And how many of those EO's did Sleepy Joe know about and what is in them? I'm betting less than 5. The loony liberals have taken over for two years. He is already getting push back from unions and the cancelling of the XL Pipeline has to be one of the biggest mistakes, to date, by this joke of an administration. He flat out lied to the people who hated Trump enough to vote for a clown show. Dear Leader got destroyed in the midterms. Sleepy Joe said, "hold my beer." They will be destroyed in the midterms because you know, socialist never miss the opportunity to **** things up.
Election Interference/Fraud
326,147 Views |
3695 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BBW12OG
Isn't there a video somewhere of Harris telling Biden to just sign the order somewhere? I could of sworn that i've seen it somewhereBBW12OG said:
And how many of those EO's did Sleepy Joe know about and what is in them? I'm betting less than 5. The loony liberals have taken over for two years. He is already getting push back from unions and the cancelling of the XL Pipeline has to be one of the biggest mistakes, to date, by this joke of an administration. He flat out lied to the people who hated Trump enough to vote for a clown show. Dear Leader got destroyed in the midterms. Sleepy Joe said, "hold my beer." They will be destroyed in the midterms because you know, socialist never miss the opportunity to **** things up.
Dating back to Taft, the average president enacts around 700 executive orders during their tenure.
Post-Truman the average president enacts around 300.
Wilson and Coolidge enacted over 1,000. Roosevelt enacted over 3,000.
You get accused of being autocratic for obliterating norms, not following them. It's normal to roll out hundreds or even thousands of executive orders during a presidency.
It's unheard of for an American president to...
1. threaten an independent judiciary by singling out federal judges for criticism for rulings unfavorable to you
2. attack and use your bully pulpit to try to intimidate newspapers and reporters, threatening a free press
3. demand personal loyalty to yourself rather than the country/constitution
4. obstruct the Justice Department and FBI, in some cases stemming from investigations into your own behaviors
5. incite violence
6. undermine the legitimacy of elections
7. threaten to throw your political adversaries in jail
8. openly declare your admiration and respect for foreign autocrats
9. obfuscate the release of your tax records
10. compulsively lie to Americans
Post-Truman the average president enacts around 300.
Wilson and Coolidge enacted over 1,000. Roosevelt enacted over 3,000.
You get accused of being autocratic for obliterating norms, not following them. It's normal to roll out hundreds or even thousands of executive orders during a presidency.
It's unheard of for an American president to...
1. threaten an independent judiciary by singling out federal judges for criticism for rulings unfavorable to you
2. attack and use your bully pulpit to try to intimidate newspapers and reporters, threatening a free press
3. demand personal loyalty to yourself rather than the country/constitution
4. obstruct the Justice Department and FBI, in some cases stemming from investigations into your own behaviors
5. incite violence
6. undermine the legitimacy of elections
7. threaten to throw your political adversaries in jail
8. openly declare your admiration and respect for foreign autocrats
9. obfuscate the release of your tax records
10. compulsively lie to Americans
Civilized said:
Dating back to Taft, the average president enacts around 700 executive orders during their tenure.
Post-Truman the average president enacts around 300.
Wilson and Coolidge enacted over 1,000. Roosevelt enacted over 3,000.
You get accused of being autocratic for obliterating norms, not following them. It's normal to roll out hundreds or even thousands of executive orders during a presidency.
It's unheard of for an American president to...
1. threaten an independent judiciary by singling out federal judges for criticism for rulings unfavorable to you
2. attack and use your bully pulpit to try to intimidate newspapers and reporters, threatening a free press
3. demand personal loyalty to yourself rather than the country/constitution
4. obstruct the Justice Department and FBI, in some cases stemming from investigations into your own behaviors
5. incite violence
6. undermine the legitimacy of elections
7. threaten to throw your political adversaries in jail
8. openly declare your admiration and respect for foreign autocrats
9. obfuscate the release of your tax records
10. compulsively lie to Americans
Why are you bringing Obama into this?
Also, it's clear you don't know what an autocrat is.
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
packgrad said:
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
LOL.
We all know Trump behaved this way.
The only thing in question is why Trump Patriots continue to act like it shouldn't matter.
