I see from Laura Loomer's feed that Harris wants to legalize fentanyl. This is seriously insane. This is the most dangerous drug in the world and kills 100s of deaths each month. Harris should be impeached for this stance. This is worse than her stance on defundung the police and ICE.
I see from Laura Loomer's feed that Harris wants to legalize fentanyl. This is seriously insane. This is the most dangerous drug in the world and kills 100s of deaths each month. Harris should be impeached for this stance. This is worse than her stance on defundung the police and ICE.
Parody?
(it’s hard to tell these days)
Check her feed and hundreds of other feeds reporting the same.
You state that you're not reading "all that" (it's a 45 page, double-spaced Indictment), but then offer an opinion on what the Indictment says. That's very AdultWinston and Newman-esque behavior. I'll never understand the mentality that does that (much less announces that they are doing that). When is it ever good practice to opine on something you are deliberately uninformed about?
By the way, your uninformed opinion on "what happened" is, axiomatically, hugely incomplete, mischaracterized, incorrect, and then trails off into irrelevant and strange hypotheticals. That's what happens . . . .
45 pages of BS is still BS.
The Indictment is specifically set forth with 130 enumerated paragraphs. Paragraphs 6-124 are specific factual averments. What paragraphs in particular are you claiming are "BS" and why is each one "BS"?
Newman wrote:
Trump has a handful of indictments in several decades of business pre 2016. He wins the presidency in 2016 and is the top contender in 2024 and suddenly he has hundreds of charges filed against him.
The felonies set forth in that Indictment occurred in mid to late 2020 and early 2021. It was filed in August 2023 after the necessary referral from Congress, investigation, and grand jury proceedings.
PS: Hint for you. Less is more. "...uninformed opinion on "what happened" is, axiomatically, hugely incomplete, mischaracterized, incorrect, and then trails off into irrelevant and strange hypotheticals." Dear God.
"Women for Trump's" admitted uninformed opinion is everything I said it was (and more). You would understand that if you were to actually read what you are opining on. You are proving my earlier point about you. Jesus fvcking Christ.
Check her feed and hundreds of other feeds reporting the same.
Sorry, I think what Tea Party meant to post was, "Parody? Or monumental stupidity?"
I am totally with you, "terrible". I was hoping for 'parody' all the way. But now that you've confirmed 'monumental stupidity' I'm trying to think of other ways that I can support you.
A giant nude statue of former President Donald Trump was assembled just outside Las Vegas over the weekend, towering over Interstate 15 on the way to Utah.The
Do you really read the incitement in depth? I'll read chunks of it and then skim the rest. All of the cases against Trump are complete shams anyway and this is no different.
Are you surprised our Trumpers were peddling immigration lies last week? I’m not surprised
CNN Politics Live TV Facts First: Trump's claims are false in two big ways. First, the statistics he was referring to are not specifically about people who entered the country during the Biden-Harris administration. Rather, those statistics are about noncitizens who entered the country under any administration, including Trump's; were convicted of a crime at some point, usually in the US after their arrival; and are now living in the US while being listed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "non-detained docket" where some have been listed for years, including while Trump was president, because their country of citizenship won't let the US deport them back there. Second, that ICE “non- detained” list includes people who are still serving jail and prison sentences for their crimes; they are on the list because they are not being held in immigration detention in particular.
"Okay, well, there's a lot of long words in there, and the whole thing is long anyway. I'm not reading all that. My mind is made up--stop trying to confuse me with your 'facts.' "
I'm not reading all that. What happened is that Eastman helped draft a memo showing that a few obscure points in the law could be interpreted as the Vice President has the power to select whichever electoral votes he wishes, if there are competing slates of electors. Who knows how it would have played out if Pence had the courage to do what Trump wanted?
Think about what you wrote there.
If you believe that, regardless of the upcoming 2024 election results, Kamala Harris can select whichever electoral votes she wishes and declare herself the winner if she has “the courage” to do so.
I think the spate of legalize fentanyl tweets today are because President Trump brought it up today in his Pennsylvania speech. Nonetheless, Harris is going to have to disavow any support for this policy in order to get elected. If Trump, Vance and McCormack keep repeating it, she can't ignore it.
Trigger Warning: This article contains themes of sexual abuse that some readers may find distressing. A past relationship between Barack Obama and Sean "Didd...
I think the spate of legalize fentanyl tweets today are because President Trump brought it up today in his Pennsylvania speech. Nonetheless, Harris is going to have to disavow any support for this policy in order to get elected. If Trump, Vance and McCormack keep repeating it, she can't ignore it.
Yes. Yes, I do. It's normal, adult behavior to read things that you want to provide opinions on.
I'll read chunks of it and then skim the rest.
I doubt you did even that, but assuming you did "skim" it, that practice is odd when you go on to provide opinions on what the Indictment says. Again, when is it ever good practice to opine on something you are deliberately uninformed about?
All of the cases against Trump are complete shams anyway and this is no different.
You have no basis to say that, since you never read it. Providing opinions on something you never read is what AdultRoom and Newman do. It renders your opinions as sham opinions.
I linked a detailed Indictment with at least 124 specific factual allegations and 4 charged felonies. It would seem that if you want to say it's all a sham, you'd be able to elaborate on which factual averments of the Indictment are a sham and why you consider them to be sham. Right? Isn't that how things work in America?
Yes. Yes, I do. It's normal, adult behavior to read things that you want to provide opinions on.
I'll read chunks of it and then skim the rest.
I doubt you did even that, but assuming you did "skim" it, that practice is odd when you go on to provide opinions on what the Indictment says. Again, when is it ever good practice to opine on something you are deliberately uninformed about?
All of the cases against Trump are complete shams anyway and this is no different.
You have no basis to say that, since you never read it. Providing opinions on something you never read is what AdultRoom and Newman do. It renders your opinions as sham opinions.
I linked a detailed Indictment with at least 124 specific factual allegations and 4 charged felonies. It would seem that if you want to say it's all a sham, you'd be able to elaborate on which factual averments of the Indictment are a sham and why you consider them to be sham. Right? Isn't that how things work in America?
The Mueller Report was 448 pages. Did you read all 448 pages of it. I know Flagpole read all of it but I doubt anyone else here read more than 100 pages.
