Barnstorming
The final two weeks before the election have arrived and both candidates are blitzing the key battleground states which will decide the election.
The democrats pushed forward a candidate, via political machinations the likes of which have rarely been seen in this country, because the man who ran against Trump for those who hated Trump in 2020 had a horrendous tenure in office, which made him unelectable again. Kamala Harris, to her detriment was always the most far left candidate the democrats had, but they couldn't avoid selecting her as Biden's replacement.
Thus far, with only weeks to go, the luster which the dishonest media created for Harris has begun to fade. She never could explain why her surrogates claimed she had moved away from all of her radical positions to a more moderate stance. She had trouble with questions from friendly interviewers and completely lost it with Bret Baier. Our readers know what I mean. She couldn't answer a single question, and our resident lefties only take away was that Fox had played the wrong tape of some irrelevant statement that Trump made. To date, Harris hasn't set forth a rationale for her presidency, beyond blocking a second Trump term.
It was only a decade ago that democrats had counted on identity politics to elect their candidates. It seems to have only worked for one. Polling of black men shows that those days may be over, as they should be. Since 2020 democrats had early voting going for them. It got all their less energized partisan voters to cast a vote. Republicans may have finally caught up with it.
That leaves us with the man the deep blue state and the indoctrinated hate. He is in his last campaign. The signs of age are showing but he is still in the thick of the race, matching his much younger opponent with each campaign stop. This time around he won't have a pandemic to run against. This time he has 4 years of radical left-wing rule to run against.
My gut feeling is that the American people will vote for putting their country and their kids first.
In the news:
Israel struck branches of a bank associated with Hezbollah across Lebanon.
Tropical Storm Oscar reached Cuba bringing heavy rain and the threat of storm surges there and in the Bahamas.
The state of Georgia is investigating a dock collapse that killed seven people at a festival for "descendants of enslaved people."
Democrats are pleading with Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, to end her bid so she doesn’t split Democratic votes.
Aleksei Navalny’s widow published his prison diaries which she helped compile into a posthumous memoir.
The CBS news show "60 Minutes" released a statement concerning the editing of the Kamala Harris interview, yet still hasn't released the unedited transcript leaving people to wonder how bad it really was.
Tags
Who is online
282 visitors
Good morning.
John Kinsel Sr., one of the last surviving Navajo Code Talkers, a group of Marines who encrypted World War II messages using the Navajo language, died at the age of 107.
WINDTALKERS - a movie everyone should watch to appreciate the contributions the Navaho Indians made towards America achieving WW2 victory.
The Nazi Enigma code was broken, the Navajo code was unbreakable. However, these days with supercomputers and AI I wonder if perhaps ANY code could be broken. Makes it necessary to be careful when sharing intelligence for a surprise attack with those who might leak it.
Modern cryptography relies upon computational impossibilities. Basically, current technology is not fast enough to break the codes through guessing methods. This is an oversimplification, of course, but the idea is to encode something in a manner that would take years or decades for a computer to break.
As technology improves (e.g. quantum computing) the cryptographic methods also improve. This method of security logically can continue in perpetuity.
Who are you quoting? I never said that.
Sorry, that was a copy / paste error.
I intended to copy this from you:
"However, these days with supercomputers and AI I wonder if perhaps ANY code could be broken."
The content of my reply was indeed for you.
Not only the Navaho but 31 other tribes had code talkers in WWII the Navaho were the largest.
Okay, no problem. That solves my confusion.
I didn't know that. They ALL deserve accolades.
... which is why trump's violet rhetoric doesn't bother me. tick tock tick tock ...
I had the honor of meeting and listening to Peter Macdonald in 2015. I believe he is one of the only 2 surviving navaho code talkers still surviving today. I was amazed at my own ignorance on the subject and will be forever greatful for his talk.
This column takes gaslighting to a new level.
Did you read any of it?
[.][✘]
Sorry to say, I did.
What did I get wrong?
Yes
Mine too.
I have published that at least twice.
CBS News Aired 2 Different Answers to Same Question from Harris' '60 Minutes' Interview | Snopes.com
Isn't it tiresome providing the truth/facts time and time again for them to be completely ignored?
Isn't it tiresome providing the truth/facts time and time again for them to be completely ignored?
It is, because they just turn around and plop the loads of bullshit somewhere else. And they aren't ignored as much as amplified by the continued fatuous and non-veracious bubble in which they reside. People outside the bubble look in and say, "Well, that is stupid!" while those inside the bubble continue to repeat their lies and distortions in the hopes of hypnotizing the unaware observer into thinking that the views (which are quite palpably false) are true, and sucking them into the mind control ecosystem.
I wonder how it feels to be controlled? Do they realize somewhere deep-down inside that they are parroting nonsense? Or is it like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and they are just a husk, a human shell around someone else's brain?
So Sad.
It is. Seeing people claim the unedited transcript of the interview has been published, and cite a source that doesn't even claim to do that, is really mind boggling.
That is not the full transcript!
[deleted][✘]
What did you get correct?
I always vote up facts/truth.
So do I. Although interestingly enough I don't believe I have ever seen us vote up the same facts/truth.
Clearly not that time because there was no transcript linked.
Every time the truth or a fact is provided.
What year do you want to start in?
Do not light a match anywhere close to this article, Danger High Explosive.
[deleted][✘]
Yes, it is and it is called gas lighting.
Gas lighting would be like trying to tie Trump to the 2025 Project.
Making the claim isn't good enough. Give us an example.
That post in itself is gaslighting. Several of Trump's posted policy points mirror policy points in Project 2024, which makes sense since several of it's authors are in Trump's policy advisory group. This is NOT fake news, or partisan spin. It's verifiable fact.
I'm not to go over every scrap of crap you wrote, but how about this one
What is irrelevant about Trump saying the military could be used against "the enemy within"? Especially since his enemy within includes people like sitting US congresspeople and Liz Cheney. To Trump "the enemy within" is anyone who opposes him, and doesnt lapdog when he demands it. Toadies like Lindsay Graham and Kevin McCarthy initially condemned his traitorous Jan 6th behavior, but then got weak kneed when Trump threatened to sic his MAGA dogs on them.