I mean, hey, gleefully watching the left hate on Trump is the most important thing, amirite?!?
Civilized said:packgrad said:
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
LOL.
We all know Trump behaved this way.
The only thing in question is why Trump Patriots continue to act like it shouldn't matter.
I mean, hey, gleefully watching the left hate on Trump is the most important thing, amirite?!?
So did Obama. But it was ok when he did it though. Amirite?!?!
The only thing in question is why do Democrats expect Republicans to behave better than they expect Democrats to behave? You would think the hypocrisy would start to settle in at some point.
What site are you using for the 30 EOs? This Federal Register shows 17 thus far.packgrad said:
It also shows President Trump had 220 (55/yr) in total, Obama 276 (35/yr), GWB 291 (36/yr), Clinton 254 (32/yr).
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
Your favorite state run media site. Try and keep up.statefan91 said:What site are you using for the 30 EOs? This Federal Register shows 17 thus far.packgrad said:
It also shows President Trump had 220 (55/yr) in total, Obama 276 (35/yr), GWB 291 (36/yr), Clinton 254 (32/yr).
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/politics/joe-biden-executive-orders-first-week/index.html
The socialist party is everything they falsely accuse the GOP of. Power mongering, fear mongering and the ever present "Good for me, not for thee" way of ruling. Like I have said for months now, never underestimate the socialist party's ability to **** things up with a made hand.
statefan91 said:What site are you using for the 30 EOs? This Federal Register shows 17 thus far.packgrad said:
It also shows President Trump had 220 (55/yr) in total, Obama 276 (35/yr), GWB 291 (36/yr), Clinton 254 (32/yr).
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders
Evening news and google. Seems like your site is off. The NYT had him at 17 EOs 6 days ago. CNN has him on track to keep signing more today.
I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
LOL.
We all know Trump behaved this way.
The only thing in question is why Trump Patriots continue to act like it shouldn't matter.
I mean, hey, gleefully watching the left hate on Trump is the most important thing, amirite?!?
So did Obama. But it was ok when he did it though. Amirite?!?!
The only thing in question is why do Democrats expect Republicans to behave better than they expect Democrats to behave? You would think the hypocrisy would start to settle in at some point.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
cowboypack02 said:I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
LOL.
We all know Trump behaved this way.
The only thing in question is why Trump Patriots continue to act like it shouldn't matter.
I mean, hey, gleefully watching the left hate on Trump is the most important thing, amirite?!?
So did Obama. But it was ok when he did it though. Amirite?!?!
The only thing in question is why do Democrats expect Republicans to behave better than they expect Democrats to behave? You would think the hypocrisy would start to settle in at some point.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
For example.
I was actually listening to Paul talk when I typed that comment. He forgot to mention his democrat neighbor attacking him while he was walking around in his own yard.packgrad said:cowboypack02 said:I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
Looking back through your 10 point list, you really need help if you think your "unheard of" list is even remotely true. An incredibly strong argument could be made for the exact opposite for the majority of your points. TDS has completely made you lose any sense of objectivity.
LOL.
We all know Trump behaved this way.
The only thing in question is why Trump Patriots continue to act like it shouldn't matter.
I mean, hey, gleefully watching the left hate on Trump is the most important thing, amirite?!?
So did Obama. But it was ok when he did it though. Amirite?!?!
The only thing in question is why do Democrats expect Republicans to behave better than they expect Democrats to behave? You would think the hypocrisy would start to settle in at some point.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
For example.
Rand is looking presidential.
packgrad said:For example.cowboypack02 said:
I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
What's disingenuous is Rand Paul's intellectually dishonest line of thinking.
Did Bernie Sanders lie for months about a particular grievance that the shooter had, amplifying the shooter's anger?
Did the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise cite Bernie Sanders as the reason he was at that baseball field?
Was he at a Bernie Sanders rally? Had Bernie told him to march to that field?
Did he have a Bernie Sanders flag with him?
Did Maxine Waters lie for months about a particular grievance that her supporters have, amplifying their anger?
Did Maxine Waters' supporters violently or criminally confront Trump officials?
Did they cite Waters as their reason for doing so?
Were they at a Maxine Waters rally when they did so?
