B-Man Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago JOE CONCHA: Jake Tapper’s ‘bombshell’ book on Biden’s decline is a laughable attempt to rewrite history. Thompson’s claim that every White House “is capable of deception” again makes the hilarious case that reporters believed what the Biden team was telling them without raising any questions. Remember, this was the same White House that insisted inflation was transitory or was part of the mythical “Putin price hike.” This is the same team that claimed the border was secure. It’s the same team that actually accused Republicans of wanting to defund the police. And the same team that said Hunter Biden’s laptop was a product of Russia and COVID-19 didn’t come from a lab that literally studies coronaviruses. Not exactly a track record of honesty. Tapper and Thompson’s Original Sin is on track to be a bestseller when it hits bookstores next week. The authors will profit nicely from it. But in terms of something that can’t be bought, a thing called integrity, both men can kiss that goodbye. Just like most of the rest of legacy media that took part in the worst “cover-up” in modern American history. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3412008/jake-tapper-book-biden-decline-laughable-attempt-rewrite-history/
nedboy7 Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago Biden was a disaster towards the end. No argument. Instead we got this. On Friday, President Donald Trumpposted the following statement about pop star Taylor Swift on Truth Social: “Has anyone noticed that, since I said “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,” she’s no longer “HOT?””
Westside Posted just now Posted just now On 5/14/2025 at 4:36 PM, Homelander said: Your assumptions about my views are as lazy as they are wrong. I’ve consistently supported law enforcement making difficult, split-second decisions, including the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt. That support isn’t based on politics; it’s based on understanding the reality officers face - chaos, uncertainty, and the constant risk to their own lives. You, on the other hand, seem more interested in spinning narratives than dealing with facts. Your attempt to link this to civil cases like E. Jean Carroll’s is a weak distraction. Civil cases are decided on a preponderance of evidence, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of criminal cases. Venue, emotion, and other factors are always part of the equation - this isn’t some groundbreaking insight you’ve uncovered. But trying to use that to undermine a justified use of force is a transparent, bad-faith tactic. You also bring up the officer’s past - as if leaving a gun in a bathroom somehow changes the fact that he was confronted by a violent mob trying to breach a restricted area. It doesn’t. It’s a desperate attempt to discredit him because you can’t argue against the facts of the situation itself. Was this before or after you wanted to defund the police?
Recommended Posts