Taro T

1. '94 Crime Reform.

Continue appointing conservative judges as openings occur. Continuing getting peace deals negotiated. Possibly continue to make tweaks to prison reform to further correct the unintended (being charitable here) consequences of Joe Biden's '94 prison reform law. Continue gutting funding sources for terrorists like ISIS & Hezbollah. That's just for starters.

One plays to their "strengths."

Sadly, not positive that being corrupt as any Latin American dictator is illegal. (Yay, us.) But it should be disqualifying to have a rational person vote for him. Oh, it still is. Cool. Here's to hoping.

Expecting we'll see the same sort of thing we saw under 44. The stock market will do well because the companies listed are large enough that they can meet the additional regulatory hurdles that get imposed, but small businesses that were succeeding prior to the lockdowns without the same resources will struggle or fail. The economy is far bigger than just the Dow or even the S&P 500. Minority unemployment and under 30 unemployment will continue to be ridiculously high it was under 44's tenure. You know, the people that the D's claim their policies are geared to help. We'll also see some more terrorism & possibly/likely get into additional international conflagrations as Iran gets back on its feet. China will resume flexing its muscles as well.

Well, clearly he's a dictator. We have irrefutable proof such as: reporters in jail for writing stories that reflect poorly on 45; supporters of his opponent having their Twitter & Facebook accounts suspended right before they are sent to the gulag; overstepping state & local authorities jurisdictions right before gunning down the Antifa "peaceful protesters" STILL rioting in D controlled cities; starting new wars by taking our nation to war against countries for no reason; Comey, Brennan, & Clapper (not to mention at least 2 dozen others) that have been ruthlessly assassinated for simply working against the peaceful transfer of power to this dictator. That's just for starters. Oh, none of that's happened, well... Oh, totally forgot, his worst dictatorial item of all, he says mean things about dreamy people on the twitters. THAT is obvious PROOF he's a dictator & not merely a narcissistic jerk.

Feigned? If you say so.

Glad you support having that info brought to light. Truly doubt it'll bring info you like to light, but again, glad you support this.

OANN IS One America News Network.

Am definitely intrigued by the possibility of reviving it. The question is, will it be the well written version that ran most of the series or the continuation of the schlock that was the final season? Don't have Showtime, so will likely pick up the DVD after its run if the reviews are good.

Hoax.

Isn't the point of extended voting to allow people to come back & vote on a different day if the lines are too long? Or was the 1st day voting was open going to be the only day all of these rocket scientists were going to be available to vote? That people are stupid is not disenfranchising, though maybe it should be.

Not exactly. But pretty sure responding "Hoax!" to every post one disagrees with will lead to a short visit. Pretty sure the point is to have discussions. And, maybe some minds get changed if the points are solid. Most of the long time posters at this subforum have had their positions altered through the years due to effective arguments. Post where you're comfortable, but maybe being outside your comfort zone is a good thing.

Gee, so sorry we didn't have time to cover National Security nor Leadership because the Climate Change discussion ran long. Any bets on how quickly she gets off of "American Families" after 45 continues to bring up the story of a particular American family from Delaware? Maybe they will have time for Leadership after all. (Pretty sure National Security gets dropped as quickly as American Families does.)

No. There have been myriad people in the military that have looked into the allegations about Russian bounties and said there is no credible evidence of the bounties being offered. Your comparison is one of apples to outboard motor propellers. Biden's camp came out with a VERY qualified denial of the story immediately when the story came out. If he really didn't meet with the guy, why say it wasn't on his schedule rather than he didn't meet with him? Why not simply say he didn't meet with him? Why did Biden lash out at the CBS reporter that asked him about it without answering the question?

Ummm, your opinion is that they immediately put out a denial that didn't actually deny that the Burisma guy met w/ the VP rather than putting out an ACTUAL denial because they're hoping the story fades out? Don't suppose you have a reason for why a non-denial is better than a flat out denial IF the VP truly never met with the guy? Especially when we know it was the VP's threat to withhold loan guarantees that got the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because the VP bragged about it and there is video evidence of him braggi g about it.

Considering the campaign still has yet, 3 days later, to make an actual denial denial, rather than their non-denial denial; the odds increase that the story is accurate. Which would increase the likelihood the info on the laptop is legit, which would be very bad for the former VP as that doesn't seem to be the most damning thing on the laptop.

Realize that having typed that out as briefly as it was stated that it could come across that way. Was simply trying to clarify to whomever post it was in response to, that though 45 had A tweet shouting "repeal 230," that many (most?) people that want to see changes to how Section 230 gets enforced DON'T want to see it repealed. But merely see a bit more fairness shown by the 800# gorillas that essentially have become monopolized communication conduits. Also, would definitely want to see what's proposed before endorsing anything (many "solutions" could wind up far worse than the current "problem"). And also expect that if Big Tech does continue to mess with ~1/2 of their product (let's facevit, the advertisers are their customers) somebody else will come along and take that product from them by not messing with them, so there may be no long term need for adjustments to regulations nor new laws needed overall. Plus, looks like Twitter might find itself facing lawsuits for violations of campaign finance laws, so who knows where this all leads. Hope this and the other post didn't detract too much from the purpose of your thread. Apologies if it did. And haven't proposed any solutions to your original Q's of this thread, because really not sure what the answers are & flat out don't have the bandwidth to help implement them anyway. The suggestions the old-timer have made seem reasonable. If you are looking for thoughts from a different perspective, maybe reach out to Kelly the Dog or TPS for their thoughts on the issue. They were very active on this board in the past and neither would ever be accused of being right wing. (And not making that suggestion to create even more work for you; simply making it because nearly all the lefties offering you advice have never seen this place when it wasn't perceived to be "a right wing circle jerk." Thanks again for this site & SS.

For the most part, the talk of "repealing" Section 230 isn't about doing away with section 230, but rather clarifying how/whether the social media companies should continue to recieve exemption from libel liability as if they were ISPs when they now are effecting editorial policies as if they are publishers which do not enjoy an exception from libel liability. Right now, they are having it both ways. They claim they are merely conduits but also they now effect editorial control. That's not right. And Paj has said they will be promulgating new regulations based upon existing laws.

Your timeliness is completely off. And Clinesmith's perjury is not the only evidence of malfeasance.

41 was a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign. Especially without Lee Atwater available to run his campaign.

Fair enough. But that a "bullshitter" like him can be considered honest shows just how broken the system is.

If he is a CIA source, it means he's contacting foreigners to spy on them FOR the USA. If he isn't one, then contacting foreigners could mean he could be doing something that might compromise our country. Our IC is supposed to provide the FISA judges ALL the info about a potential subject of a warrant (both positive & negative because the process is secret & the subject gets no say nor advocate) & rather than even do that they falsified the case against him to make it more compelling. You really don't see a problem with claiming one of our spies is possibly a black hat and then using that to spy on the President? (2 jump rule.) One additional question, if he was such an imminent threat to our country's national security that he could be legally spied on under the FISA system for a FULL YEAR, why 3 years later is he still walking around a free man?

The ONLY major US politician in at least 50 years and possibly EVER that got drummed out of an election for being a PLAGIAERISER is most commonly described as "honest?" Seriously? Did they poll anyone over the age of 40?

Horsehockey! Bush was leading before Perot quit & then most of those Perot voters switched to Clinton. When he got back in, he got some of those voters back, but not even close to what he had originally. Most of them stuck w/ Clinton once HRP came back.