If the answer to many of these questions are 'yes' then democrats should absolutely self-examine.
Of course, the answer is no to all of them.
Despite this, Waters got rebuked publicly by party leadership. Even though nobody got violent because of Maxine's words. No rioters cited Maxine or flew Waters flags. Most importantly, 5 people did not die at an impromptu Maxine Waters rally-turned-riot.
Rand needs to spend more time rebuking Trump and less time on half-assed false equivalencies.
Civilized said:packgrad said:For example.cowboypack02 said:
I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
What's disingenuous is Rand Paul's intellectually dishonest line of thinking.
Did Bernie Sanders lie for months about a particular grievance that the shooter had, amplifying the shooter's anger?
Did the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise cite Bernie Sanders as the reason he was at that baseball field?
Was he at a Bernie Sanders rally? Had Bernie told him to march to that field?
Did he have a Bernie Sanders flag with him?
Did Maxine Waters lie for months about a particular grievance that her supporters have, amplifying their anger?
Did Maxine Waters' supporters violently or criminally confront Trump officials?
Did they cite Waters as their reason for doing so?
Were they at a Maxine Waters rally when they did so?
If the answer to many of these questions are 'yes' then democrats should absolutely self-examine.
Of course, the answer is no to all of them.
Despite this, Waters got rebuked publicly by party leadership. Even though nobody got violent because of Maxine's words. No rioters cited Maxine or flew Waters flags. Most importantly, 5 people did not die at an impromptu Maxine Waters rally-turned-riot.
Rand needs to spend more time rebuking Trump and less time on half-assed false equivalencies.
You can't cry about intellectual honesty when you willfully lie about what it is "unheard of for a president to do". Either that or your ignorance on presidential history makes your opinion worthless. Just like how you try to link Trump with the anarchists that attacked the capitol, Rand linked Bernie Sanders to the shooter that shot Scalise and Waters with the hundreds, or thousands, of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats. Rand himself was attacked because of Democrat hyperbole.
You're very much emphasizing the point made earlier. Your faux outrage is 100% political and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. You have been programmed.
There is no half assed false equivalency here. There is radlibs like yourself getting called out for your hypocrisy.
Paul himself was attached both at his home and after an event at the White House. The event at the White House after Maxine's speech. You can dem-splain all you want and continue your hate for a single individual but that does not make Rand's examples false.Civilized said:packgrad said:For example.cowboypack02 said:
I think your comment makes light if the issue here. Everyone gets uptight when a certain political party does something they don't like, but then allows for it if their side does it.
I can hunt down where multiple democrats, including former presidents, presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, and democrats that have held state offices have done things that you have mentioned about, but you only scream about it when its someone that you don't like doing it.
It's pretty disingenuous
What's disingenuous is Rand Paul's intellectually dishonest line of thinking.
Did Bernie Sanders lie for months about a particular grievance that the shooter had, amplifying the shooter's anger?
Did the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise cite Bernie Sanders as the reason he was at that baseball field?
Was he at a Bernie Sanders rally? Had Bernie told him to march to that field?
Did he have a Bernie Sanders flag with him?
Did Maxine Waters lie for months about a particular grievance that her supporters have, amplifying their anger?
Did Maxine Waters' supporters violently or criminally confront Trump officials?
Did they cite Waters as their reason for doing so?
Were they at a Maxine Waters rally when they did so?
If the answer to many of these questions are 'yes' then democrats should absolutely self-examine.
Of course, the answer is no to all of them.
Despite this, Waters got rebuked publicly by party leadership. Even though nobody got violent because of Maxine's words. No rioters cited Maxine or flew Waters flags. Most importantly, 5 people did not die at an impromptu Maxine Waters rally-turned-riot.
Rand needs to spend more time rebuking Trump and less time on half-assed false equivalencies.
Edited: Sorry Civ did not me to say both events.
packgrad said:
You can't cry about intellectual honesty when you willfully lie about what it is "unheard of for a president to do". Either that or your ignorance on presidential history makes your opinion worthless. Just like how you try to link Trump with the anarchists that attacked the capitol, Rand linked Bernie Sanders to the shooter that shot Scalise and Waters with the hundreds, or thousands, of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats. Rand himself was attacked because of Democrat hyperbole.
