The Olympic games will bring Delta Coronavirus strain Covid-19 into the country.
It's already here.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What crime organization, the lawyers from the 2nd District of NY couldn’t even prove it, they had 30 years to prove it and couldn’t, but we know, just give them a little more time, eh?
Time to refresh your memory then. In 2016, prosecutors from New York had Trump's fraudulent "Trump University" shut down, and he was forced to pay $25 million dollars in restitution. In 2018, Trump's so-called "Charity" was also closed down, and he had to pay various organizations 2 million dollars--and those are just two examples.
More will follow . . .
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Despite the massive American media censorship, the majority of Americans insist on a forensic audit, seven months later.
How about providing some actual evidence for this claim. The only "majority" you are going to find is going to be among die-hard Trump loyalists and other hyper-partisans.
If Democrats are confident they won an honest election, why are they so desperate to stop the audit?
Democrats and others want to stop the Arizona-style "Fraudit" from continuing. Many audits of the election results were done after the election (and quite a few by Republican-led auditing committees), and no fraud was ever found. You cannot hand over federal election ballots to crazy partisan groups like the "Cyber Ninjas" and expect to get any credible results. The sad fact is, Trump supporters will never be happy until they get the results that they want--no matter what the evidence is to the contrary, and that is dangerous for democracy.
8 ( +15 / -7 )
Because I wasn't addressing your point, I was commenting and making my point.
Then why bother highlighting and then commenting on my post?
Liberals don't want to talk about opposing viewpoints I get it, the coin "doesn't" have twin heads.
Someday, I hope that you will outgrow the tired "liberal this" argument. People don't want to talk to others who continually engage in bad faith arguments--no matter what political side you are on.
The officer that the Dems have dragged his name through the mud and we still haven't seen 5 hours of video that hasn't been released to the public which every American is entitled which makes it seem more suspicious as to why the Federal government and the DOJ are not transparent, but at the same time it answers the question as to why these people weren't charged with Insurrection and that seems to be that a charge like that wouldn't pass the test and would have to be legally thrown out because that incident carries a trespassing charge and that's it.
I haven't read a stream-of-consciousness screed like this since Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury." However, no matter how you try to dismiss it, there's plenty of video of Trump supporters assaulting police officers that day--and until some of them stand trial for what they did, you cannot simply point to a "tresspassing charge" that one person just got off on who wasn't charged with assaulting a police officer.
Neither do you, but I'm not buying what the MSM has been trying to force down our throats. I will make that decision whom to believe, no one else.
And I never claimed that I did! However, I know what I saw on January 6, and from what I've been reading about all of the Republican-led voter suppression laws and threats to election officials by Trump supporters, I'd say that my grasp of reality far exceeds yours.
But when Dems do it, it's ok? Why?
There you go again . . . "but , but, but." I'm for getting rid of all gerrymandering by any party. Can you say the same? Ditto for the other provisions in the "For the People Act" as well as the "John Lewis Voting Rights Bill." How about sending a link that is not an opinion piece but instead just giving your own thoughts--or is that too much to ask?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I also made a comment on a PUBLIC FORUM.
Unfortunately, that comment did not address my point.
But Dems didn't heed that same advice 4 years ago, just an hour after Trump was sworn in, the NYT headline read "the Impeachment begins" and for 4 long years it was resistance all the way. So it was basically ok to oppose the former President, but not this one?
"But, but, but...." more "whataboutism" from you--typical. The difference here is, democrats did not rile up their supporters to storm the House and Senate which resulted in deaths of police officers, now did they? They also didn't try to pass over 250 voter supression bills like the current Republican-controlled states are doing, now did they?
We know what happened, we're not obsessed with this the way the left is,
No, you don't know what happened, and it's been proven time and time again. Not obsessed? Explain all of the voter supression legislation and more calls for the Arizona-style "Fraudit" circuses by nut-fudge grifters and their Republican enablers in state after Republican-controlled state.
Well, that's the left's position, not the right and the right will continue to talk about it
So, I guess the right is obsessed with it after all. Nice contradiction!