Bret Baier wanted to know why she is so negative toward Trump and she told him. Every patriotic person in this country should be negative toward Trump.
I'm sure some of them were bound to. It is after all a Republican initiative written by the Heritage Foundation. Few people have red all of it (900 pages) and Trump has said long ago that from the little he knows of it, there are some things he likes and others he dislikes:
“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump wrote in a July 5 Truth Social post . “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
Project 2025 is from Heritage Foundation, not Trump | Fact check
Yet Harris and democrats keep lying about it.
Are they that afraid that the deep blue state will be dismantled?
Anything the candidates say is irrelevant.
We had Trump as President. We know what he would do as President.
Harris refuses to define herself and repeatedly said she wouldn't have done anything different than Biden did. That statement concerned many people. The funny thing is when Sunny Hostin of the View, who asked Kamala that question was asked about it on MSNBC, Sunny said that's great, and Biden had a great presidency. Only a radical lefty might think Biden did a good job.
Yes. He WAS president when he tried to steal the 2020 election and called on a mob to descend on the Capitol building to help him as much as they could.
We often hear about trump's supposed great presidency , but the last evidence we have of his presidency is that he is a traitor. All the "good stuff" came before that.
First of all, how can he know nothing about Project 2025 and yet disagree with some of it and deem other parts ridiculous and abysmal? Trump contradicts himself yet his supporters proudly display this nonsense.
Second, Trump is of course lying ... especially the part about not knowing who is behind project 2025 and having nothing to do with them. This lie is easily exposed with rather obvious evidence:
BULL SHIT!
All the "good stuff" came before that.
So, you credited him with a good Presidency before Jan 6th?
Who is gas lighting now?
It means he hadn't read it. I haven't either, but I know what it is about. Partisans will nitpick.
The people who are lying keep saying that Trump will use the 2025 Project as a playbook.
TiG have you got any evidence that Trump will use it?
Please submit it.
You do know what sarcastic quotation marks mean dont you?
Whether Trump did any good stuff in office is a matter of legitimate disagreement, but his fitness for office is not.
It is all that matters.
That is not what he said. You are spinning.
That is not the claim that I made. You are deflecting.
Deal with what I wrote ... honestly.
You got caught.
So what???
It's incredibly dishonest to simply take someone else's work and say the whole thing is Trump's because they agree on one small part.
Another feeble tactic ... declaring 'victory' in spite of what actually took place.
That works for Trump, it is not going to work on a social media forum.
You are right of course, but the behavior is everyday practice here with this particular columnist.
Here everyone can see what was said.
It isn't like Fulton County.
The Columnist makes a human connection with the reader.
I'm not sure, but I believe I heard that long ago on the McLaughlin Group.
Most people recognize it's shitty policy and he lied about not knowing anything about it.
Except that his policy team is made up of a lot of the writers. So...
So if you believe that, take it to heart and do not make claims that are obviously (blatantly) false.
My oath covered enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
When did he state that exactly? Or is this another "think" time for the left?
that oath was abandoned with a 2nd trump vote ...
You might have abandoned it. I didn't.
You should actually listen to what this scoundrel says:
So now it's okay to lie about it being his policy because you believe he knows of its existence.
ept that his policy team is made up of a lot of the writers.
Lol.
As you don't link the interview. And Schiff and Pelosi. I don't see where the problem is. Both have been crying since 2016 with failed hoax after failed hoax. You can't honestly expect anybody to take them seriously.
If Trump actually wanted the capitol protected he wouldnt have sat eating junk food for three hours while the riot was taking place. In other words, he didnt give a shit about the capitol being protected.
Are you not online? Go to the interview and watch it.
Here, jump to timestamp 13:00 and actually listen to what Trump says.
Pathetic.
We will let this statement speak for itself.
All that is is denial and a stalling tactic.
What's pathetic is using what somebody told you to think instead of linking the interview.
I have watched Trump say this several times. This should be obvious to anyone who can be objective.
The former 'president' traitor is calling EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT/LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE - THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN.
THE USUAL PROJECTION/CONFESSION.
[✘]
This is what kills me - I know nothing about it - but I don't like some of the things they stand for
You give MSNBC.
When he was told - 'they're you're opponents', the traitor said, 'no, they're the enemy FROM within
It's not the former 'president' traitor convicted felon who would use Project 2025 as a playbook.
It's Vance. If the traitor became 'president' again, which I highly doubt, I doubt he'd be in the picture for long, and Vance is the one who will use it as the playbook. It looks like the former 'president' doesn't have much time left on this earth and you can be sure Vance is the one they're counting on - the ones pulling the former 'president' traitor felon's strings
Exactly - the same for all service members and the alleged ones who tell lies about Tim Walz's honorable service.
Saw that segment this morning. Joe is 100% correct. The true lasting effect of this election will be the damage Trump has done to our national charatcer. It appears to be immense, given that 45% of Americans are willing to vote for him NO MATTER WHAT, and that is reflected in the fact that 99% of the republicans in Congress are backing him even though every single one of them knows better.
I believe that is more correct.
If Trump says there is some things he likes and others he doesn't then he is aware of it and know what's in it.
You are the one that brought up Trump but an example of your gas lighting is the comment of yours of how Harris lost it with Bret…LMAO, watched the interview through MAGA rose colored glasses did you, now that comment takes gas lighting to a whole new level.
Why are you confused?
As I told you, Trump has repeated this numerous times starting with the Fox interview with Maria Bartiromo ( ). The Fox News interview with Kurz is one of the places where Trump doubled down on his idiocy:
Go to 7:39 in this source:
There are plenty of channels reporting Trump saying this various times. The link above is Trump doubling down on what he said earlier on Fox.
If Trump's own words do not sink in then there is some deep-rooted, serious denial going on.
