TRUMP 2024

694,895 Views | 7748 Replies | Last: 38 min ago by hokiewolf
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

Civilized said:

TheStorm said:

^ Will never get broadcast on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC.

That's illegal and you'd hear Trump's campaign screaming from the rooftops if their ads got refused by any stations.
I believe that is correct although the specific statutes don't come to mind. I imagine sections pertaining to election interference or unreported campaign in-kind contributions (on the part of the networks). That said, a lot of things are illegal but are not necessarily enforced in an even-handed manner these days or so it seems, thus who can say how such an ad will be disposed of by a news network?

It's the Communications Act of 1934, with various amendments throughout the years.

Re: illegal but not necessarily enforced, this statute could well be the b-ball palming call of FCC-governed communications laws in normal times but to be damn sure you'd hear Trump's team using such behavior by left-leaning networks as a clear campaign opportunity, and rightfully so.

As much as Trump hates traditional media and as much as he's been called to task for potentially illegal behavior and as much of an opp for good publicity as it would be, his campaign would never live down such misbehavior by left-leaning networks.

Basically there is zero incentive for networks to try to break this law. If they break it and potentially get investigated and punished and also suffer the associated PR nightmare, AND all that would only serve to help strengthen Trump's campaign.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...
No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.
Agree.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.
Tatted_Umpire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
look at this **** propaganda that the lincoln project just posted today on youtube

Burlington, NC
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?

Everyone knows the answer, but being a slavish supporter of an absolute crook means twisting yourself into a pretzel to create a "slippery slope" between Presidents who conduct policies that some people don't like and Presidents who shoot people on 5th Avenue.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Appropriate place for this.

packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mdreid said:

look at this **** propaganda that the lincoln project just posted today on youtube




It's the standard nonsense from the left. Accuse the right of what they are actually doing. Their foolish sheep, as evidenced by this board, will lap it right up and believe it to be true, facts be damned.

Biden is threatening to release more illegal immigrants into the US and slash deportations if republicans don't agree to their **** border deal. He sounds really serious about fixing the border. Yawn.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?
Yet, when Trump is found guilty by one of these politically motivated prosecutors, you and Smapty will run wild with joy!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?
Yet, when Trump is found guilty by one of these politically motivated prosecutors, you and Smapty will run wild with joy!

Prosecutors don't find anyone guilty Cary.

That's part of the problem with y'all's analysis. You ignore the series of affirmations from people (grand juries, trial judges, trial juries, appeals judges) that must take place in order to convict someone and then allow that verdict to hold.

A prosecutor may be politicaly motivated but there's an extremely good chance that along the way there will be juries and judges that don't share the prosecutor's political motivations, and they too must affirm guilt in order for the defendant to be found guilty.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?
Yet, when Trump is found guilty by one of these politically motivated prosecutors, you and Smapty will run wild with joy!

Prosecutors don't find anyone guilty Cary.

That's part of the problem with y'all's analysis. You ignore the series of affirmations from people (grand juries, trial judges, trial juries, appeals judges) that must take place in order to convict someone and then allow that verdict to hold.

A prosecutor may be politicaly motivated but there's an extremely good chance that along the way there will be juries and judges that don't share the prosecutor's political motivations, and they too must affirm guilt in order for the defendant to be found guilty.
Yes, you're right. I left out a part. Prosecutors bringing charges, in areas, that are Democratic strongholds will get you a guilty verdict, all day, every day!!
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Civilized said:

Oldsouljer said:

caryking said:

Oldsouljer said:

The Bidenites have a new reason to elevate their desperation to convict Trump via malicious prosecution before November. Should Trump win at that time AND should the Supreme Court fail to uphold presidential immunity, Biden and associates will certainly face indictment for actual real offenses and the border crisis in particular, thanks to the USSC's ruling in Hansen v. United States. They never should have opened that Pandora's box.
or, indict Obama for the killing of innocent people, in one of his bombings... Definitely a slippery slope!

For the number of homicides, by criminal immigrants, should we indict Biden, for accessory? No! The proper process is to impeach, then let the senate trial happen...


No argument, but those short-sighted biased idiots on the DC circuit dont seem to care about the dangerous precedents they're attempting to set. And this is exactly why the Supremes must shut this circus down and affirm Immunity for acts done in office. Love it or hate it, the high court must not fail on this one.

So Presidents should be immune from prosecution for committing crimes while in office?
That's up to Congress.

Should Obama be prosecuted for the killing of people in the bombing? I don't think so!
Precisely. However Civ has highlighted a problem with the structure of our law and Constitution in this situation, and yet, the problem will remain because the alternative is unworkable government due to prosecutors as politically motivated as the ones after Trump now.