You're very much emphasizing the point made earlier. Your faux outrage is 100% political and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. You have been programmed.
There is no half assed false equivalency here. There is radlibs like yourself getting called out for your hypocrisy.
Please, tell me specifically what I lied about regarding how norm-breaking Trump was.
The "anarchists" that attacked the Capitol linked themselves to Trump. I didn't have to do anything. Many said they were there because he told them to be.
There were no such links between Bernie and the Scalise shooter or Maxine Waters and...anyone, not even the mythical "hundreds or thousands of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats." Where are you even coming up with that made-up number? Hundreds or thousands of violent or criminal attacks, incited by Waters? LOL. Why not just say millions of attacks?
Cthepack said:
Paul himself was attached both at his home and after an event at the White House. All after Maxine's speech. You can dem-splain all you want and continue your hate for a single individual but that does not make Rand's examples false.
Stop it.
Paul was attacked at his home 6 months prior to Waters' speech over a property line dispute, by his neighbor that had lived there like 20 years.
Maxine's got her supporters but I don't think she's so inspirational that she incites anyone to do anything six months before she actually gives the speech. LOLOL
And Rand was attacked after an event at the White House? Was he hurt? Was there property damage? Surely there were investigations and arrests then right? If a sitting senator actually got violently attacked right after the RNC?
You sure it wasn't just a bunch of people yelling at Paul? Because that's not much of an 'attack', even if Trump called the yellers "thugs" afterwards.
Did he call the rioters at the Capitol "thugs?" You know, the rioters that violently broke into the Capitol and led to five deaths?
Civilized said:packgrad said:
You can't cry about intellectual honesty when you willfully lie about what it is "unheard of for a president to do". Either that or your ignorance on presidential history makes your opinion worthless. Just like how you try to link Trump with the anarchists that attacked the capitol, Rand linked Bernie Sanders to the shooter that shot Scalise and Waters with the hundreds, or thousands, of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats. Rand himself was attacked because of Democrat hyperbole.
You're very much emphasizing the point made earlier. Your faux outrage is 100% political and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. You have been programmed.
There is no half assed false equivalency here. There is radlibs like yourself getting called out for your hypocrisy.
Please, tell me specifically what I lied about regarding how norm-breaking Trump was.
The "anarchists" that attacked the Capitol linked themselves to Trump. I didn't have to do anything. Many said they were there because he told them to be.
There were no such links between Bernie and the Scalise shooter or Maxine Waters and...anyone, not even the mythical "hundreds or thousands of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats." Where are you even coming up with that made-up number? Hundreds or thousands of violent or criminal attacks, incited by Waters? LOL. Why not just say millions of attacks?
No. Crack a history book for every one of your points then get back to me. You literally don't have to go past the preceding president for the majority.
Democrats have been attacking Trump supporters after every public speaking engagement he's had. Where have you been? There absolutely is a link between the rhetoric Democrats use everyday and the violence from Democrats towards Republicans and the destruction of cities by Democrats. But those don't count. I know. Orange man bad.
packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
You can't cry about intellectual honesty when you willfully lie about what it is "unheard of for a president to do". Either that or your ignorance on presidential history makes your opinion worthless. Just like how you try to link Trump with the anarchists that attacked the capitol, Rand linked Bernie Sanders to the shooter that shot Scalise and Waters with the hundreds, or thousands, of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats. Rand himself was attacked because of Democrat hyperbole.
You're very much emphasizing the point made earlier. Your faux outrage is 100% political and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. You have been programmed.
There is no half assed false equivalency here. There is radlibs like yourself getting called out for your hypocrisy.
Please, tell me specifically what I lied about regarding how norm-breaking Trump was.
The "anarchists" that attacked the Capitol linked themselves to Trump. I didn't have to do anything. Many said they were there because he told them to be.
There were no such links between Bernie and the Scalise shooter or Maxine Waters and...anyone, not even the mythical "hundreds or thousands of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats." Where are you even coming up with that made-up number? Hundreds or thousands of violent or criminal attacks, incited by Waters? LOL. Why not just say millions of attacks?
