Taro T

Regardless of who he chooses, the left will hate on them. Might as well go with the people he expects will do what he hopes they'll do rather than someone that will necessarily work against him.

Durn shame that 46 signed into law the Electoral Count Reform Act which defines his VP's duties when certifying the election merely "ministerial" in nature. And you were SOOOOO close to foiling that wascally Nazi. Would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those durn Congress Critters.

Or, playing devil's advocate, imagine how much bigger 45 would've won the PR vote without the joke. 😉

Not to mention, she wildly missed on the 2018 governor's race calling it for the D+3 but it went R+2. Would want to see her raw data and how it compares to '16 and '20 before getting too excited one way or the other about this single poll.

She's typically accurate. But the one time she flailed wildly was in the D's favor.

RIP John.

The issue that people are taking exception to is that according to the article it doesn't matter whether the ballots that arrive late bear a postmark or not. With no postmark, there is no proof that the ballot was deposited before the election closed. How exactly are you "verifying" the mail in ballots without any postmark? Well, the guy that brought them to us pinky swore and crossed his heart that he knows they were all really put in the mail on time. He has an honest face; surely people with honest faces never lie.

Does JD Vance and his Asian Indian wife know about this? THIS could be a true GAME CHANGER.

It is real. But, though the Appelate Court reversed the lower court's ruling in part, and vacated it in part, it also remanded the case back to the lower court. And it specifically stated in the decision that "(t)oday’s decision says nothing about remedies." So, it isn't necessarily the victory it seems from reading that tweet about it.

She was given the responsibility to direct the executive branch's efforts to secure the US's southern border. There is no denying that. People taking issue with the colloquialism going around when that responsibility was given to her by 46 was that she was the "border Czar" seem to be trying to revise history. It is disingenuous at best to try to claim that she wasn't given that responsibility because she did not officially take on the title of "border Czar" though most all media were using that title to describe her role.

Having a hard time understanding how it "probably has been going on longer" isn't troublesome. Also, am having a hard time understanding how us, the plebes, not knowing about it until just now isn't more than troubling. The government works for us, or it's supposed to. Again, not trying to play "gotcha." Am really trying to understand the viewpoint.

Thank you very much for the answers. A follow up, you seem to have misunderstood Q3, apologies for not being more clear. The question wasn't about whether there's been pressure on 46 to step down prior to the debate. Whether there was a little push for him to leave or not, the vast majority of D's and their usual supporters did not publicly push for him to leave prior to the debate. That is not in question. The question was whether you believe he's not been sharp enough since before the debate or if something snapped in him at the debate but he was quite acute prior to the debate? This was either a rapid mental descent we've witnessed over the past 3 weeks (which IMHO doesn't seem likely); or it's been going on much longer and the media, who are often our agents to interact with those in the government, have not been acting as agents for us as they have been hiding this from us.

A few questions, if you would be so kind as to answer. (And these go out to all the people that were supporting 46 3 weeks ago.) 1. WHY is he dropping out? Would sincerely like to know your opinion on why as you do seem to be solidly a Democrat. 2. How is this putting the country first? The Democratic Party's voters overwhelmingly choose him to be their nominee for President this year. And, if the replies to the above questions are that you don't believe he's currently capable of running for President or you don't believe he's capable of serving as President for another 4 years, a couple of follow up Q's. 3. Do you believe that something snapped in him that Thursday evening or recently prior to it; or is this something that has been building for a long time? 4. If it wasn't a rapidly declining problem, do you have any concerns about the general mass media and those in his inner circle claiming that he was fine or even better than fine until (and for some even beyond) that Thursday evening? There was a lot of media talk that 46 would whip 45 handily in the debate as 46 was/is very sharp. It doesn't seem that 46 won that debate against 45. 5. If he isn't capable of running for President, should he also step down as the President? 6. Why should he / shouldn't he step down? Thank you for considering the questions. Expect they might come across as "gotchas" but they really aren't intended that way. Am very interested in understanding this view. 🍺

The bit about the ladder seems to be untrue. He apparently climbed atop an AC unit to reach a low roof adjacent to the building he was on when he took the shots at the former President. Haven't heard enough details about the other items in your post to determine whether they are accurate or not. But the ladder bit appears to not be.

Hopefully all the events of these past couple of weeks will get people to realize it isn't that the MSM is truthful or not and that it isn't whether the "alternative" media is truthful or not. It's that this isn't Walter Cronkite's media or even Tim Russert's media anymore. None of them see themselves as needing to speak hard truth and ask hard questions of ALL politicians. (Well, almost none of them. Catherine Herridge and a few others will investigate a story regardless of where it takes them, but those are few and far between.) They now have their own favorite politicians and they will try to carry water for them and they'll be tough on politicians that are opponents of their favorites. (And this goes for bureaucrats as well.) You just have to understand who each is running interference for: FOX - RNC; CNN - DNC; MSNBC - progressive D's; OAN - Trump wing of R's; NYT - State Department; WAPO - IC; WSJ - RNC. Etc, etc. Listen to whomever you want, but understand they're going to slant the news to best serve their OWN interests. If the reporters of today were around in biblical times, when Jesus hopped out of the fishing boat and walked to shore there would've been 2 primary stories: 1. Jesus walks on water; and 2. Jesus can't swim. They're both ostensibly true, but the reader of one's reporting gets a better understanding of the event than the reader of the other's reporting. And, a LOT of times, you can find the primary sources that were the basis of the articles. Track them down yourself and reach your own conclusion of what just happened. And when you catch them in a lie, ask yourself, what else might they have been lying about. Check out the stories from multiple angles and realize sometimes one or the other is telling the truth and the other is lying; but a lot of the time, the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Except of course when 90% of them are all using the EXACT SAME WORDS, it which case you have a pretty good idea of what ISN'T the truth.

So, your brother's comment is what triggered you to "run" here and post that you believed the assasination attempt to have been staged? You really truly do come across as a "special" individual.

You literally posted THIS: with the 5th post of this entire thread. Please show us all of the "(T)rump just won" and "great photo op" posts that were made prior to your post that (presumably) forced you to claim "(i)t was staged."

It always is. 🤪

Yahoo has finally opened the Pick 'Ems up. You are now able to make picks.

It will be very interesting to see how & how much this will effect the results of elections in the future. If both parties are smart they won't use this one issue as a litmus test for vetting their candidates as it could have significant unintended consequences both ways. It could hurt R's with the "soccer moms" that presumably are prochoice & others in that category. But it also could hurt D's among Hispanic and other populations that are strongly prolife though they have historically voted for the D's. And, though some are convinced this issue will rile up one voting base more than the other and end up THE issue in '22, '24, & moving forward; the economy almost always trumps all other issues. A good economy & the incumbent party is pretty much a lock. A poor economy and it's only the long established incumbents that remain locks & open seats & those held by 1 or 2 termers of the party in power go for the other one. Maybe this will be different, but if inflation & shortages are still rampant; wouldn't have any money on this being the issue that carries the day this November.

You keep asking this question of what the penalties will be for committing an abortion where it is newly illegal. Expecting they'll be similar, though in some cases less severe, to the penalties for committing an abortion in the 3rd trimester which is what most state laws have deemed illegal for most of the past 49 years. So, do some homework and find out.

Well, his song "Shameless" got covered by some country singer, so... 🤔 Nah, got nothin'.

Only 5 attendees, but good to see everyone that did show.

O kaaaaaay. 🤨

Bump.