Pure comedy
1 Like
Crazy verbal assaults and threats of violence by Trump supporters, personally encouraged by Trump and his aides against people who should be supported as heroes. Not a single whisper of support from the Trump administration. On the contrary, encouragement of threats and violence by irresponsible and vicious Trump supporters and Trump himself.
Near zero support from the President and the administration in our hour of need. Still no national plan to deal with this as people suffer and die, health care workers burn out, quit, get sick, and die, and not a word of support from the President. Instead he gives a one-minute press conference when the stock market goes up one day,
A big win for President Donald Trump and the Turtle:
Supreme Court just voted 5-4 to throw out Emperor Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions on religious gatherings in The State of New York!!
Cuomo likes to issue edicts and then refer to them as “law”, demanding their enforcement by police and sheriffs all across the State of New York. Real laws receive legislative approval, something which is too much trouble for Cuomo to obtain.
In the past, before sweet Amy, the SCOTUS favored Cuomo.
No longer.
And, yes, Roberts once again voted with the left wing, no freedom, Democrats! Thank God this time, finally, he lost, while Trump and the Turtle struck a blow for freedom and liberty as enshrined in The Constitution of the United States of America.
Thank you President Trump
Thank you Turtle.
Thank you Amy!!
1 Like
Apparently the quote is proving itself true, regardless of who said it…
1 Like
Watch for it
Today is Thanksgiving Thursday. One week plus one month from this coming Saturday the crucial Georgia runoff vote will take place. Depending how that vote goes, I’m looking for the following:
If Republicans win both of the Senate seats then the below scenario is less likely. If Republicans win just one seat . . well . . I dunno.
But if Democrats capture both Senate seats:
Watch thereafter for appointment by AG William Barr of a special prosecutor to probe Biden’s involvement with the early 2017 attacks on Trump, as well as Biden’s misdeeds in both Ukraine and China.
The above scenario could by impacted by indictments which might be brought first as outcome of Durham’s investigation. However, Durham appears at this point to be a big time dud; and time is running out.
Bottom line, measures will have to be put into place to rein in Biden and those he appoints. Senate committee investigations might do so but only if Republicans control the Senate. Failing that, a special prosecutor will survive the Trump administration and have the power to hold Biden to account.
Now of course Biden could fire any special prosecutor Barr might appoint. And you know the American mainstream media propaganda arm of the DNC would be wildly supportive of such a firing, and not take Biden at all to task. But, still, firing of a special prosecutor would reflect very poorly on a Biden administration. Consider:
How do we know for certain Trump did not consort with the Russkies? We know because Trump never fired Mueller, even though he had the power. Similarly, if Biden did fire a special prosecutor looking into his personal malfeasance, it would be proof positive of his guilt.
ETA
I have no opinion on or knowledge of this. But some people believe Durham has been unable to reach an endpoint because he continues to uncover illegalities, perpetrated by the Obama/Biden administration, which require additional investigation hence more time. If that is true:
A special prosecutor would be able to take all the results of the Durham investigation as a starting point and “go from there”. This is something Barr might see as advantageous, even necessary, for proper administration of justice. God knows if these investigations are turned over to the Biden administration we will have the fox checking on the henhouse, and they will be buried and go nowhere.
Here’s my issue with all your comments on this. If you are so certain you are right, then you should be expecting a 9-0 decision.
When you get excited about a 5-4 decision, you make it clear you just want to win, regardless of what’s “right”. You become no better than what you are railing against.
Everyone believes they are right, a split decision only makes it clear that there is no inherent right or wrong. People on all sides need to start respecting that fact.
1 Like
I simply am not that naive. Such thinking as that went out when the Democrats scuttled Robert Bork, which was back in 1987 . . . . if not before.
After multiple successive losses, I reserve the right to show pleasure with this win.
You apparently adhere to the Jeff Flake school of politics:
You lose perpetually and smile when it happens.
Sadly, there is such a thing as irreconcilable differences.
Then you should also not be so naive as to think that dissenting opinions are driven by petty politics. They believe they are right just as much as you believe you are right. And losing a decision does not invalidate that belief.
Showing some respect in victory, rather than trying to strip opponents of their convictions, is something everyone could put a little more effort into.
1 Like
And how much respect are you showing for my viewpoint?
“Can’t we all just get along” and “come let us reason together” is not what’s happening today. It is illusory nonsense.
Either you believe in freedom and liberty or you do not. One of the most important liberties Americans enjoy, or we should, is the right to be wrong.
Well, yeah. That’s kind of my point. No one respects that right any more.
Here,here!! I also really hate being on the losing side.
Never will be, “can’t we all just get along”. Remember, that’s what we told our kids. 
That’s crazy. Everyone respects your right to be wrong. No one’s stopping you. Who’s not respecting your right to be wrong? You’re NOT in a camp like the Uigher campus that Trump supports.
The SC decision is also misrepresented above in two pretty important respects. The “conservatives” on the court were split (or it would have been 6-3). The ruling was on a policy that was already not in effect and doesnt have any bearing on the policies limiting crowd sizes that are currently in effect. (There are no zones falling under the only restriction levels that were at issue)
The “liberals” focused on the effects in their dissent, but the conservative dissent statement was pretty strong as well. The ruling was very liberal and you can’t get more to the area of “legislating from the bench” than overruling health officials in a pandemic with no legal basis to do so, which is just the topsy-turvy situation we’re in today with identity politics.
That’s pretty funny, because you’ve been among the worst. Everyone must agree with your take, or they are inherently crazy, a lunatic, corrupt, baseless, etc etc blah blah blah. You’ve repeatedly show no ability to respect the fact that some people simply disagree with you.
2 Likes
I think you’re confusing a “right to be wrong” with a right to be wrong and have wrong statements or conclusions accepted by everyone.
Clearly no one has at any time stopped you from being wrong. 
Not that I’m even saying you’re more wrong than anyone else…
You seem to be defining a “right to be wrong” as no one can simply disagree with you or present evidence to the contrary.
And new people keep lining up for the knife in the back. It’s almost as if they are stupid.
Well, it “feels true”, it’s got that “truthiness” to it. 
On the other hand, this is a real quote from Trump layer Jenna Ellis. As you can see she knows perfectly well truth isn’t important to Trumpers.
3 Likes
Rudy went on Colbert
“It’s not just Mickey Mouse! I have a signed affidavit swearing that there was a single dalmation who voted one hundred and one times!”
“But sir, sir all of your claims about voter fraud have been debunked.”
“No. Uh. I’m not quite sure what “debunked” means. It probably means it’s not bunk right?”
"No, it means they are bunk. "
"Big words, Stephen. No lawyer can understand this stuff. "