No. Crack a history book for every one of your points then get back to me. You literally don't have to go past the preceding president for the majority.
Democrats have been attacking Trump supporters after every public speaking engagement he's had. Where have you been? There absolutely is a link between the rhetoric Democrats use everyday and the violence from Democrats towards Republicans and the destruction of cities by Democrats. But those don't count. I know. Orange man bad.
More vague "but Obama" "but Dems" nonsense.
Be specific.
Which of the norms listed that Trump violated, did Obama also violate?
Provide a link for the thousands of attacks of Trump supporters by Democrats at least?
Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:packgrad said:
You can't cry about intellectual honesty when you willfully lie about what it is "unheard of for a president to do". Either that or your ignorance on presidential history makes your opinion worthless. Just like how you try to link Trump with the anarchists that attacked the capitol, Rand linked Bernie Sanders to the shooter that shot Scalise and Waters with the hundreds, or thousands, of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats. Rand himself was attacked because of Democrat hyperbole.
You're very much emphasizing the point made earlier. Your faux outrage is 100% political and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. You have been programmed.
There is no half assed false equivalency here. There is radlibs like yourself getting called out for your hypocrisy.
Please, tell me specifically what I lied about regarding how norm-breaking Trump was.
The "anarchists" that attacked the Capitol linked themselves to Trump. I didn't have to do anything. Many said they were there because he told them to be.
There were no such links between Bernie and the Scalise shooter or Maxine Waters and...anyone, not even the mythical "hundreds or thousands of attacks on Trump supporters by Democrats." Where are you even coming up with that made-up number? Hundreds or thousands of violent or criminal attacks, incited by Waters? LOL. Why not just say millions of attacks?
No. Crack a history book for every one of your points then get back to me. You literally don't have to go past the preceding president for the majority.
Democrats have been attacking Trump supporters after every public speaking engagement he's had. Where have you been? There absolutely is a link between the rhetoric Democrats use everyday and the violence from Democrats towards Republicans and the destruction of cities by Democrats. But those don't count. I know. Orange man bad.
More vague "but Obama" "but Dems" nonsense.
Be specific.
Which of the norms listed that Trump violated, did Obama also violate?
Provide a link for the thousands of attacks of Trump supporters by Democrats at least?
No.
Big time.
I likely don't agree with some of her politics, but I watched her on Joe Rogan today (evidently it was after she skewered Kamala and shot her presidential bid down) and she is impressive.
And yeah, pretty hot, too.
And yeah, pretty hot, too.
I listened to her last week do an interview with Dave Rubin. I didn't agree with some of her politics, but she did make model sense than most democrats
Hey Civ.... I try not to respond to you because shooting fish in a barrel is too easy. Debunking your false claims is easier than that. Here are ( 6 ), count them, ( 6 ) occasions where socialist politicians called for violence. I know you are member of the hypocrisy and if you have the magical ( S ), for socialist, beside your name you can do no wrong. Why don't you ask former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders how she felt when her and her family were forced to leave a restaurant in Virginia. And her kids were with her. Imagine if one of the loons in your party had been aggressively attacked like that what your and your ilks' reactions would have been. Sit this one out. Matter of fact don't. Continue to impress us with your pseudo intelligence. It's quite entertaining!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-physically-confont-twitter
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-physically-confont-twitter
BBW12OG said:
Hey Civ.... I try not to respond to you because shooting fish in a barrel is too easy. Debunking your false claims is easier than that. Here are ( 6 ), count them, ( 6 ) occasions where socialist politicians called for violence. I know you are member of the hypocrisy and if you have the magical ( S ), for socialist, beside your name you can do no wrong. Why don't you ask former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders how she felt when her and her family were forced to leave a restaurant in Virginia. And her kids were with her. Imagine if one of the loons in your party had been aggressively attacked like that what your and your ilks' reactions would have been. Sit this one out. Matter of fact don't. Continue to impress us with your pseudo intelligence. It's quite entertaining!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-physically-confont-twitter
Don't be dense.
Sarah Sanders having her nice meal interrupted is not the same as ransacking the Capitol and 5 people dying.
