Keith Olbermann said "“He [Trump], and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs ... and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus,” Olbermann said.

Pete F might not go quite that far but pretty close.

"Removed from our society" Nothing Nazi-esque about that statement :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Removed from our society" Nothing Nazi-esque about that statement :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sort of like Trump calling the press "enemy of the people"

"Removed from our society" Nothing Nazi-esque about that statement :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the party of tolerance and inclusivity, mind you...

sort of like Trump calling the press "enemy of the people"

When the press keeps repeating the lie that Trump didn't disavow white supremacists at Charlotesville? Were the press allies to Ferguson officer Wilson? The Duke lacrosse players? Nick Sandman?

Heck, throw much of Foxnews in there, many of whom won't criticize Trump for anything.

Did Trump call for them to be prosecuted and convicted? Unless he said that, no, it's not like what Obermann said.

Again, you are literally incapable of just saying it's a disgusting statement. Because a democrat said it. You pivot immediately to Trump. In the era of Trump, there can be no valid criticism of a democrat.

from the party of tolerance and inclusivity, mind you...
Yes, and he is the defacto party spokesperson right? I didn't even know he still had a job.

Yes, and he is the defacto party spokesperson right? I didn't even know he still had a job.

obviously he’s not a powerhouse in the party. but i see that the liberals
here can’t bring themselves to condemn what he said. even though he’s a nobody, you still can’t just say that was a terrible statement.

because of tds. because of tds, democrats can’t criticize other democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least he’s not the candidate
Tweety tweets while in a roid rage.......
“Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary and many others got caught in a Treasonous Act of Spying and Government Overthrow, a Criminal Act. How is Biden now allowed to run for President?“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least he’s not the candidate
Tweety tweets while in a roid rage.......
“Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary and many others got caught in a Treasonous Act of Spying and Government Overthrow, a Criminal Act. How is Biden now allowed to run for President?“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every single time someone points out something a democrat does, you respond by pointing out Trump. Every. Single. Time.

But you don't have TDS. Nope.

Well, at least he’s not the candidate
Tweety tweets while in a roid rage.......
“Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary and many others got caught in a Treasonous Act of Spying and Government Overthrow, a Criminal Act. How is Biden now allowed to run for President?“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't say that the supporters of Biden or Hillary needed to be prosecuted and removed from society. And, yes, many have been caught in a treasonous act of spying and government overthrow. And there is documented evidence that Hillary and Biden and Obama were part of that. But fake news press pays little attention to that so for you it doesn't exist.

obviously he’s not a powerhouse in the party. but i see that the liberals
here can’t bring themselves to condemn what he said. even though he’s a nobody, you still can’t just say that was a terrible statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think it's necessary to condemn pretty much a nobody for saying something hyperbolic. He does it to get attention, just like Trump.

sort of like Trump calling the press "enemy of the people"

Well you can thank Olberman, who said that Americans should be "Removed from our Society", for giving that statement some validity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well you can thank Olberman, who said that Americans should be "Removed from our Society", for giving that statement some validity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And for what they did to the Duke lacrosse players, Nick Sandman, Darren Wilson, etc...

Well you can thank Olberman, who said that Americans should be "Removed from our Society", for giving that statement some validity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is Olberman again?

Poor victims, just like Tweety.
Now, who's up for some court packing

Poor victims, just like Tweety.
Now, who's up for some court packing

if detbuch is a victim for starting this one thread, what does that make you?

I'm finding it hard to care about the Barrett hearings because (1) the only meaningful option Democrats had was to try to stop them from happening, and they let them happen, (2) Barrett can and will make her own recusal decisions, (3) credentials are immaterial in the Trump era.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who is Olberman again?

An Enemy of the State
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(3) credentials are immaterial in the Trump era.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So graduating #1 from her law school class from Notre Dame, and having the ABA say she is "well qualified" for SCOTUS. Those aren't good credentials?

Also, does she have a history of having her decisions get overturned because she was wrong on the law?

PLease elaborate, Pete. Or better yet be quiet.

I don't think it's necessary to condemn pretty much a nobody for saying something hyperbolic. He does it to get attention, just like Trump.

And Trump gets condemned for it. So . . . .