And we feel the opposite about the current party that will stop at nothing to make the nation a one-party system, that won't happen
Who is "we"? The only party that is trying to make a one-party system is the Republicans with their gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and takeover of voting by state legislatures. What hypocrisy!
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Actually, he was and it was trending his way and then all of a sudden, the counting stopped for a bit and then it started up again, and then for some odd reason more ballots came in and it went late into the night and counting stopped until the next day (that's the msm reporting even though there were staff counting) and the rest just went all over the place after that, then when everything resumed, Biden was ahead miraculously, interesting.
I commented on this earlier in this thread. Obviously, you missed it or just chose to ignore it.
All Americans have to right to question anything they feel odd or something they feel that is undermining their political way of life. If you are going to afford the right to liberal pundits to take on and challenge people on the right, then the left needs to reciprocate as well.
And then there comes a time when you have to stop questioning something just because you don't like how things turned out, especially when it results in something like the attack on Washington on January 6. If not, it's up to the free press to call out and expose those who continue to spread lies and misinformation as well as their enablers in the government.
Just after the election and all the way up to President Biden's inauguration, Republicans had over 60 court challenges to various election results in states and lost them all, so no, their voices were heard and their arguments were rejected--some by Republican-appointed judges. Many audits were also conducted by GOP election officials in states like Georgia, and no fraud was found. Just the other day, the Michigan GOP put out the following report. You can read it here:
So, it's way past the time to put this nonsense like the Arizona "Fraudit" to rest. The Michigan GOP said it best when they called for criminal investigations into those who continue to perpetuate this fraud, and I hope that the free press continues to shine a spotlight on those who are determined to destroy democracy in an attempt at holding on to power at any cost.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The questioning of the legitimacy of the results is understandable considering the fact that Trump was projected the winner on election night, and it was only after other ballots were counted over the next few days were the results for Biden tabulated.
I think you forgot the fact that in many Republican states, they refused to count the absentee and other mail-in ballots until after the polls closed, and since many Democrats opted to vote by mail, it's only natural that you would see a large increase in their votes since they hadn't been counted yet.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I would like to see diabetes 2 be named something different as it is a totally life style issue.
I disagree. Diabetes is a disease that is a result of the body's inability to create or process insulin which then causes a person's blood sugar to become too high, so the label can be applied to both forms appropriately.
Generally speaking, a Type 1 diabetic is unable to make enough insulin, which is why many have to inject insulin daily. A Type 2 diabetic makes too much insulin which then causes the body not to process the sugars in the blood, and it remains there which then results in a tremendous amount of damage to the cells and organs. In both cases, the body simply cannot adequately manage insulin production.
I agree that in most cases, Type 2 diabetes is the result of poor diet and lifestyle choices. However, problems with the pancreas can also cause diabetes to occur. There are certain genetic markers which have been shown to cause some people to develop both forms of diabetes such as defects in the following genes:
ABCC8, which helps regulate insulin
GLUT2, which helps move glucose into the pancreas
GCGR, a glucagon hormone involved in glucose regulation
TCF7L2, which affects insulin secretion and glucose production
Now, I am not making any excuses here, but I am trying to point out that for some people, getting diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes is not as simple as a "lifestyle issue," and since the very definition of diabetes is an inability to manage blood sugar, the term fits (which is why many wear bracelets in case of an emergency--doctors don't care why a person is diabetic--they just need to know that someone is).
For the record, I have Type 2 diabetes. I have been able to successfully manage mine by following a strict ketogenic diet combined with intermittent fasting, getting plenty of rest and exercise, and monitoring my blood sugar on a daily basis.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
"The Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts," "Monty Python's Flying Circus," "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in," "Fawlty Towers," "Blackadder," and "Not the Nine o'Clock News."
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
They did...and now the Dems need to prepare that they will more than likely lose the House. Even Pelosi is worried about that and other House Dems, when you have a slim margin of either party, it's never a good thing, but having said that, Biden and this admin is not helping the Dems prospect of keeping the House.