By this logic you must think smoking a joint in NC is the same as murder. They're both crimes, right?
Trump's incitement is newsworthy because of his months of lying that misled and angered Americans AND his unique power as the sitting president AND his cult followers that worship him AND the actual violence that flowed from it.
None of these single, mild quotes you're rolling out actually were enabled by hundreds of lies; perpetrated by people with cult followings and unique power; or led to violence and death.
Trump's hundreds of lies and incitement the day of the riot did.
Your hatred is sad. Obviously you will see your side, your view and your uniformed opinions only. By your logic BLM cost thousands of people their jobs, their businesses and how many lives were lost then? Horizontal Harris and dozens of socialist politicians demanded they continue to riot.
Have you condemned those criminal acts and those who endorsed, provoked and encouraged them yet? Glass house meet stone.
Remember the CNN chryon about "peaceful protests" with buildings burning in the background?
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning
Parts of Minneapolis were destroyed. People died. Horizontal Harris and here lackey's bailed them out of jail.
Spare me your joke of an argument. Your TDS has taken whatever sanity you may or may not once had. You have failed once again to justify your points other than "orange man bad.."
Get over it man. He's not POTUS anymore. You have a socialist wannabe King signing blank pages pretending he knows what the hell is going on. He and you have a lot in common.....
Have you condemned those criminal acts and those who endorsed, provoked and encouraged them yet? Glass house meet stone.
Remember the CNN chryon about "peaceful protests" with buildings burning in the background?
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning
Parts of Minneapolis were destroyed. People died. Horizontal Harris and here lackey's bailed them out of jail.
Spare me your joke of an argument. Your TDS has taken whatever sanity you may or may not once had. You have failed once again to justify your points other than "orange man bad.."
Get over it man. He's not POTUS anymore. You have a socialist wannabe King signing blank pages pretending he knows what the hell is going on. He and you have a lot in common.....
She's got a different take on some things which I like. She's generally big on civil liberties and against government surveillance of citizens. I'm not agreeing with her though on her assessment on "Domestic Enemies" though.Pacfanweb said:
I likely don't agree with some of her politics, but I watched her on Joe Rogan today (evidently it was after she skewered Kamala and shot her presidential bid down) and she is impressive.
And yeah, pretty hot, too.
She's pretty sharp, but unfortunately I think she's angling to be a news pundit rather than staying in politics.
So now that Rudy is being sued by Dominion for defamation, we are going to see all this "evidence" of fraud right? Some have said Trump and Guiliani weren't allowed to show their evidence in court.
Well, here is their chance. Let's see it.
https://reason.com/2021/01/25/surely-rudy-giulianis-conclusive-proof-of-machine-based-election-fraud-will-save-him-from-dominions-1-3-billion-defamation-lawsuit/
Well, here is their chance. Let's see it.
https://reason.com/2021/01/25/surely-rudy-giulianis-conclusive-proof-of-machine-based-election-fraud-will-save-him-from-dominions-1-3-billion-defamation-lawsuit/
Sure.... 6-8 months after Dominion has had ample opportunity to "clean" the machines... yeah.... nothing says innocence like waiting 3 months after the accusations were made to file a defamation lawsuit.
You socialists are hilarious. "Nothing to see here.... move along...." It should have been done when the issues were first brought up but they were disregarded because it didn't fit the media narrative of "defeat Orange Man at all costs..."
If nothing else you maintain the hypocrisy of the socialist party to a perfect "T."
You socialists are hilarious. "Nothing to see here.... move along...." It should have been done when the issues were first brought up but they were disregarded because it didn't fit the media narrative of "defeat Orange Man at all costs..."
If nothing else you maintain the hypocrisy of the socialist party to a perfect "T."
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: Sunday Morning Thoughts On The Wake Disaster
by James Henderson
6:38
15h ago
2.1k
Dave Doeren: "They Made More Plays Than We Did"
by Rob McLamb
8:33
16h ago
687
LOCKER ROOM REPORT: NC State Players
by James Henderson
OUR FINAL TAKE: NC State vs. Wake Forest
by James Henderson
BOX SCORE: Wake Forest 34, NC State 30
by James Henderson