Duh
What's to be confused about. You linked an article talking about a Fox interview, then linked everything BUT the Fox interview. If this was such a "newsworthy and damning interview, it wouldn't have taken you 3 hours to find.
Now all you have to do is, from the time you stated, listen to WHAT he is referring to and take off the partisan glasses and look around. It's not hard to figure out what he means by it. He states it - they spied on his campaign. The Russia hoaxes. You wouldn't consider those people enemies?
Predictable denial. No matter how much evidence of Trump stating what I claimed he stated on video (and with Fox sources too), you deflect, ignore, spin and deny it.
Do you think it is proper for the PotUS to use the military against US citizen political opponents like Schiff and Pelosi simply because they oppose him?
As is your partisan view of the whole thing.
I never gave any indication that I did. The actions of Schiff and Pelosi and many other Democrats can be seen as domestic enemy activity. But one would have to look at it objectively.
That includes anyone that tried to sell the country Joe was on top of things.
Here we go again. Do you honestly think he would try? He's all bluster and it screws up heads like crazy every damned time.
Why give him the opportunity?
You are going to vote for someone who claims he would use the military against US political opponents and you dismiss it as "bluster"?
Do you not see how someone who would suggest such a thing is entirely unfit to hold the office of the PotUS??
Add that to all that he has done and said and you still think this scoundrel should be given the power of the presidency ... to serve as the face and voice of our nation??
Would you vote for someone to be PotUS who claims he would use the military against US political opponents who have not engaged in violence or illegal activity but rather are political opponents?
Amazing how they pick and choose what to believe when Trump talks.
Another bullshit allegation. I made no argument that I believe what Trump said, but rather am pointing out another example of his abysmal character and unfitness for office.
What is 'amazing' is that you do not recognize that.
I was actually speaking in generalities, ergo the word "they".
What is amazing is many of the same folks saying Trump is unfit were trying to convince people that Biden was fit.
Just more partisan bullshit.
The context contradicts your excuse. The 'they' per context includes me. Your allegation is bullshit.
And you missed (intentionally) the clear point I made:
This is another example of Trump's abysmal character and unfitness for office.
The they refers to anyone that believes what he said. Sorry but I am positive I know who I was referring to.
That is a bullshit nit picky point. So Trump lies and bullshits. If that made someone unfit Washington would be a ghost town.
Grasping at straws is not a good look
You also ignored (intentionally) the clear point I made: What is amazing is many of the same folks saying Trump is unfit were trying to convince people that Biden was fit.
Look at you downplay what Trump does. He does not merely lie and bullshit (true for most politicians). He goes so far beyond that as to create a new category of political lying. Further, it is not just his lying. It is his abysmal character. And his character was my point (which you continue to intentionally miss).
I don't downplay it, I just refuse to make it larger than it actually is.
A new category of political lying? Is that like new and improved?
Yep, he is an asshole.
I am not missing your point. God knows you make it a dozen times a day. I just don't agree with, consider it exaggeration and screaming at the sky, and in some cases don't take it seriously (like new category of political lying)
Saying you do not downplay what Trump does contradicts your comment history.
'all bluster'? He incited 1/6 and he's been inciting ever since. He''ll do whatever it takes to stay out of jail if he wins and prosecute all of the DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES AND EVERYONE who dared oppose him in any way, shape or form and after all WE ARE THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN
Such as????????????????????????????????????????????????
I can see how the comments could be interpreted that way to those that have bought into the Trump hysteria. I would suggest those that could see them objectively would not see them that way.
Better build new jails, that is an awful lot of people.
You know, for somebody who claims you don't believe a thing he says, you seem to really believe he would use military force against domestic enemies.
You seem to believe he would use military against political opponent.
Doublespeak: Trump is the enemy from within
"Going to". Heard it all before..................
[deleted][✘]
Projection, Deflection, Denial+Delusion is all they have
Just let us know when you find the CBS transcript
Just let us know when you find the CBS transcript
Non sequitur.
[deleted][✘]
Well you continue to miss my point.
My point is that a PotUS (or candidate) who speaks of using the military against fellow citizens who are merely political opponents should be eliminated from consideration for that notion alone.
Whether or not he would actually do this (or be able to do this) is not the point. The point is the mindset of this vindictive narcissist.
Do you NOT find it appalling that a PotUS would even suggest using the military against political opponents??
Then why were you silent when Biden & Garland went after Trump?
[deleted]
Lets stick to fact instead of fiction. Nobody used the military against political opponents. Nobody is going to use the military against political opponents. You blather on about how you don't believe anything Trump has to say. Meanwhile your comments show otherwise.
First of all, I have been commenting on Trump's wrongdoing and appropriate trials since before he was even indicted.
Second, it is pathetic partisan bullshit that claims Biden and Garland are going after Trump. Trump brought this on himself. At first, Trump supporters were arguing that the allegations of wrongdoing (in particular those of the Big Lie and Jan 6th) were bogus because there was no action from Garland ("where is the indictment?" was oft asked). Then when the indictments (finally) arrive, Trump supporters whine that Garland (and Biden) are abusing the DOJ to go after (poor innocent victim) Trump.
Such bullshit. Blind partisanship disgusts me.
Me too!
You clearly cannot produce a rebuttal so you engage in a strawman argument coupled with fabrication.
Do you NOT find it appalling that a PotUS would even suggest using the military against political opponents??
Lets stick to fact instead of fiction. Nobody used the military against political opponents. Nobody is going to use the military against political opponents.
Let us know when you find all of the indictments promised by Trump and Durham.
Maybe CBS is holding them hostage in the same drawer...
Context matters:
In 2020, he threatened to send U.S. soldiers into American cities to stop the protests over the murder of George Floyd. Last week, he said that the “enemy from within” — apparently referring to those who might take to the streets if he wins the upcoming election, but possibly to his political opponents, based on his follow-up comments — “should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”
Opinion: Trump threatens to use the military against the ‘enemy within’
Presidents have the right to end VIOLENCE.
