? Saw that story yesterday and thought there HAD to be something wrong about it because even Tibs wouldn't be dumb enough to call for that. People are nuts.

Right track. Wrong defense. She was SET UP! She trusted her hairdresser. How could she have POSSIBLY been expected to know the regulations governing commerce in a state so far from her base in WDC? She's simply a trusting soul that was duped by someone that hasn't worked on a regular basis in months. Poor, poor, naive, trusting Pelosi; it's not her fault. (Maybe somebody could make that into a T-shirt for rioters to wear when they grow tired of the all black clothing look.)

But 44 DEMANDED everyone working for him to do everything always "by the book." SURELY, had he known about the salacious Steele dosier prior to Crossfire Hurricane beginning, he would've demanded his IC to corroborate the info from a 2nd independent source prior to opening a FISA based investigation into a major candidate for president, right? So, was 44 not quite the choir boy he made himself out to be & his crew a little less ethical or has the left's favorite IC department head now become persona nongrata? Decisions, decisions.

What unfriendly press? Chanel Rion, Catherine Herridge (who comes across as a Tim Russert Democrat, btw), & Kimberly Strassel are the only ones in the mainstream that immediately spring 2 mind & only 1 of those is in the WHPC.

Surely you have a link to this "lovely" speech, right? Presumably, you are trying to convince people to vote for Biden and a speech that was as effective as you effusively claim surely would move some to your conclusion, right?

Please tell us that question is rhetorical.

Ummm, RCP is showing 4 GE polls on August 26 including Rasmussen w/ Biden +1. It also shows a GE poll yesterday w/ the typical Biden lead & an Emerson GE poll w/ Biden +2. Not sure why your info is showing nothing since 8/25.

Why, the audacity of that Literal Super-Mecha Hitler! How DARE he make his AG instruct the FBI that they if they try to get a FISA warrant on a government official, staffer, candidate for office, or staffer they have to provide the FISA Court ALL the evidence including that which is exculpatory. Talk about UNAMERICAN! You'd never see an AG for 44 pulling a stunt like that! Stuff like that's almost enough to make one mad enough to want to randomly destroy a government building. For reelz.

Definitely, we shall. Would assume that the embassy routinely classifies all documents & would definitely be unwilling to freely release something as embarrassing as checking up on what people like Don Jr. & Ingraham were saying- especially when trying to claim Hunter Biden's Ukranian business dealings were completely on the up & up but 45 asking (upon being prompted) Ukraine's top dog to look into corruption was purely political.

If that is what they were monitoring, yes, that would/should be illegal. But the article only says she & the embassy (& their contractor - wtf do we the taxpayer always have to pay extra fur this bullschiff?) were monitoring social media accounts rather than mining them. "Monitoring" a social media account sounds about as nefarious as collecting newspaper articles about the subjects. (Not saying there isn't more to it, clearly there must be. But on the surface, not sure how it's illegal.)

Monitoring e-mails or phone records, which are by essentially by definition private, absolutely illegal. Is it actually illegal to follow someone's Twitter or Facebook posts (if they aren't made anonymously and the person is doxxed)? Totally get that it unseemly for a "non-partisan" ambassador to be tracking the social media accounts of Americans on the other side of the world. And also that it highlights her partisanship. But, again, how is that actually illegal?

RIP Mr. Boseman.

That poor Bidenese to English interpreter...