That depends which polls in the 7 or so states that will determine the election you pay attention to. Cherry pick polls that show Trump winning and, yes, he wins the EC. Cherry pick polls that show Harris winning, and she wins the EC.
It's close right now, but Harris has the momentum. Unless Trump can turn things around, Harris may slowly pull away over the next 3 months.
"... we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)."
It is all beginning to make sense to me. You folks simply do not understand the English language.
There is no possible interpretation to that statement other than that the "in war" refers to "is the only place where...".
The words "in war" certainly do NOT refer to "weapons of war that I carried." Otherwise, what the heck is "the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)?"
Is that the problem? You simply do not understand English?
What a bizarre post, I'm guessing in your fit of anger you didn't stop to think if it actually made any sense. You're right, it's a poor sentence and he reveals himself to be a hypocrite who also can't form a coherent sentence, if we were to follow YOUR logic.
I think he just misspoke while giving a live speech, though. Otherwise, why would he mention carrying "weapons of war" if it wasn't in reference to his military experience? Not only would him mentioning that he carried "weapons of war" be irrelevant information, but it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried "weapons of war" outside of war, which according to him is the "only place where those weapons are allowed." In this case, I think he just misspoke and was making reference to carrying weapons in war (which would have also been a lie).
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
"... we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)."
It is all beginning to make sense to me. You folks simply do not understand the English language.
There is no possible interpretation to that statement other than that the "in war" refers to "is the only place where...".
The words "in war" certainly do NOT refer to "weapons of war that I carried." Otherwise, what the heck is "the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)?"
Is that the problem? You simply do not understand English?
What a bizarre post, I'm guessing in your fit of anger you didn't stop to think if it actually makes any sense before posting it. You're right, it's a poor sentence and he reveals himself to be a hypocrite who also can't form a coherent sentence, if we were to follow YOUR logic.
I think he just misspoke while giving a live speech, though. Otherwise, why would he mention carrying "weapons of war" if it wasn't in reference to his military experience? Not only would him mentioning that he carried "weapons of war" be irrelevant information, but it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried "weapons of war" outside of war, which according to him is the "only place where those weapons are allowed." In this case, I think he just misspoke and was making reference to carrying weapons in war (which would have also been a lie).
I mean, you guys are the idiots who are parsing words like “weapons of war”. we know he didn’t mean tanks or grenades are such. It’s such a weird phrase to fixate on. Dude was in the military, was talking about the differences between guns in a military setting and every day life. he still has guns and uses them.
Repubs are are just mad because he shows you don’t have to be some freak who thinks he needs 800 automatic weapons. You can be a gun owner
Veterans have accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of “embellishing” his military career and abandoning his National Guard battalion, highlighting that the now-vice presidential pick for the Democrats never served in combat and retired from service ahead of his unit’s 2005 deployment to Iraq.
In a letter posted to Facebook in 2018 as he first ran for governor, retired Command Sergeants Major Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr said Walz retired from his 24-year tenure in the National Guard after learning that his battalion would be deployed to Iraq, despite allegedly assuring his fellow troops he would join them.
“On May 16th, 2005, [Walz] quit, betraying his country, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war,” Behrends and Herr wrote.
These are men who served with Walz saying these words, not JD Vance. Accusations of Stolen Valor against Walz are nothing new. Hard to figure this ticket is going to secure the military vote.
Veterans have accused Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of “embellishing” his military career and abandoning his National Guard battalion, highlighting that the now-vice presidential pick for the Democrats n…
Trump tells a story today about flying in a helicopter with Willie Brown that almost crashed and how terrified Willie was and how Trump will never forget it.
Willie Brown: I never flew in a helicopter with Donald Trump.
Pretending Trump respects the military is like pretending Trump is Christian.
-Trump faked a disability so 5 men would fight in his place -Trump stole $ from US vets with a fake online U -Trump insulted POWs & Gold Star Parents -Trump lied to the troops & said he had given them their first pay raise in 10 years, and their biggest pay raise ever -Trump said he knew more than the generals -Trump said if he ordered soldiers to commit war crimes they would do it. -Trump said he had “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” -Trump told a grieving military widow "He knew what he signed up for" -Trump told his 2nd wife he’d cut off child support if their daughter ever joined the military. -Trump's used troops as props in a parade for himself
"... we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)."
It is all beginning to make sense to me. You folks simply do not understand the English language.
There is no possible interpretation to that statement other than that the "in war" refers to "is the only place where...".
The words "in war" certainly do NOT refer to "weapons of war that I carried." Otherwise, what the heck is "the only place where those weapons are (allowed?)?"
Is that the problem? You simply do not understand English?
What a bizarre post, I'm guessing in your fit of anger you didn't stop to think if it actually made any sense. You're right, it's a poor sentence and he reveals himself to be a hypocrite who also can't form a coherent sentence, if we were to follow YOUR logic.
I think he just misspoke while giving a live speech, though. Otherwise, why would he mention carrying "weapons of war" if it wasn't in reference to his military experience? Not only would him mentioning that he carried "weapons of war" be irrelevant information, but it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried "weapons of war" outside of war, which according to him is the "only place where those weapons are allowed." In this case, I think he just misspoke and was making reference to carrying weapons in war (which would have also been a lie).
I know you must be embarrassed for having posted that video which clearly shows something very different from what you thought it showed. And, with your embarrassment at having been proven to be incapable of understanding English, you feel compelled to double down on sheer stup!dity.
You have your feelings and I respect that.
"Why would he mention carrying 'weapons of war'?" Just a wild guess here but maybe because, in his military experience, he did carry such weapons at times.
Now, as far as: "it also makes him a hypocrite since he carried 'weapons of war' outside of war, which according to him is the 'only place where those weapons are allowed.'" - I am sorry to see that you are now tripling down on stup!d.
Do you really think that him advocating for having "weapons of war" being restricted to "in war" means that he is advocating for military personnel to never touch such a weapon in their training and to first touch such a weapon after they are thrown into battle. Surely, even you could not be that stup!d!
Do yourself a favor and try to avoid quadrupling down on stup!d.
You have been proven, with 100% certainty, to be absolutely wrong on this. Stop digging. (not sure if you will know what that means since you struggle so with the English language - but just stop, you are embarrassing yourself)
And other vets (without an axe to grind) say the whole thing is made up.
“Joe Eustice, who served with Walz for years, told The Washington Post he disagreed with the governor’s politics, but Walz did not avoid combat duty and was a good soldier. At the time Walz left the unit, Eustice told the Post there had only been speculation the unit could be deployed.“
“Al Bonnifield, who served 22 years in the Minnesota National Guard, told NewsNation’sJoe Khalil that Walz, like many of the men in their unit, suspected they might be deployed soon but had been given no such official order when he decided to retire.”
It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Historic Decision on Immunity demands and requires a Complete and Total Dismissal of ALL the Witch Hunts — The January 6th Hoax in Washington, D.C., the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case, the New York A.G. Scam, Fake Claims about a woman I never met (a 40 year old photo in a line with her then husband does not count!), and the Georgia “Perfect” Phone Call charges. The Democrat Justice Department coordinated ALL of these Political Attacks, which are an Election Interference Conspiracy against Crazy Kamala Harris and Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. Let us come together to END all Weaponization of our Justice System, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