Let me know when you find the CBS transcript
He used Schiff and Pelosi as examples of the enemy within. He was not talking about stopping domestic violence.
You cannot defend Trump, Vic, he is wholly unfit to be PotUS.
Wrong.
I submitted the comment with context.
You are going to try and spin your way out, now?
Do they? How are Presidents to so without overstepping into state and local jurisdictions? What tools do Presidents have that doesn't conflict with civil rights? The last time Trump used ICE Agents and then couldn't prosecute protesters because ICE Agents don't have the authority to detain US Citizens. An example of Trump authoritarianism.
He didn't mention Schiff and Pelosi in that diatribe? Weird... I heard it.
You gaslighted us.
Projection.
So why did he do nothing on 1/6? Oh wait, he incited it, so he didn't want it to end.
I am going by what Trump actually said. Maybe you did not pay attention. Watch the Fox interview with Maria Bartiromo ( ).
Or go to 10:00 in this source to see Trump name both Schiff and Pelosi as examples of enemies from within:
There are plenty of channels reporting on these interviews. Trump consistently names Schiff and Pelosi as his examples of the enemy within.
Denying this is beyond absurd ... it is right in front of your nose.
Do you think getting panties in a bunch over a statement said but not meant is an over reaction worthy of MSNBC or CNN??
First of all, how are you able to determine that Trump did not mean what he repeatedly said?
Second, it does not even matter if he meant it or not. What matters is that you, et.al. are working to see this prick become the next PotUS yet he keeps showing everyone his abysmal character and unfitness to hold any position of power, much less the presidency.
You are right now defending someone who stated that as PotUS he would consider using the military against political opponents.
Who gets to decide whether he meant it?
And it does not matter if he meant it or not. The fact that he stated this illustrates his profound lack of understanding or disregard for the CotUS and how our Democracy operates.
Trump empowered with the power of the presidency is irresponsible and dangerous.
The first time Trump mentioned using the military on the enemy within he did not name names, I believe. But then the next time he used the words "the enemy within" he does specifically name Pelosi and Schiff.
This is the typical Trump speaking out of all sides of his mouth. He reserves the right to claim he didnt say he would use the military on political opponents even though he describes them with the exact same words "the enemy within" as he described , earlier, those that he would use the military on.
The phrase 'enemy within' includes, by the very words of Trump, political opponents such as Pelosi and Schiff. Any action he indicates against the 'enemy within' unless explicitly qualified to be a subset, applies to how he has defined that phrase. Trump supporters of course want to change the meaning of what he clearly defined because even they realize that this kind of rhetoric (this notion) is antithetic to our CotUS and how we have implemented democracy.
Trump is clearly so far beyond the line of unfitness for the office ... it is sickening that anyone would even consider voting for this scoundrel.
100%
Do you think he meant it?
Of course it does
Working to see him become president? That is a ridiculous comment. How many people here do you think have changed their minds to vote for Trump based on anything I said? I don't pretend to have any influence on others nor do I want to. Obviously not everyone here can make that statement.
If you say so. I thought I was calling out the over reaction of the Trump haters that lost their claim to objectivity.
Anyone can have an opinion. Do you think he meant it and it is something he will do if elected?
“ Do you think he meant it and it is something he will do if elected?”
The question every voter should be asking themselves.
And if that question comes with any doubt, the answer is so obvious it should not require any further analysis.
So you are confident he would? Why would you believe someone most of the folks on the left call a serial liar?
Always defending Trump and always attacking Harris.
The fact that he stated this illustrates his profound lack of understanding or disregard for the CotUS and how our Democracy operates.
Trump empowered with the power of the presidency is irresponsible and dangerous. Trump is clearly so far beyond the line of unfitness for the office ... it is sickening that anyone would even consider voting for this scoundrel.
Nope. Calling out the over reaction of the Trump haters that lost their claim to objectivity.
How have any of my comments on nt helped trump? How many people here do you think have changed their minds to vote for Trump based on anything I said?
Only if he meant it. Do you think he meant it and is somethinghe will do if elected?
So you are confident he wouldn’t?
How one answers either question is how one will cast their vote. That is all that matters
Mine has been cast, with full understanding that words do matter and character, or the demonstrable lack thereof, most certainly do…particularly if the lessons I tried to instill in my children were relevant and not irrelevantly dismissed in partisan peculiarities.
[deleted][✘]
Stating it is irresponsible. Can you imagine any other PotUS making such a statement? Yet you defend Trump's irresponsible rhetoric projecting a disregard for the CotUS and how our democracy works.
“…selective believing…”
Like alternate truth?
This is where we are.
Parsing words to fit an agenda, dismissing actions to make a point, allowing disinformation to be used as fact.
And here we find ourselves. Let those who truly care about our future and who believe in our birthright carry the day.
The kid in Feasterville PA who trained Trump to make McDonalds french fries.
Let me know when you stop repeating yourself as an example of adult discourse.
You have the Snopes link which has their transcripts from all three shows
and it pinpoints the discrepancy which had no bearing on any of the content.
No smoking gun so you can further denigrate another American candidate.
Empty pockets again.
It is pretty dumb. As I have often said Donald's mouth can be his worst enemy
I have heard some pretty dumb things coming out of Presidents and politicians mouths
Naw, I just don't get bent out of shape over things that some folks here think I should. There is a huge difference between defending someone and just not caring enough to start my hair on fire or shout it from a mountain every time they say something dumb. I do find people that do amusing though. I wonder how many of them have ulcers.
Nobody (at least I have not noticed it) is commenting on your level of emotion. My comments, for example, are with regard to the content of your comments without any consideration for your personal emotions. That is, you getting 'bent out of shape' (or not) is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the irresponsible (and futile) attempts to defend Trump while criticizing Harris at every turn.