TDS is posting the comments of a Sports commentator that the majority of Americans have to google to find out who he is..

like i had to do ...

once again the Right loves their needles in a haystack stories

"Removed from our society" Nothing Nazi-esque about that statement :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not really


must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society

its called Jail or to use a conservatives Mantra Lock them up

Mar 29, 2019 — President Donald Trump's supporters chanted 'Lock them up' as he listed his enemies at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Thursday ...

funny you never commented that was Nazi-esque :huh:

TDS is posting the comments of a Sports commentator that the majority of Americans have to google to find out who he is..

like i had to do ...

once again the Right loves their needles in a haystack stories

Once again you have something against finding a needle that you're looking for in a haystack. Finding something you're looking for is a good thing, no?

And if you don't know who Keith Olbermann is, you must have just awoken from a very long coma. And that doesn't matter anyway since the thread is not about him. It's what he said that, to me, captures the essential emotional reaction to Trump. No matter who might have said it.

Keith Olbermann said "“He [Trump], and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs ... and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus,” Olbermann said.

Pete F might not go quite that far but pretty close.

Tweety and his supporters, Flynn, Giuliani, Jr, etc all lead chants of Lock them up.
Pot meet kettle
All on a far bigger stage than this bird
But the victims cry foul when the tables are turned
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

so that's the last you'll have to say on them?...hopefully :)

so that's the last you'll have to say on them?...hopefully :)

maybe they’ll cancel the whole thing if pete doesn’t care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That wouldn’t be any fun

I can’t return to the bat cave till November
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tweety and his supporters, Flynn, Giuliani, Jr, etc all lead chants of Lock them up.
Pot meet kettle
All on a far bigger stage than this bird
But the victims cry foul when the tables are turned


I haven't heard Flynn and Giuliani "leading" such chants. And I've heard chants of lock HER up, but not chants to lock up her supporters. And the crowd chants are more sarcastic and even humorous, not shouted with the malicious wide net venom and conviction that Olbermann displayed. And at least she allegedly did things for which she should be locked up.

But, again, the thread is not about Olbermann or crying foul. It's only an example, a very good one, that shows the essential emotion that drives TDS, the scorched earth bitter hate for Trump and many of those associated with or supportive of him.

And you constantly display a similar venom against Trump and those such as Barr, or Giuliani, and Jr., etc. So if any tables are turned (which is not the intention of the thread) they have been turned on your hate. Do you consider yourself to be some kind of "bird" or feel victimized by this thread?

The essense of TDS is defending the most vile scummy petty foul mouthed President that we have ever had.

the most vile scummy petty foul mouthed

.

:confused: because name calling is wrong:hee:

Isn't it TDS when people defend name callers?

I didn’t make a judgment on Barrett’s credentials. If Covita had nominated Matt Goethe or Louie Gohmert the Senate would confirm him, though Collins would have concerns.
Perhaps Olbermann was being sarcastic, humorous or you just misunderstand him.
Like Covita and the standard defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The essense of TDS is defending the most vile scummy petty foul mouthed President that we have ever had.

But when Joe Biden tells a roomful of blacks that Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) "wants to put y'all back in chains", that's not dishonest, vile or scummy. That's OK. But when Trump does it, it's bad.

When Hilary says that Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable, that wasn't vile or scummy either.

But when Joe Biden tells a roomful of blacks that Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) "wants to put y'all back in chains", that's not dishonest, vile or scummy. That's OK. But when Trump does it, it's bad.

When Hilary says that Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable, that wasn't vile or scummy either.

There you go again Jim trying to make comparison that don't exist

1 insult is equal to 1000 insults how do you convince yourself of such nonsense

But when Joe Biden tells a roomful of blacks that Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) "wants to put y'all back in chains", that's not dishonest, vile or scummy. That's OK. But when Trump does it, it's bad.

When Hilary says that Trump supporters are deplorable and irredeemable, that wasn't vile or scummy either.

Trump has insulted people thousands of times - Biden or Hillary not so much.

Even though she was probably thinking of the Repubs. who lied about Obama's religion and birth Clinton apologized the next day.


Edit - or what wdmso said.

Trump has insulted people thousands of times - Biden or Hillary not so much.

Even though she was probably thinking of the Repubs. who lied about Obama's religion and birth Clinton apologized the next day.


Edit - or what wdmso said.

So it's OK for you to call someone scummy because you didn't do it thousands of times?

So it's OK for you to call someone scummy because you didn't do it thousands of times?

sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. but I tend to let people slide when comparing that person to someone who does that sort of thing thousands of times.

sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. but I tend to let people slide when comparing that person to someone who does that sort of thing thousands of times.

So name calling is OK if it isn't done thousands of times. I haven't counted, but I don't think anyone on the political forum in the past 10 years has name called thousands of times.

