Posts for: donho50
Sep 22, 2022 09:05:42 #
(Main)
RandyBrian wrote:
I know that, Radiance. That is exactly why I used... (show quote)
Just to add some context to the liklihood of a Trump defeat, as disheartening as that may be for many including myself, the same cabal - DCCC Deep State, MSM, Big Tech & Hollywood -- the four horsemen who took him down, are still entrenched, emboldened even, by their success. Add to that the debauchery of early v****g and mail-in b****ts -- all remaining in place without meaningful reform, spell an insurmountable disadvantage for one candidate and one candidate only -- DJT. After all, it was constructed specifically to derail him. Other candidates are less susceptible to the chicanery because of their appeal to independents. If the GOP is smart -- and they're ususlly not -- they'll find an appealing ticket to carry on the vision and policies without being sucked into the circus.
Sep 22, 2022 08:33:19 #
(Main)
RandyBrian wrote:
In theory, I do too. But. It is wrong, it is inj... (show quote)
I agree. As much as I believe DJT deserves vindication with a second term, I too feel he is the only GOP candidate who could lose. Best we can hope for is someone who will carry on the America First policies and the preservation of long standing American values. But there is a whole field of non-Rino candidates who would do this country well, and personally I'd like to see a DeSantis-Pompeo ticket run against the likely Newsome-Warren offering from the other side.
Sep 21, 2022 19:48:24 #
(Main)
Gotta make room for Pompeo. Much safer bet for VP than Cruz who is seen as polarizing. Pompeo gives DeSantis the foreign policy chops he needs. Cruz would be a fine Attorney General, since housecleaning is what’s needed most at DOJ.
Sep 21, 2022 11:41:13 #
(Main)
http://nbatitlechase.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/PHOTO-If-We-Had-50-Governors-Like-Ron-DeSantis-Washington-DC-Wouldnt-Even-Matter-Meme.jpg
Sep 2, 2022 13:57:51 #
(Main)
Liberty Tree wrote:
Biden gave the Adolph Hitler speech I predicted. He is trying to unite people against a common enemy that stands in the way of him and the Democrat Party assuming total control. He has to divert from his miserable record. This same type of speech could have been heard in N**i Germany as it sought to establish the Third Reich. Biden and the Democrats now seek to establish the Fourth Reich.
Never before has a president vilified an ex-president and his supporters as Biden did last night. Way out of bounds for someone seeking domestic harmony. Even when it was in vogue to ridicule Jimmy Carter, never once were the people who v**ed for him castigated. Biden broke new ground, and I'm not sure it's a ledge that can be walked back.
Aug 24, 2022 12:14:29 #
(Main)
Oldsailor65 wrote:
Former FBI Lawyer says ‘Substantial Criminal Case’... (show quote)
Andrew Wesissman? Really? You buy into his baseless predictions of Trump's demise? My goodness; you sound like the poor fools still waiting for Durham to ride in. Weissman is the Mueller puppeteer and an MSNBC hack trying to raise his profile to sell books. I remember when you guys hitched your wagon to attorney Michael Avenatti. Will we ever learn? Find yourself a less impeachable source.
Aug 24, 2022 11:47:29 #
(Main)
Liberty Tree wrote:
If the only way to win an e******n is to support the murder of innocent unborn children then I would rather lose. Others may win short term political victories but there will be long term consequences. I do not want the GOP to win the House, the Senate, or the White House if it requires the sacrifice of the innocent. There are enough issues on which they can win if they battle like warriors and not wimps.
I cannot figure out how GOP losses in the House, Senate or White House would require the sacrifice of the innocent. I would think GOP victories would ring in a stronger pro-life era. Evidently you feel otherwise, but I don't get how. Maybe you could restate your thinking on this?
Aug 22, 2022 12:07:57 #
(Main)
woodguru wrote:
This notion that someone is innocent until i prov... (show quote)
Just when you were showing promise, your TDS comes bursting through. Though your post begs to be shredded sentence by sentence, I'll stop after the first. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not a notion. It is a bedrock of protection from the state and a cornerstone of freedom. Ascribing 'i***tic defenses' and 'mind numbing trials' only to people on the right shows your myopic view and relentless bias. From H****r's laptop to Nancy's hair salon, and all the t***sgressions in between that are caught on video starring people from the left, it seems to me the mainstream media are the ones who accept the lamest excuses possible when there is a democrat in the wrong.
Jeez I thought I could stop there but I can't.
Your second sentence is even more dystopian. Senior echelons of the FBI committed seventeen 'inaccuracies and omissions' as politiely stated by IG Michael Horowitz in delineating FBI malfeasance in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Any one of those inaccuracies or omissions could land people in jail, presumption of innocence notwithstanding. The only FBI employee to be sanctioned for these egregious missteps is the lawyer who pled guilty to doctoring a document submitted to the FISA court to facilitate (wait for it!) an illegal search. His law license was recently reinstated, BTW. So don't wring your hands and clutch your pearls over these sacrosanct FBI agents 'just doing their job'. They would be in no more danger from the 'unhinged morons' than the Supreme Court Justices who were subjected to illegal intimidation at their homes and at their kids' schools.
Aug 18, 2022 11:59:14 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
"While Hillary's abuses are a closed matter" - donho50
Nope: America is still paying a heavy price foe Hillaries "activities".
Nope: America is still paying a heavy price foe Hillaries "activities".
True that. I meant closed in the context of Comey's "matter", but your observation is true to this day.