It might seem relevant to you but it isn't to me. I just consider it a response to the "Why doesn't everyone hate Trump as much as I do emotional brigade". There is a huge difference between defending someone and just not caring enough to start my hair on fire or shout it from a mountain every time they say or do something dumb. I do find people that do amusing though. I wonder how many of them have ulcers. It is also silly to think I would defend someone I didn't vote for but it does show if you don't drink the anti trump coolaid you must be supporting him or defending him.
It is: how can anyone consider Trump fit to be PotUS?
It is easy. Again there is a difference between fit and not wanting him to be president. Obviously people that plan to vote for him not only think he is fit but is the best choice.
Also remember many of the people calling him unfit were the same ones calling Joe fit, saying voting for Trump would end democracy, saying only a fascist would vote for Trump, anyone not voting for Harris must be a racist, you are not patriotic if you vote for Trump, you support Trump if you don't denounce him at least 10 times a day, etc. It is hard to take a group constantly throwing things on the wall hoping something will stick seriously. I know I sure don't.
A comment that basically amounts to 'that is just how some people think' does not answer my question.
Trump's rhetoric and actions have gone so far beyond the norm of a normal, rational, responsible PotUS (based on our history) that the concept of 'unfit to be PotUS' for Trump supporters seems to have no meaning. To wit, what would Trump have to do before his supporters recognize that he is unfit?
It does, not just the way you would like.
Maybe it does. Maybe they just don't define unfit the way you would like. Maybe they ask the same question of those that said Biden was fit
You would have to ask a supporter to get that answered
I just did. Your comments defend and support Trump while consistently criticize Biden and Harris. Is that just a coincidence?
No, you didn't. Obviously you are not reading my comments.
There is a huge difference between defending someone and just not caring enough to start my hair on fire or shout it from a mountain every time they say something dumb.
There is a huge difference between defending someone and just not caring enough to start my hair on fire or shout it from a mountain every time they say or do something dumb. I do find people that do amusing though. I wonder how many of them have ulcers.
It is also silly to think I would defend someone I didn't vote for but it does show if you don't drink the anti trump coolaid you must be supporting him or defending him.
If one constantly defends Trump and constantly attacks Biden or Harris, one will have quite a difficult time claiming they do not want to see Trump as PotUS.
It is actually quite easy.
There is a huge difference between defending someone and just not caring enough to start my hair on fire or shout it from a mountain every time they say or do something dumb. I do find people that do amusing though. I wonder how many of them have ulcers.
It is also silly to think I would defend someone I didn't vote for but it does show if you don't drink the anti trump coolaid you must be supporting him or defending him.
I think we've seen enough of this nonsense over the past couple years. If Trump wins a lot of these people can be considered "traitor-lite" themselves.
It is a dishonest little game. If Trump wins and engages in almost certain bad behavior, they will claim (of course) that they did not vote for him. They defended his candidacy at every turn and attacked whichever D was his opponent, but, no, they did not vote for him.
That's good. We need a new category for people that dont agree with the trump hating cool aid drinkers.
That is the kind of comment that is impossible to take seriously.
Do you think they will sell traitor lite tee shirts?
Sounds rather blueanonish to me
Thats what we say about most of yours.
Well, one way or the other we probably only have to put up with it for a few more weeks.
I would expect nothing less. Means I am on the right track
Why would that be? You mean if trump wins you won't continue with Trump bashing every day?
If he loses I probably wont. Its up to him to get out of politics.
Interesting. I wish you luck filling the void that would lead.
I do not see it that way, JR. If Trump wins they will likely be worse. If Harris wins they will claim that they did not vote for her and continue with attacks from the chickenshit through the legitimate but with dishonest spin at every turn.
And Trump getting impeached again would be highly likely; so all that drama will ensue yet again.
If the Democrats keep the House I predict they would impeach Trump within the first six weeks. Of course Vance is also a danger.
If you choose not to Decide, You still have made a choice. -- Neil Peart
Free Willey
Sure did a shitty job on 1/6/21
Great song
Great band
I saw them with Blue Oyster Cult
Darn those devious Trump supporters. I would never have thought they would waste their time devising such evil games against partisan Trump haters on an anonymous web site. I never thought they would have even cared enough about what they thought to do it
Did you ever consider asking those you insist are supporting Trump because they are not drinking the anti trump cool aid yet state they are not voting for Trump why they are not voting for Trump instead of coming up with blueanon theories. If so what did they say?
Yet 'they' do.
My point was that those who predominantly support / defend Trump while consistently attacking Harris (and before that, Biden) can claim all they want that they do not prefer to see Trump win but their comment history contradicts such a claim.
Not so sure in the real world
A simple no would have sufficed. But that thinking is a two edged sword. There are those that insist they are not partisan and objective yet trash Trump (some deserving some just nit picky) and ignore the vast majority of Harriss weaknesses. It is hard to believe that they are actually objective or non partisan.
So you cannot distinguish between someone supporting Harris for merit and being against Trump due to being unfit, etc. from a partisan?
I have found that partisans typically do not seem to understand what non-partisan actually means. Hint: it does not mean that one equates the two candidates when one is clearly a normal, qualified candidate and the other is a vindictive, narcissistic traitor. Being non-partisan does not mean that one does not make a choice in which candidate (if any) to support.
Of course I can. I also can see when partisans rationalize their choices and don't see when that rationalization over rides any sort of objectivity.
That can look like partisan rationalization.
“…can claim all they want that they do not prefer to see Trump win but their comment history contradicts such a claim.”
The last thing they want is to be called a hypocrite, while the incessant use of parroted talking points leaves only one conclusion.
All I see is you making unsubstantiated claims.
It is quite revealing that you deem favoring Harris over Trump as being non-objective. In our history, I doubt we could find a major party nominee who is worse in many dimensions and more unfit for the presidency than Trump. In contrast, Harris is a normal D candidate.
To not recognize this and deem those who do recognize it as being non-objective is amusingly revealing.
Imagine (or just observe) someone whose comment history is almost entirely defending Trump (likely the most unfit major party nominee in our history) and bashing his opponents (Biden and now Harris—a normal D nominee) who then claims to not be partisan and not favoring Trump to win.