Trump has insulted people thousands of times - Biden or Hillary not so much.

Even though she was probably thinking of the Repubs. who lied about Obama's religion and birth Clinton apologized the next day.


Edit - or what wdmso said.

I have no possible way to deny that Trump insults more often. Obviously that's correct. So a president is allowed a certain number of insults before he's unfit, and by an amazing outcome, Biden and Hilary are below that number, Trump is above. Funny how that always works.

Similarly, it was OK when Obama put kids in cages, but Trump does it too often. Again, the maximum allowable number, coincidentally and not because of politics, is more than Obama did, but less than Trump.

So name calling is OK if it isn't done thousands of times. I haven't counted, but I don't think anyone on the political forum in the past 10 years has name called thousands of times.

whatever

I have no possible way to deny that Trump insults more often. Obviously that's correct. So a president is allowed a certain number of insults before he's unfit, and by an amazing outcome, Biden and Hilary are below that number, Trump is above. Funny how that always works.So would you treat one of your sons the same way when he says something for the first time vs if he repeatedly does that egregious thing over and over? How about if he apologizes for doing/saying that egregious thing?

Similarly, it was OK when Obama put kids in cages, but Trump does it too often. Again, the maximum allowable number, coincidentally and not because of politics, is more than Obama did, but less than Trump.

The difference bt when Obama did it and Trump has been explained to you many times.

The difference bt when Obama did it and Trump has been explained to you many times.

"would you treat one of your sons the same way when he says something for the first time vs if he repeatedly does that egregious thing over and over?"

I happily concede that doing something once, and doing it constantly, are different. I didn't dispute that.

My observation, and I m correct, is that there a long string of negative behavior that most politicians engage in. It's funny that for each negative behavior, Obama/Biden/Hilary all engage in that behavior below the acceptable maximum number of times allowed, and Trump is always over the maximum. Like putting kids in cages. Right? No one gave a crap when Obama did it, no one even noticed. But when Trump does it, it's monstrous.

As I said, I'm sure that's all just a coincidence and not a moving of the goalposts.

"The difference bt when Obama did it and Trump has been explained to you many times. "

Right. Trump did it too many times. But I don't recall seeing a threshold as to how many times you could do it, before it was problematic. But that threshold, again, was higher than the number of times Obama did it, and below the number of times Trump did it.

It's funny how none of these things are any kind of an issue until Trump came along.

I happily concede that doing something once, and doing it constantly, are different. I didn't dispute that.

.

That is the key

That is the key

bill clinton is still
worshipped on the left. is he a much better person han trump?

they’re very different, as clinton is the poster boy of an oily smooth politician, and trump is the opposite.

but the reason i support trump, is because for 8 years when clinton was president, democrats said personal conduct didn’t matter, what mattered was results. i agree with that when evaluating a president. i still do. democrats have flip flopped, and all of a sudden character matters. i wish we could
set the tules, and leave them
in place regardless of party. that goes for both sides.

clinton was disbarred. when lawyers decide you’re too sleazy to associate with, that’s an accomplishment.

i don’t feel inclined to get a lecture about ethics from anyone who supports bill clinton. you can’t have it both ways.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't Bill Clinton say he was sorry and take ownership? Trump hasn't owned anything.

Yes, Bill is a far better person than Trump.

it is not having it both ways it is you trying to make a case for one of the worse people anywhere.

Didn't Bill Clinton say he was sorry and take ownership? Trump hasn't owned anything.

Yes, Bill is a far better person than Trump.


Clinton is a far better person because he said he was sorry? All will take for Trump is to say he is sorry?

About the Access Hollywood tape, Trump said:
"I’m not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I’m not proud of it." And "I was wrong and I apologize."

Clinton is a far better person because he said he was sorry? All will take for Trump is to say he is sorry?

About the Access Hollywood tape, Trump said:
"I’m not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I’m not proud of it." And "I was wrong and I apologize."

Good for him for saying that. Did he ever later try to walk that back?

Let him say he is sorry for the thousands of lies, thousands of insults, etc. and I'll no longer say Clinton is a far better person than Trump.

Didn't Bill Clinton say he was sorry and take ownership? Trump hasn't owned anything.

Yes, Bill is a far better person than Trump.

it is not having it both ways it is you trying to make a case for one of the worse people anywhere.

Oh good lord. So if Trump apologized, that would be good enough for you? THAT'S what you're saying?

it is not having it both ways it is you trying to make a case for one of the worse people anywhere.