Aug 18, 2022 09:38:10 #
(Main)
woodguru wrote:
I was referring to legislation that trump signed t... (show quote)
As opposed to many of your ideological ilk here, you do strive for some semblance of reasonable discourse, and for that you should be commended. However, once you stray into the realm of ascribing motive, as in "...stiffened penalties in the hopes this could be applied to Hillary..." to Trump's actions in strengthening protections for sensitive documents, you undermine your own argument since you cannot possibly know Trump's thoughts. He may be inside your head, but you cannot be inside of his. Second, the investigation (revised to be known heretofor as "the matter") into Hillary's mishandling (previously known as "extreme negligence, later downgraded to "extreme carelessness", as negligence constitutes a crime), former Director Comey stressed there was no provable intent on Hillary's part, and therefore recommendewith VP-level word saladd Hillary not be charged. Let's see if DJT is afforded the same lattitude of intent. You try to offer some mitigation with VP-level word salad in parsing the category of emails Hillary mishandled as "not extremely sensitive", but don't be fooled; Comey stated for the record that Hillary's server contained top secret and Special Access Program level emails. Rather than relitigate Hillary's actions here, simply revisit the record:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-fbi-comey-clinton-statement-20160705-snap-story.html
While Hillary's abuses are a closed matter, those of Trump are not. In fact, we are so early into learning the scope of Trump's activities with regard to the classified documents in his possession, the legality of those activities and the impetus behind the government's investigation and subsequent actions, that to comment absent a full understanding would be foolhardy. Let's see where the chips fall, let's stop casting Hillary as a victim, let's stop casting Trump as a villain, let's just see where it all leads.
Aug 17, 2022 12:27:36 #
(Main)
woodguru wrote:
It's d******e, show me any president or leader no ... (show quote)
One of your more lucid posts. Still, it's not without factual error and conflicted conclusions. For instance, Trump could pass no law. Only Congress can pass laws. And if he issued Executive Orders as you claim, strengthening the handling of classified documents, it was on the heels of recommendations from the IG report, and could hardly be applied retroactively to Hillary's t***sgressions. Your conclusion that prosecuting former presidents is d******e, but it's best to do so anyway because it is more d******e not to, is conjecture only, since it's never been done. Further, upon what do you base the assertion that "those who support Trump would never hold him accountable for anything?" Many 2016 Trump v**ers deserted him in 2020 because they did hold him accountable for his t***sgressions, both real and perceived. Find a less biased news outlet to parrot. Begin thinking for yourself.
Aug 15, 2022 11:09:15 #
(Main)
proud republican wrote:
The absurd talk around Washington is that Trump s... (show quote)
It's absurd talk only if it is debunked and dismissed.....which it will not be. It will get picked up MSM and blogosphere and adorned with so-called experts and "anonymous sourcres close to the investigation" to be promulgated among the vastly uninformed until it is believed by a hefty percentage of the population. That is how they do things. And it works quite effectively. Take Kevyn below, for instance He's your typical super spreader troll.
Aug 12, 2022 11:36:28 #
(Main)
proud republican wrote:
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/scott-peterson-could-get-new-trial-as-early-as-today/.
This case always disturbed me. The guy was convicted of capital murder without a witness, or a confession, or a weapon, or even a clear cause of death that could be forensically proven because Lacy's body was so badly decomposed. It seems the jury convicted him for carrying on an affair with his personal trainer behind his pregnant wife's back. All the prosecution could prove was infidelity, and Peterson got the death penalty. Make no mistake, I believe the guy is a murdering scumbag, but I sure as hell couldn't prove it. His attorney Mark Geragos couldn't even get Winona Ryder off a shoplifting charge! A first year law student should've been able to gain an acquittal for Peterson. All that circumstantial stuff about his fishing on Christmas Eve and the voicemails to the lover, and having a disguise and carrying money to run...none of that is evidence. It's circumstantial and conjecture. I don't believe this for a second, but you couldn't prove that Lacy didn't throw herself off the rocks into the drink because she was despondent over her c***ting husband. Trials that end in the death penalty cannot be decided on emotion and "who else could've done it?" logic. It requires the highest standard beyond a reasonable doubt born of evidence. I don't feel sorry for the guy at all, but I don't believe the evidence was there to convict.
Aug 11, 2022 10:20:40 #
(Main)
Milosia2 wrote:
2016 trump ran on the Democratic Progressive Platform.
Word for word.
And won with that.
So, trump was elected on a Progressive Democratic Platform.
He of course did Not carry through with Any of his Progressive Promises.
In he totally ignored every progressive promise he made.
He lied to become elected , and Beverly stopped lying to date.
I take the 5th.
Yeah. Me too !
The lying sack o chit !
Word for word.
And won with that.
So, trump was elected on a Progressive Democratic Platform.
He of course did Not carry through with Any of his Progressive Promises.
In he totally ignored every progressive promise he made.
He lied to become elected , and Beverly stopped lying to date.
I take the 5th.
Yeah. Me too !
The lying sack o chit !
Your comment has zero relevance to the OP. What's the matter with you? Your commentary is an endless, mindless loop of TDS. Seek treatment.
Aug 10, 2022 11:53:43 #
(Main)
You know, if Trump's supporters were democrats, they'd probably be marching outside the homes of Garland and Wray right now, and offering bounties for the live-time whereabouts of these two men, and finding out about their kids' schools. You know, all the things the Attorney General believes to be peaceful protests and not a matter for law enforcement.