It really does.
Some claim that when another barely criticizes Trump and spends the remaining part of their posts trashing Biden, and now Harris, they rationalize that as being highly partisan, but when the same people barely criticize Biden/Harris and spend the most of the entirety of their time bashing Trump, that is called being "non partisan"
Amazing what people think to believe they are non partisan because of their beliefs, but everyone else is highly partisan because of theirs.
Actually I am thinking someone that hates Trump so much and is so against him becoming president that they look at everything that either candidate says and interprets it through a "get Trump" lens can not be objective.
It is amusing to watch them rationalize how they are objective or not partisan while someone else is.
It is easy if you try.
It isn't hard to do.
It is hard to believe they can't see it. Must be part of the Trump effect.
To paraphrase Smokey "He really has a hold on them"
It is not partisan merely to support a single candidate. Partisanship speaks of the reasons why a candidate is supported, not the fact that ultimately a voter has made a decision.
With me so far?
And there are different levels of partisanship. The partisanship that I criticize is blind partisanship. Blind partisanship means supporting a candidate merely because of party affiliation while disregarding all the negative factors.
Trump is arguably the worst, most unfit person ever to be the nominee of a major political party in our history. He is clearly the worst in my lifetime, by far. It does not matter what his party affiliation (to me). Trump should never be allowed to hold public office ... much less the presidency. If Trump were a D my position would be exactly the same. To wit, my choice to vote for Harris has absolutely nothing to do with political parties and has everything to do with the qualities of the person:
Trump, in contrast, is replete with negatives. He is arguably the worst, most unfit candidate of a major party in US history. Ignoring his volume and severity of negatives and still casting a vote for this vindictive, narcissistic, traitorous scoundrel is precisely blind partisanship.
As have we, meaning RDtC and I. not our fault you can't see it and where it is coming from.
"Trump is arguably the worst, most unfit person ever to be the nominee of a major political party in our history. He is clearly the worst in my lifetime, by far."
You have said this many, many times. You are not going to change anyone's mind no matter how many times you say it.
"If Trump were a D my position would be exactly the same."
Your posts defending Ds say otherwise.
"
Nothing wrong with opinions. Everyone has them,
"Trump, in contrast, is replete with negatives. He is arguably the worst, most unfit candidate of a major party in US history. Ignoring his volume and severity of negatives and still casting a vote for this vindictive, narcissistic, traitorous scoundrel is precisely blind partisanship."
Yes, you have said this many, many times also.
Amazing isn't it?
There is an old saying that still holds true today. To paraphrase...
"If a democrat is accusing you of doing something, you can damn well be sure they are doing that exact thing
This is no different.
PROJECTION.
The gop is the party of projection.
So prove me wrong.
Many of them think no one notices the deflection attempt
Good example. Accusing the gop of projection and that is exactly what dems are doing.
Well done
You offer bullshit ... failing to rebut my point.
I did rebut it.
I pointed out your opinions and where you are wrong.
Nothing else to say.
A rebuttal is far more than stating 'you are wrong' or 'just your opinion'. It takes more than nuh-uh to produce a rebuttal.
Listing a bunch of platitudes and accusations is hardly a point, it is an opinion.
Of course you are welcome to it.
For some people, all they can manage is "nuh-uh"
That's all you'll get from certain members.
No facts or truth ever to be found.
No need. The truth is there for those not in denial.
He was the one who incited it and continues to incite regarding 2024
Then you should take your own advice.
Most of the rebuttals you "opine" are nothing more than you saying nuh uh to the person you are replying to, especially when you call their posts delusional or bullshit, or whatever insult you feel you can get away with.
I posted what I posted as a rebuttal to you.
My post stands.
Nuh-uh
Jordan Neely’s death in a crowded Manhattan subway car struck a nerve with New Yorkers in May 2023, when bystander video of Daniel Penny placing the troubled homeless man in a fatal chokehold went viral.
Now, the lightning-rod case against Penny — who argues he acted to protect the other passengers from Neely, who one witness said was ranting in an “insanely threatening” way — is finally going to trial, with jury selection kicking off on Monday.
Daniel Penny trial begins: Jurors to be asked 'what would you do?'
Question of the day: Wouldn't a jury of his peers mean NY subway riders?
I've no doubt that the Nazi's would have proclaimed this man a champion for weeding out the mentally ill from the gene pool. However, the majority of rational thinking Americans today likely believe that choking a homeless man with mental health issues to death was not how that situation should have been handled.
Are you really speaking for Nazi's?
IMO too many of your rational Americans would have done nothing except to whip out their phones to film what was going on. One man had the courage to act.
I don't have to speak for them, their legacy speaks for them and it's clear to any student of history that based on their clear support for eugenics they would have applauded this man's actions as would apparently many conservatives today who continue to defend him.
“A man is known by the company he keeps” Aesop
Sadly, it's clear today that many rightwing conservatives including Donald Trump have a soft spot in their hearts for Nazi's.
removed for context by Charger
Only after they can compare him to Attila the Hun in addition to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Stay tuned.
[removed][✘]
Which has nothing to do with the comment that you claim to be responding to.
Does that make his statement untruthful or are you just deflecting?
Totally.
[removed][✘]
[✘]
We do not effect political change through violence and assassination in our system. At least that is not how we are supposed to operate given how our system and CotUS are defined.
We are supposed to sensibly use our votes to effect political change.
I do not support violence / assassinations as a method for change. Do you??
Anybody tell the Democrats and their supporters that? Many are on record calling for violence against a political opponent.
Anybody tell the Republicans and their supporters that before 01/06? Many are still cooling their heels in jail
for heeding calls to violence against a political event.
I'm just curious... How the fuck can you defend a guy that literally, on the global stage, talked about how big Arnold Palmer's dick is... Seriously... How would you react if Biden had done something like that?