Yes it is having it both ways. Unethical behavior is only a problem for all of you, when it comes from the right. In some case it's the same exact behavior - no complaints when the left does it, horror when the right does it. Infidelity, putting kids in cages, nominating judges in an election year...how many examples would you like?

Yes it is having it both ways. No, its notUnethical behavior is only a problem for all of you, when it comes from the right. In some case it's the same exact behavior - no complaints when the left does it, horror when the right does it. Infidelity have Trump say he is sorry and for all his thousands of lies, sound sincere and I won't mention it again., putting kids in cagesas has been explained to you many, many times there where major differences, nominating judges in an election year.I have no problem w/nominating judges in an election year - it is the not bringing them up for a vote that I find scummy..how many examples would you like?

Trump said sorry but some question the sincerity and supposedly he later questioned if it was him on the tape.

Trump said sorry but some question the sincerity and supposedly he later questioned if it was him on the tape.

I don't believe either one. But if they said they were sorry, then they met the original criteria for your absolution. Of course, if you keep putting add-ons and stipulations, you can finally figure a way to make their apologies different and make Trump worse.

On to Pennsylvania

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQZ7yG7Tdg

Trump said sorry but some question the sincerity and supposedly he later questioned if it was him on the tape.

"I have no problem w/nominating judges in an election year - it is the not bringing them up for a vote that I find scummy"

Oh my God, do you know what the 'Biden rule' is which the republicans relied in when denying the vote?

BIDEN HIMSELF, when Bush was president, said famously that if a president nominates a SCOTUS candidate in an election year, that the senate should refuse a hearing. Biden said that, they call it the Biden Rule!!

So, unless you have no principles, that must mean you think that Biden is scummy.

You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Can't wait to hear your explanation as to why it was OK for Biden to suggest blocking a vote during an election year!

Trump said sorry but some question the sincerity and supposedly he later questioned if it was him on the tape.

so if a president apologizes, you forgive him. Unless "some" doubt the sincerity of the apology, in which case you don't forgive them.

And it's just a coincidence that none of those "some" doubted the sincerity of Bill Clinton's apologies, because he just reeks of sincerity.

I don't believe either one. But if they said they were sorry, then they met the original criteria for your absolution. Of course, if you keep putting add-ons and stipulations, you can finally figure a way to make their apologies different and make Trump worse.

he already did. In Trumps case "some" doubted the sincerity of his apology, and that was good enough to ignore the apology and declare Trump worse. I guess the "some" who say Clinton wasn't sincere, aren't as credible as the "some" who determined that Trump isn't sincere. Because that's an exact science.

"I have no problem w/nominating judges in an election year - it is the not bringing them up for a vote that I find scummy"

Oh my God, do you know what the 'Biden rule' is which the republicans relied in when denying the vote?

BIDEN HIMSELF, when Bush was president, said famouslzy that if a president nominates a SCOTUS candidate in an election year, that the senate should refuse a hearing. Biden said that, they call it the Biden Rule!!

So, unless you have no principles, that must mean you think that Biden is scummy.

You really shot yourself in the foot there.

Can't wait to hear your explanation as to why it was OK for Biden to suggest blocking a vote during an election year! because Biden was trying to convince people not to do something versus the Republicans who actually refused to do what they were supposed to do, It was much later in the election year and there was no SC vacancy. He was saying they should wait until after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because Biden was trying to convince people not to do something versus the Republicans who actually refused to do what they were supposed to do, It was much later in the election year and there was no SC vacancy. He was saying they should wait until after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not getting why you are stuck on what Biden or the Republicans said. The Constitution doesn't rely on their versions or when they said their versions or who said what first or who was scummier. What the Republicans are doing is constitutional. I think a "period! End of story." after that would be called for.

Why is it that writings written in a professional capacity on a specific issue aren’t relevant or instructive to how that person will execute their job, but private personal texts are THE SMOKING GUN for the intention and state of mind of how others did theirs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that writings written in a professional capacity on a specific issue aren’t relevant or instructive to how that person will execute their job, but private personal texts are THE SMOKING GUN for the intention and state of mind of how others did theirs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, because if that is how it is in politically driven hearings, then that is how it is.

Sen. Hawkeye to Barrett: "I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't criticized you about your religion today. So let ME go ahead and bring up your religion now and make it an issue."
That's 7 Trumplican Senators that have mentioned her faith repeatedly over two days, and not a word from the D's.
He has nothing else to bring to the table. Just another guy using the GOP playbook of dividing the country through religion, race, and culture. They have absolutely nothing else to run on. Just look at the past 4 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because Biden was trying to convince people not to do something versus the Republicans who actually refused to do what they were supposed to do, It was much later in the election year and there was no SC vacancy. He was saying they should wait until after the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DId Biden support something you said was scummy? Yes or no?

