Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
I’m still wondering, as next Monday nears: If he does in fact provide “irrefutable evidence” of voter fraud seemingly on a scale to have a meaningful impact on state vote counts, I will change my tune to whatever extent the evidence dictates. Can I expect that you’ll see him as a fraud if his promised evidence is far from “irrefutable”?
It’s a running message board, so let’s revisit the words of Rosie Ruiz: “When I run in the next race and they see what I can really do, they’re gonna be very upset about it.”
Today, Jonathan Karl on the”irrefutable evidence”: “Multiple sources tell ABC News Trump’s legal advisors have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems. They have asked him to cancel it.”
Huh. Another potential delay. Followed by “I would have released it, but my lawyers told me that would help the corrupt riggers do more of their rigging …” And then all the way up through next November: I have the proof but I can’t show you.
You don’t like Karl or ABC News? OK. We’ll see what unfolds (just in case that happens to be bias speaking).
Again, just as if Rosie had run an elite time in a follow-up race, if DJT provides “irrefutable evidence,” I’ll concede whatever the facts dictate.
(apologies to any remaining family of Ms. Ruiz if this seems like dishonoring her memory. I’m making a comparison on only one small component of providing evidence, and would never insinuate that she was as morally corrupt as some of the worst elements of our society.)
Joe Manchin is a moderate Democrat and the party wants him out and the base calls him a "nazi".
Biden is worse than Trump even if all your favorite fantasies are true.
Your political category-making is roughly as bad as your legal knowledge (or so it would appear to this non-lawyer who doesn't sort-of pretend to be one).
And as Agip might say, "From the party of 'law and order':
'Trump being found guilty of crimes he committed wouldn't be JUSTICE. But rather, JUST the realization of liberal fantasies.'"
But yeah, you're not a Trumper.
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
I’m still wondering, as next Monday nears: If he does in fact provide “irrefutable evidence” of voter fraud seemingly on a scale to have a meaningful impact on state vote counts, I will change my tune to whatever extent the evidence dictates. Can I expect that you’ll see him as a fraud if his promised evidence is far from “irrefutable”?
It’s a running message board, so let’s revisit the words of Rosie Ruiz: “When I run in the next race and they see what I can really do, they’re gonna be very upset about it.”
Today, Jonathan Karl on the”irrefutable evidence”: “Multiple sources tell ABC News Trump’s legal advisors have told him that holding such a press conference with dubious claims of voter fraud will only complicate his legal problems. They have asked him to cancel it.”
Huh. Another potential delay. Followed by “I would have released it, but my lawyers told me that would help the corrupt riggers do more of their rigging …” And then all the way up through next November: I have the proof but I can’t show you.
You don’t like Karl or ABC News? OK. We’ll see what unfolds (just in case that happens to be bias speaking).
Again, just as if Rosie had run an elite time in a follow-up race, if DJT provides “irrefutable evidence,” I’ll concede whatever the facts dictate.
(apologies to any remaining family of Ms. Ruiz if this seems like dishonoring her memory. I’m making a comparison on only one small component of providing evidence, and would never insinuate that she was as morally corrupt as some of the worst elements of our society.)
It's almost like Trump actually believes the 2020 election wasn't legitimate.
Your political category-making is roughly as bad as your legal knowledge (or so it would appear to this non-lawyer who doesn't sort-of pretend to be one).
And as Agip might say, "From the party of 'law and order':
'Trump being found guilty of crimes he committed wouldn't be JUSTICE. But rather, JUST the realization of liberal fantasies.'"
But yeah, you're not a Trumper.
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
Hard to comprehend how anyone cannot see these two impeachments and endless stream of indictments for what they clearly are....the Oligarchs throwing a hissy fit cuz Trump beat them in 2016 (and likely in 2020 as well).
Chief of Staff, Treasure Sec, Attorney General, Sec of State, Sec of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Head of SEC, Director of CDC.....
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
Hard to comprehend how anyone cannot see these two impeachments and endless stream of indictments for what they clearly are....the Oligarchs throwing a hissy fit cuz Trump beat them in 2016 (and likely in 2020 as well).
How about this simple explanation: your boy is a crook
Ironically, YouTube has suppressed monetization for Episode 1 of my new YouTube series, Facts, because it “discusses New World Order, which is a non-monetizable ‘conspiracy theory’ under [YouTube’s] Dangerous Acts in ad-friendly guidelines.”