[deleted][✘]
And yet NONE of them were charges with "inciting" or "insurrection". You also forget that many of those "convictions" have been overturned due to prosecutorial overreach.
We're not the ones fascinated with other people's dicks.
The former 'president' is.
You're defending it by saying we're the ones talking about other people's dicks' when it is the former 'president' rapist weirdo who is talking about other peoples' dicks - Arnold Palmer's dick.
Comments by the left say otherwise. Even this thread is proof of that. The left brought it up.
[deleted][✘]
No. A lot of these traitors are still being sentenced.
removed for context
And more are being released. [deleted][✘]
For treason?
No. We're not the ones obsessed or fascinated with these things.
It is the former 'president' rapist and the maga
[deleted][✘]
You just admitted that they were traitors, I guess that's a little progress.
And the courts are upholding more on appeal.
Oh I'm sorry, trump isn't on the left.
Where did I admit that? Maybe you should re-look at what was actually said.
Which is probably why you all are freaking out about him. But if you look at the comments in this thread, yes, it is the left that seems to be the ones with the phallus fantasy. And it's not only on this article and thread. It's in other articles here on NT.
I even have one of you in the DMs blathering on about it.
Tessy wrote
and you responded
That isn't a denial that they were ( or could be considered ) traitors.
I have reviewed what was written and haven't changed my opinion.
This reminds me of an old joke:
A psychiatrist shows a patient a series of ink blot pictures, the classic Rorschach test, and asks the man what he sees. To the first picture the man says "That's a guy doing a chick on the hood of a car", and the next picture he say's "It's a naked woman caressing her breasts", and in response to the next picture he say's "That's a guy doing a girl doggy style". So, the psychologist says "Well, I think it's clear that you're obsessed with sex" to which the man replies "Me? You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!".
Apparently, those on the 'left' here who are appalled by Trumps vulgarity talking about Arnold Palmer's dick size at a rally are the ones who are actually "fascinated with other people's dicks". It would be funny if it wasn't sooooooo fucking stupid and sad.
I admitted people were convicted, I never said "traitors" by any stretch. That's the fallacy with the thinking of the left. You ignore what was said, or interject additional, fictional, parts of a statement to fit your narrative.
So, story time. Sorry, not interested.
I think it's the difference between the spoken word and the written word and how you convert one to the other
in your mind with or without being as specific as possible in a social media platform that depends on the written word.
That's the fallacy of your opinion, nothing more.
The difference is reading what was ACTUALLY written and leave your opinion and imagination out of it. I didn't say "traitors" because NOBODY was charged or convicted for treason. In fact the many convictions are being downgraded due to the overreach of the Biden DOJ.
Hard to call it my fallacy when that is exactly what you and many others do on a daily basis.
Trump was not a Hitler before, nor will he be one this time. If the House and Senate go Republican perhaps the Republicans can start to get some meaningful repair started on all the damage the democrats have caused. I refuse to believe all the hysterical bullshit the left is spreading.
No but he speaks the same "sky is falling" language asserting that he alone can fix things.
Well Hitler got into politics in Germany in 1919 but didn't become the Fuhrer till 1934 when he started rounding up the Jews and didn't start gassing them till sometime between 1939 and 1941. So, it took 20 years for him to become the monster the world remembers him as. Trump's only been in the game for 8 years, so he's got plenty of time to follow in his hero's footsteps.
So you are comparing Germany in the 20's and 30's to the USA today?
Nice sign.
So you are comparing Germany in the 20's and 30's to the USA today?
Regarding Trump and MAGA the comparisons are self evident!
Maybe for you and like minded folks but to the objective; not so much!
Is just voting against him enough [deleted][✘]
Text of one of Hitlers speeches. The only difference in the rhetoric is that Trump claims he wants to blend Nationalism and extreme capitalism to "Make America Great Again".
I am sure you can expand on that.
What, all of the first hand accounts about Trump's lack of character and man love for other narcissist dictators?
Is it appropriate to serve french fries with blue whine? Or is that Purple Jesús? (pronounced heh-soos ) Kamala Harris' endorsement of Maria Juana is gonna need munchies. Maybe that's why Harris has been blowing happy smoke.
Kamala Harris has been attacking Trump as being unstable and mentally unfit. Is it really wise for Kamala to remind voters how she got on the ballot? If you can't beat 'em, just lie about 'em. That's a very prosecutorial approach to life, the universe, and everything. But 42 isn't on the ballot. (Which brings us back to Clinton. Yes, according to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Bill Clinton is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. 42.)
The polls are completely worthless at this point. There's no way to do exit polling for early voting. And no one has a clue how to exploit mail-in voting (except maybe Nancy Pelosi).
Nancy Pelosi is in the news as the only one with fingerprints on the bloody knife after the Biden politicide. The queen of vituperation (great word, eh?) can't seem to brow beat and gaslight her way out of responsibility for rigging an election. Too bad there won't be prime time committee hearings; ABC has other fish to fry. (Do you want fries with that?)
PD&D+delusion with a side of fries. Do you want to Super Size your order?
Could it be that they are still trying to fabricate a transcript and translate all her word salads said into English?
The transcript has been released by others as evidenced in 2.1.4 which has been presented multiple times in the last week.
No.
i 2.1.4
That's your proof? Snopes telling you something? That's really no better than Fox, CNN or any other blogger outlet telling you something.
This far after the interview, one would be hard pressed to believe what is actually released.
That's not the transcript of the interview.
The actual transcript of the interview has not been released.
By whom? CBS? Would you trust them? Is there a certified transcript depository somewhere that the trump supporters or lib haters would actually trust?
It's another Shakespearian nothing burger for the tedious to try to inflate into something significant.
Who else? It's obviously not been released, despite CBS releasing the full transcripts of other Presidential interviews.
other Shakespearian nothing burger
If it is, why are you making up claims that the transcript has been released?
Was it a Presidential interview? Do campaign interviews fall under the PRA when it involves a sitting VP doing campaign interviews not considered official acts?