Sen. Hawkeye to Barrett: "I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't criticized you about your religion today. So let ME go ahead and bring up your religion now and make it an issue."
That's 7 Trumplican Senators that have mentioned her faith repeatedly over two days, and not a word from the D's.
He has nothing else to bring to the table. Just another guy using the GOP playbook of dividing the country through religion, race, and culture. They have absolutely nothing else to run on. Just look at the past 4 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

well, trump has the democrats fighting with their most reliable media mouthpieces...crazy nancy accuses wolfie and his cnn colleagues of being
"apologists" for republicans??? bizzaro world....it's a magical place


https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1316230825835401219?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1316230825835401219%7Ctwgr% 5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_0&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fbl og%2F2020%2F10%2Fnancy_pelosi_goes_into_meltdown_o n_live_tv.html

Did I miss the promised release by Trump of the so-much-better health plan than the ACA? Or is he releasing his tax returns first?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I miss the promised release by Trump of the so-much-better health plan than the ACA? Or is he releasing his tax returns first?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's already removed the worst part of the ACA and the rest can remain in place until the Repubs gain enough power to pass some of the more free market plans or whatever new thing they can scramble together. The federal government must get out of its debt busting unconstitutional schemes.

His tax returns are in an ongoing dispute and investigation, as you know and have "exposed," the validity of what his tax lawyers/accountants claimed as deductions. That's what he means when he says his returns are under audit.

He's already removed the worst part of the ACA and the rest can remain in place until the Repubs gain enough power to pass some of the more free market plans or whatever new thing they can scramble together. The federal government must get out of its debt busting unconstitutional schemes.

His tax returns are in an ongoing dispute and investigation, as you know and have "exposed," the validity of what his tax lawyers/accountants claimed as deductions. That's what he means when he says his returns are under audit.
He’s said it’s coming in two weeks many times, sort of like his infrastructure lies.
Which are like his tax and wealth lies.
All lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He’s said it’s coming in two weeks many times, sort of like his infrastructure lies.
Which are like his tax and wealth lies.
All lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blah, blah

Blah, blah
Another great Presidential quote

Does Biden have to report Donald Trump's town hall as an in-kind contribution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another great Presidential quote

Does Biden have to report Donald Trump's town hall as an in-kind contribution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Blah blah blah blah

did the head of the biden crime syndicate pat g. stepanopolous on the top of the head and thank him for the foot massage?

Blah blah blah blah

You keep posting Covita’s answers, you must have watched last night
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep posting Covita’s answers, you must have watched last night


Yes, in spite of detesting these things called debates which really are not debates, I did watch because my wife asked me to. I think these debates are meant to be hit jobs on Trump. And what I saw last night, confirmed my opinion. If Savannah Guthrie doesn't know that Trump has several times denounced white supremacy in no uncertain terms, something that can be very easily verified, destroys any notion of her being an honest "moderator." And asking the idiot question if Trump would accept a peaceful transition of power after he has had a four year war against against his being elected to power, and when the media she represents has not badgered Biden if he would do the same, exposes what a hack hit job she was trying to perpetrate with her immoderate, prosecutorial method and attitude laced throughout the show with questions meant to influence the jury to convict rather than trying expose any relevant truth.

And yeah, the same dirty prosecutorial trick of withholding evidence, insinuating guilt, and making false accusations, is being exposed, as if we didn't already know what the leftist media is up to. The obvious hypocrisy of the left wing media is in full array as it tries to suppress the latest NY Post's articles on Biden and his son. Ohhh, right, it might be fake, it's not verified, it's in the public interest not to air something that might not be true . . . but it was a duty for four years to print a whole host of continuing accusations about Trump that were far more outrageous and unverified, and accepting illegally provided leaks of investigations which had not yet arrived at a conclusion if those leaks were damaging to Trump.

And yeah, you wallow in this continual blah, blah, blah.

You sound like McEnany playing all the victim cards but ya know if everyone is against you maybe there’s a reason

“TWITTER is against us.

THE MEDIA is against us.

BIG TECH is against us.

THE SWAMP is against us.

THE DEEP STATE is against us.

THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE is against us.

CHINA is against us.

