Just thought I'd drop back in to see how things were going. After perusing some of the threads I see the level of 'dialogue' hasn't changed. Oh well.....c'est la vie. Going back into hiding because my sanity is important to me and this vituperation isn't going to help. Life is just better without the nastiness. Good luck to you and I hope you are doing well.

Why not? She and Trump apparently enjoy the same type of recreation.

Good to see you still have some fight in you, marine. For me, the best thing about Trump losing in '24 will be that he is going to take the party down with him. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people.

Thank you, Rose. I am well, for an old fart. Hope the same is true for you (except the old fart part). Just thought I'd check in on the outrage machine since the indictment.

You're right about that, only you are the ones crying. Trump has wanted to see plenty of folks incarcerated: Hillary Clinton (lock her up was his campaign slogan), Bill Clinton, Obama, Rod Rosenstein, James Comey, George Soros, John Kerry, Andrew McCabe, Paul Begala, Steve Ratner, f**g burners.

Trump has accused Democrats who didn't applaud during a SOTU speech of treason. Treason was one of his favorite words for those with whom he disagreed. They could all be locked up.

So cry me a river, Mr. Trump. What goes around does come around. And your supporters have very selective memories.

Nope...I don't jest. There are more links in the article than you can shake a stick at, if you cared to follow them up. But, alas, I know it's easier to just dismiss than to argue whether those sources are wrong. It's well documented that Mr. Trump knows the ins and outs of the legal system because of his contact with it.

Wrong. A person CHARGED with a crime shall be delivered up. Has nothing to do with being convicted.

Also, in section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Doesn't say anything about whether that state is considered a hellhole by some people. Since I don't know the evidence on which the grand jury charged Mr. Trump, I'm thinking let the drama play out. The prosecutor may or may not get a conviction. No one is above the law and Mr. Trump has plenty of experience using the judicial system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

I tried civility for years. Doesn't work. The threads inevitably get hijacked by trolls. It's too bad because I've had some fairly decent private interactions with some of the posters of the past that are conservatives. Oh well, c'est le guerre. I just gave up. It's the first I've looked here in months and I don't regret my decision.

Have fun....I'm not missing it.

No, it did not.

Reading is fundamental and I read you loud and clear.

Start with a false premise: title the thread ignored and claim the two college student mass murders are not receiving the coverage you claim other such incidents get (namely 24/7 coverage) because they don't fit the l*****t narrative.

-the stories are not being ignored and one would have to avoid news media purposefully to not see the stories.
- very few stories receive 24/7 narratives

The not ignored incident in Idaho (white students, no guns) you wish folks to believe your false premise is based on the victims' race and 'guns don't k**l people, people k**l people' idea.

The not ignored incident in Virginia (black students, gun involved) you wish folks to believe your false premise is based on the perpetrator's race. ( Ironically, you don't mention guns in this case. What's up with that?)

You claim that the amount of media coverage of the incidences is based on race, but it is you who are bringing up race to try and back up a false premise that 'the media' are not giving these events coverage .

So, yes, I see how that works. Your specific axe to grind is to turn these two incidences into something they are not: related to race. And why point out that one incident did not involve guns, but ignore that the other did? Is it because you know that young people with easy access to guns are the reason for the increase in violent crime?

I think that's a matter of perception. We see what we want to see. "The media" is as used in cases like this is an outdated concept. I don't watch TV news, nor regularly read the NY Times, WaPo, Newsweek, Time, or any of the other media that are usually implicated by the right as being 'political'. I read articles in those print media, but also read articles in Fox, the Federalist, American Thinker, etc. From my perspective, those sources are just as much about making political hay as those usually branded as left wing.

It's my opinion, in keeping with the opening post that cites no source, that one of the irritants for the right is that in the marketplace the so called l*****t media just won't disappear. The 'news', just like everything else, has become politicized. I don't KNOW whether that's a positive or negative development, but I do know that both sides do it. While the internet and related technology has been a positive development in some areas, I question whether it actually helps make more sense of the world as it's advocates had hoped.

Agreed....I don't watch television news either, yet have been following the stories. This is just more agit-prop. I don't know what she considers MSM, or why it's important that guns were not used in one instance, or that the perpetrator was black in the other, but you can be sure that Auntie E had a specific axe to grind. Pffft.

Any numbers that show American women want to have more children? Or is the plan to force them to do so?

Birth rates are actually linked very closely, around the world, to economic development. Birth rates decline as poverty declines. Forcing women to give birth will not cure the declining birth rates, it will only take away their freedom to choose motherhood when they want it.

I thought you were for the party of "freedom"? In the marketplace, there is a demand for safe a******ns and people willing to supply that service. What's really your issue here?

So where are the court victories? Affidavits are not proof of anything. I'm sure that you could file an affidavit stating you witnessed fraud but that wouldn't prove anything.

BTW....I did go to bed in 2016 where Mrs Clinton was ahead and woke up to find Mr. Trump declared the winner. Didn't cry then. And considering the tone of your response, it is you crying like a little boy.

I think it is you who have TDS:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trump%20Derangement%20Syndrome

Where's the rant and how is pointing out that the 's****n e******n' is a lie is opposed to the Constitution?

Your response is without merit.