Snopes claims to have compared the three times the same footage was used, made and compared their own transcripts. Why do you think they were made up?
It's not a legal argument. CBS can release the transcript. The only thing preventing it would be a prior agreement with Harris from doing so. If that's the case, CBS should just say that
Why do you think they were made up?
A third party can't create a transcript of the entire interview if the entire interview isn't released. You get that, right?
Are you making that up? You just said it's not a legal argument.
You just said it's not a legal argument, why are you arguing otherwise?
There's no legal barrier to CBS publishing the transcript. IT has nothing to do with the PRA.
ot a legal argument, why are you arguing otherwise?
Lol. That stretch could cause injuries.
The transcript of the interview has not been released. Anyone who's claiming otherwise is lying.
So there is no legal obligation for CBS to do so.
Got it.
Great! Irrelevant to everything, but even the littlest bit of understanding is good.
The actual point is that the transcript of the interview has not been released. Anyone who's claiming otherwise is lying.
Let's hope everyone gets that.
They can afford to close that McDonald's most of the day for this photo op/stunt
I'm surprised they had an apron big enough for him
too bad he didn't try bobbing for some french fries ... /s
Sorry to say that it was near my old neighborhood and some of the ass hats I grew up with were part of the traffic jam that was created when word got out trump was in Feasterville.
We'all spent many $$ there in our youth. Nearby on Rt 1 was the old Lincoln Drive IN theater the source of numerous tall tales and pranks. They didn't want you coming into their venue with Gino's or McDonalds drinks or food in your cars. Every once in a while they would make us pour out our drinks prior to entering.
It was ok, the drinks belonged to the people hiding in the boot or trunk, lol.
The only Drive-In still open in Maryland is the Bengies, and the list of rules in front was hilarious. My friends and I used to joke and add to it all the time -
No hooligans
No Ne-er'-do-wells
No shenanigans
We could go and on.
They would charge by the car full and if you bought your own food and snacks - you had to pay up front.
My best friend is so silly - we could afford to pay for the car full - but for the fun of it - one of us would get in the trunk anyway.
The Lincoln Drive Inn. Parents would take us there as kids. Remember seeing One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest there. Then it went Triple XXX, and at the light at old Lincoln Highway,you got a quick peek of old school giant porn. It became Neshaminy interplex, office park. Used to quad along the Poquesing Creek there, which is the actual Bensalem Philly border, right near another old favorite, BYBERRY !
You have to be crazy to remember Byberry, LOL
Many of my cousins lived a few blocks in from Neshaminy Mall.
Just had our first Jersey Mikes 'original Italian submarine' last night;
best Hoagie I have had outside of Philly/ New Jersey in 8 years.
too much oil but hey.....when I went to Subway last month and tried to order a hoagie
they almost called the cops thinking I was delusional, lmao !
( I was wearing an Eagles shirt to boot, )
Those in the trunk always managed to have the first beers.
They make good subs.
He made more French fries than Kamala ever did, and he paid everyone's bill.
He said thanks for the apron.
What is this supposed to mean? This McDonalds nonsense is petty and meaningless.
He didn't pay their bill. That McDonald's did.
'He said thanks for the apron'
Okay?
He looked like a mentally challenged mentally retarded idiot.
Wrong again............
Who gives a fuck?
All indications are that you do.......................
in Belmont Hills ?
as that is where i am currently .
Disinformation from the left? Say it ain't so!
My guess would be anyone making the bogus accusation.
It is funny how people attitudes change when they are proven wrong.
You cannot prove that
The franchise owner donated the use of his place and the food.
And not surprisingly, he will keep that too for his Presidential Library
where maybe someday all of the documents missing from the WH, Mara Lago and Bedminster might reappear.
Your link doesn't dispute what was claimed.
The restaurant was closed for the publicity stunt.
The registers were off.
The franchisee donated the time and use of the restaurant and food that was handed out thru the Drive IN.
The claim was he left without paying. If the franchisee donated the food, the claim would at least be "missing context" because he wasn't required to pay and that being the case and it would have been stated as such.
the trump campaign also selected the drive up window customers ...
For a reason. They vetted the customers to make sure some dipshit didn't go through with a gun or any object large enough to inflict bodily harm if thrown at him through the window.
Tessy didn't claim that, did she? You assigned someone else's claim to her comments.
You jumped the shark?
those documents are sharing a casket with ivana, underground between the practice green and the cart path at bedminster...
They were the franchisee's family and friends.
They also wanted cult members because they didn't want some "godless liberal" letting loose with a few choice words. That would have hurt donny's feelings
#13 mike's way ...
... their cheese steaks could use a little help.
That is what she wrote. That is her claim.
You missed the point about the apron. It was said indirectly to Tessy. They got the apron from the warehouse that was large enough from the past as it was made by Omar the tent maker for a certain former employee.
Looks like he did say it:
You can call my friend Derek to confirm.
Derek Giacomantonio
He owns that McDonalds,
Derck was recently given a pretty good report by the health department only failing one category
Food Facility Inspection Report
And every word is true. what is your point in belaboring this?
Again, Trump did not pay for anything. Derek Giacomantonio the owner of the franchise donated the time, space and food.
I cannot make it any clearer.
Even the PolitiFact link says that.
oh dear, who would ever do such a thing and why would they want to do something like that? /s
they could've edited out all the people that would've said something negative to his maga-ness. did you notice anything unusual about the drivers trump interacted with at the drive up window?
Where in the Polifact link did it say the owner donated the food? Can't seem to find it. And congrats to your friend for the health score............from January......................
That's not what my comment addresses is it?
here you go. the perfect xmas gift for all the room temperature IQ's in the family ...
Glad to see he has found his level of competency ,,, best fries packer evuh!
Trump ate more fries than he served.
I know I would have, lmao !
Did trump disclose how big Ronald McDonalds cock is?
I get his obsession/fascination. We know he doesn't measure up nor the maga, impotent incels.
there wasn't enough to super size his order ...