Hard to comprehend how anyone cannot see these two impeachments and endless stream of indictments for what they clearly are....the Oligarchs throwing a hissy fit cuz Trump beat them in 2016 (and likely in 2020 as well).
How about this simple explanation: your boy is a crook
Chief of Staff, Treasure Sec, Attorney General, Sec of State, Sec of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, Head of SEC, Director of CDC.....
Find a padded room.
You question the facts?
You can't.
Now you need to ask yourself why you react to these facts like you do
Your political category-making is roughly as bad as your legal knowledge (or so it would appear to this non-lawyer who doesn't sort-of pretend to be one).
And as Agip might say, "From the party of 'law and order':
'Trump being found guilty of crimes he committed wouldn't be JUSTICE. But rather, JUST the realization of liberal fantasies.'"
But yeah, you're not a Trumper.
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
I haven’t spent much time underestimating that. When I see Q stuff from a significant portion of them and I see the fervor many of them show in support for Trump, I question the judgment they bring to bear on what they find distasteful and what they don’t. (In a similar fashion, I question the logic employed by a number of ostensibly civil people on the left, who claim to believe in law and to disavow chaos and violence. It’s just for me that the balance tilts extremely to one side. It’s not wholly akin to this, but the comparison will suffice for now: I believe Mark Fuhrman and some other LA cops were dirty, but I still believe OJ did it).
Hard to comprehend how anyone cannot see these two impeachments and endless stream of indictments for what they clearly are....the Oligarchs throwing a hissy fit cuz Trump beat them in 2016 (and likely in 2020 as well).
How about this simple explanation: your boy is a crook
You really think that's why? What's Obama worth today? How about the Clintons? Biden? Not crooks?
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
Hard to comprehend how anyone cannot see these two impeachments and endless stream of indictments for what they clearly are....the Oligarchs throwing a hissy fit cuz Trump beat them in 2016 (and likely in 2020 as well).
Ah yes, the whole world is controlled by 5 people. They meet every other Thursday in the basement of a pizza place.
Democrats have America's welfare very low on their list of priorities.
Is that the same Ben Shapiro who wrote in a book that President Obama should’ve been brought up on RICO charges and then has been spouting off over the last several days about how abominable it is to indict a former president on RICO charges?
I didn't vote for Trump in the primary in 2016 and I won't vote for him in the primary this time.
You completely underestimate how distasteful half the country finds you.
I haven’t spent much time underestimating that. When I see Q stuff from a significant portion of them and I see the fervor many of them show in support for Trump, I question the judgment they bring to bear on what they find distasteful and what they don’t. (In a similar fashion, I question the logic employed by a number of ostensibly civil people on the left, who claim to believe in law and to disavow chaos and violence. It’s just for me that the balance tilts extremely to one side. It’s not wholly akin to this, but the comparison will suffice for now: I believe Mark Fuhrman and some other LA cops were dirty, but I still believe OJ did it).
So you're willing to overlook the obvious flaws of your side because you find the alternative more distasteful.
If you loosened your tinfoil for a moment you might realize that there's people on the right that feel the exact same way.
Nutsos have now moved to the clairvoyance justification phase of Trump's defense. Just like he thought those classified documents into declassified status, since in his mind he believed he won, we must just disregard the actual actions, behaviors and crimes committed. He will claim to have believed he won so all good... the mental gymnastics are otherworldly.
Democrats have America's welfare very low on their list of priorities.
Is that the same Ben Shapiro who wrote in a book that President Obama should’ve been brought up on RICO charges and then has been spouting off over the last several days about how abominable it is to indict a former president on RICO charges?
It's the Shapiro that runs rings around anyone on the left.
Have been programmed to believe anyone exposing the corruption of the Deep State has to be a Trumper.
No, anyone that’s “exposing the corruption of the Deep State” is a full blown kook. Not a reasonable person. As I said before, there are plenty of reasonable people on both sides of the isle. You aren’t one of them.
Without out a doubt his comment about, "exposing the corruption of the Deep State" exposed him as not belonging to the group of reasonable people.
The actual closest thing resembling a "deep state" was the large group of people working for Trump to overthrow our election.