But President Trump has the WORKING MAN AND WOMAN and NOTHING can beat that‼️“

Apparently Russia is for him though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You sound like McEnany playing all the victim cards but ya know if everyone is against you maybe there’s a reason

“TWITTER is against us.

THE MEDIA is against us.

BIG TECH is against us.

THE SWAMP is against us.

THE DEEP STATE is against us.

THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE is against us.

CHINA is against us.

These are all in various degrees true.

But President Trump has the WORKING MAN AND WOMAN and NOTHING can beat that‼️“

This is in various degrees true.

Apparently Russia is for him though.


That last one is apparently mixed. It is apparent that Russia has been trying to destroy our confidence in our system and our politics. Its being "for him" may well be a temporary and changeable part of its overall plan of putting our politics and confidence in disarray--which wouldn't be all that beneficial to Trump.

Oh and you forgot to mention a very large part of the media, such as Fox, several major print publications, lot's of folks on twitter, a huge pro-Trump, anti-leftist, number of blogs, shows, news orgs, on the internet media. Your above list is bigly wanting. It's an add on to your never ending blah, blah, blah.

That was McEnany’s list, though she does have a history of uttering falsehoods, or to put it plainly, lying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was McEnany’s list, though she does have a history of uttering falsehoods, or to put it plainly, lying


As I said, her list is in various degrees true. I don't think the last thing that you mentioned is hers, and is "mixed" and not necessarily a support of Trump as much as just trying to mess up our politics.

And I don't know about her history of lying, but you have an ample one on this forum Maybe your not only a lot like your portrayal of Trump, but also like McEnany .

I kinda like what James Carville wrote, that’s been echoed by others from Amash to Sasse

“Just days away, a unified and electrified coalition of Americans, coming together like our country did in World War II, standing united to send a message that will be heard around the world to all those who look with expectant hope to the America that led the crusade more than half a century ago: That America has not succumbed to a demagogue and would-be autocrat. That we have overcome. And that Donald J. Trump is not who we are.

In just a short time, America will go from its darkest hour to its finest hour.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I kinda like what James Carville wrote, that’s been echoed by others from Amash to Sasse

“Just days away, a unified and electrified coalition of Americans, coming together like our country did in World War II, standing united to send a message that will be heard around the world to all those who look with expectant hope to the America that led the crusade more than half a century ago: That America has not succumbed to a demagogue and would-be autocrat. That we have overcome. And that Donald J. Trump is not who we are.

In just a short time, America will go from its darkest hour to its finest hour.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Carville and "others" are not who we are. We are not an electrified coalition of Americans who prefer to vote for those who would destroy the Constitution and transform America into a centralized all powerful state of bureaucratic rules and regulations which dictates to us what rights they allow us to have.

We will see what Americans say in less than three weeks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We will see what Americans say in less than three weeks


Deep stuff.

Voting is pretty important in my view, Covita’s view seems to be he just deserves to be elected
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Voting is pretty important in my view, Covita’s view seems to be he just deserves to be elected


This is really critical information and important opinion that we should know before November. Everyone should pay attention.

Thanks!

Former White House chief of staff John Kelly has told friends, about Trump: “The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUAR9U52PQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUAR9U52PQ

Wow! Hey folks, Team 46 is voting for Trump. Pete F has a lot of really good and important information to help us vote. This is a game changer!

Carville and "others" are not who we are. We are not an electrified coalition of Americans who prefer to vote for those who would destroy the Constitution and transform America into a centralized all powerful state of bureaucratic rules and regulations which dictates to us what rights they allow us to have.
That's not what's on the ballot and this notion that Trump is somehow preserving anything resembling a Constitutional structure is idiotic.

That's not what's on the ballot and this notion that Trump is somehow preserving anything resembling a Constitutional structure is idiotic.

It was a response to Pete F's post, not a specific item on the ballot. The ballot is mostly a bunch of names. Presumably, those names stand for something. What they stand for has a lot to do with the form of government we will have. That includes the structure of the Constitution.

Trump's actions and that of the party he represents have been way more within bounds of the Constitution than what Progressive Dems want the ability of the federal government to do. The whole Progressive notion of government by unbounded administrative power is outside the restrictions of the Constitution. The Progressive founding in this country specifically stated that the Constitution is no longer suitable for governing in our time. Honest Progressive academics including political scientists and Progressive constitutional law professors have echoed the founding Progressive principles, that we no longer operate under constitutional limitations and that the centralized administrative state is the more functional and efficient way to govern this country.