Politically motivated prosecutors are not ideal, but there are checks on judicial and prosecutorial power (professional licensure, ethics, and codes of conduct; grand juries; appellate courts; Supreme Court, etc.)

So we have two situations -

a. One where politically motivated prosecutors attempt to charge an ex-President political adversary with crimes (first having to convince a grand jury to indict and then trying to win a trial that is legally cogent enough to survive appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court), or

b. One where Presidents can act with abandon, fully unbound by our laws, knowing that they will enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for their actions?

Which is more dangerous?
Yet, when Trump is found guilty by one of these politically motivated prosecutors, you and Smapty will run wild with joy!

Prosecutors don't find anyone guilty Cary.

That's part of the problem with y'all's analysis. You ignore the series of affirmations from people (grand juries, trial judges, trial juries, appeals judges) that must take place in order to convict someone and then allow that verdict to hold.

A prosecutor may be politicaly motivated but there's an extremely good chance that along the way there will be juries and judges that don't share the prosecutor's political motivations, and they too must affirm guilt in order for the defendant to be found guilty.
Which is why malignant prosecutors judge shop and venue shop. I.e., New York City, DC, Fulton County.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why am I supposed TOC are that Trump is being "railroaded"? I need something to be angry about tonight
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Toby Keith is not a MAGA "predendent".........


#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

Toby Keith is not a MAGA "predendent".........



It's all part of the psyop bro. See q post 1822.4 it's all there
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I won't be an apologist for being MAGA ...........it's the way I roll.

#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

Toby Keith is not a MAGA "predendent".........



FWIW he played at a few inaugurations including Obamas.

Off topic but absolutely sucks he's gone.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And there is a deeper discussion to be had on what the song is about.........but I won't trouble some here with trivial details.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

And there is a deeper discussion to be had on what the song is about.........but I won't trouble some here with trivial details.
It originated as a personal story of the rage he felt his father would have expressed in response to the 9/11 attacks.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nIce.....cool. There could be a discussion to be had on "American imperialism".......and Obama was all of that.......and the reveal of Obama is yet to come.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

nIce.....cool. There could be a discussion to be had on "American imperialism".......and Obama was all of that.......and the reveal of Obama is yet to come.
Were, I thought the other thread was for the "Q" stuff
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
who said anything about Q? and by the way, you are not in charge of content here. i will do my best ro cooperate wrh all...but unless Steve or James tell me to substantially modify I will post relatively freely within the rules here. One rule is that I don't call poster specifically by name.... you might've been one of two or three that I specifically mention by exact name. i can certainly modify that approach.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
WolfpackUSC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

who said anything about Q? and by the way, you are not in charge of content here. i will do my best ro cooperate wrh all...but unless Steve or James tell me to substantially modify I will post relatively freely within the rules here. One rule is that I don't call poster specifically by name.... you might've been one of two or three that I specifically mention by exact name. i can certainly modify that approach.


The reveal of Were is coming soon. Pay attention
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WolfpackUSC said:

Werewolf said:

who said anything about Q? and by the way, you are not in charge of content here. i will do my best ro cooperate wrh all...but unless Steve or James tell me to substantially modify I will post relatively freely within the rules here. One rule is that I don't call poster specifically by name.... you might've been one of two or three that I specifically mention by exact name. i can certainly modify that approach.


The reveal of Were is coming soon. Pay attention
Just a guy.......I've been into politics since the Vietnam War. My opinions and understanding of the world have changed over the years and I now see something clearly that I could barely have imagined as an 18 yr old back in 1974 graduating high school. I voted for Obama in 2008, LOL... Trump is the only solid "we the people" POTUS we've had since Reagan and the daunting task he takes on rival that of the founding fathers. That's how perilous our situation is. Trump interrupted a 16-yr plan that would have ended any hope of salvaging this country as a sovereign nation.........and we're far from being in the clear zone.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, this is being tough with Russia

Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Yeah, this is being tough with Russia



Russia attacking NATO? MAGA crowd goes wild!

I don't care if Biden was 800 years old... at least he knows who our friends are and who our enemies are.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
***
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Yeah, this is being tough with Russia


You really don't get what he is saying…
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I get exactly what he is saying. There's no hidden message there. You know who also knows exactly what he is saying? Putin.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

hokiewolf said:

Yeah, this is being tough with Russia


You really don't get what he is saying…

Sounds like he's saying "elect me and you'll get 4 more years of cozying up to dictators and threatening our allies".

Music to MAGA ears.
packofwolves
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

I get exactly what he is saying. There's no hidden message there. You know who also knows exactly what he is saying? Putin.


He wasn't serious, but he expects other countries to pay their share. But that is an issue with Trump, he makes comments like that a lot at rally's. I am not a fan of it. Now it will be spread as his actual position. He can be his own worse enemy.
First Page Last Page
Page 63 of 222
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.