No, they did not, or the Republicans would have regained the House, retained the Senate, and kept the presidency, but that did not happen, so message not recieved. Right now, the only thing that some Dems are concerned about is how the corrupt GOP in several swing states plan on redrawing the election map so that they can continue to pick their voters instead of the other way around. In fact, some GOP members plan on following the advice of the despicable Tom Hofeller so they can reclaim the House by simply engaging in his strategy of hyper-partisan gerrymandering. House Bill HR 1 would go a long way to fix this affront to our democracy by setting up independent commissions for redistricting for all states to ensure fairness and stop the minority (the Republicans) from gaining power despite their efforts to cheat by nullifying the will of the majority of the voters. Unfortunately, that is going to take the Senate to kill the fillibuster, and to be honest, that is most likely not going to happen.
But they're not doing anything productive with their time except for chasing after a former President, so much for unity and trying to bring the country back together and once again the Dems wasted taxpayer money to get another acquittal.
That might be the reality that you see in your fact-free universe, but they've been doing plenty of things other than trying to hold the former president and his accomplises accountable for their crimes. No one was expecting a conviction since the so-called "impartial" jury tipped their hand long before the second "Don and the Giant Impeach #2" took place. It could have happened before Biden was inaugurated, but Moscow Mitch made sure that it didn't go forward by running out the clock. However, the trial in the Senate demonstrated a fissure in the current GOP, and there are some like Nikki Haley who want to the GOP to sever ties with Trump so that they can get back to being a sane alternative to the Democratic party. Perhaps someday, you might actually join them.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Between them they have 35.5 million listeners, don't know of a single liberal in politics that has that much of a fanbase and political pull and influence.
Really? What "influence" would that be? Despite having 35.5 million listeners, the majority of Americans didn't get the message, especially in 2018 when the Republicans lost the House, and last year when they lost both the White House and the Senate.
The fact is, Democrats have better things to do with their time rather than listen to radio programs. Instead, they are organzing, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and getting their message out by having actual contact with people instead of hiding behind a microphone in some studio where ideas don't usually get challenged, and the hosts are just preaching to the choir. Don't believe me? Just ask Stacey Abrams and look at what happened in Georgia if you want to see what real "political pull and influence" looks like.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Also wainscoting cannot be the correct term or inference for the black exterior portion, it must have been for some defensive reason I imagine.
"Wainscoting" is usually used to describe wooden paneling that covers interior walls, but in this case, the black wooden panels cover the outer plaster walls and serve as both insulation and an extra layer of protection. As far as the color being black, the last time I was there, I remember reading a sign that said that the castle was painted black to absorb the sunlight and keep the castle warmer during the cold winters in Nagano.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
He’ll only be there for four years until January 2025 when he moves back into the White House.
Yes, you can see where he will be staying at this link:
2 ( +2 / -0 )
No, since nothing much will change after the declaration. Vinke's post said it best.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Overall Best (Literature, movies, and TV): Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett was the best TV Holmes).
TV: Joe Mannix, Mulder and Scully, Mike Hammer, Joe Friday, Steve McGarrett, Jim Rockford, Perry Mason, Andy Sipowicz, and the Scooby Doo Gang
Movies: Sam Spade, Inspector "Dirty Harry" Callahan, Philip Marlowe, Ellery Queen, and Inspector Clouseau
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Exactly, they can, but they’ve been after Trump a long time, since I can remember, if they had more than enough to stage Trump it would have already happened, if they can’t get him on phony impeachment or a fake Russia hope, the guy will never see the inside of a prison presence, he’s a clean as this entire election process.
Got news for you, this election was a referendum by the American people on impeachment and the not fake Russia investigation. The Senate and Trump's Republican enablers in the House might have looked away and gave him a pass on these crimes, but the American people did not. Same thing is going to happen after Trump faces justice for his crimes in New York.
Yeah, but thank God he has some of the best defense lawyers so he’s not big thing.
I'm not quite sure what that sentence means, but his defense lawyers will not be able to keep him out of jail--even on appeal. That's New York State law.
17 ( +18 / -1 )
That’s not going to happen, unless the Dems want to try and do what they do best, hijack the system, then it would be possible.
Oh, it's quite possible as well as probable--and "the Dems" won't have anything to do with it. It's a matter of New York State law. Right now, Cyrus Vance Jr, the District Attorney of New York County (which consists mostly of Manhattan and Marble Hill) already has several cases he will most likely pursue against him, and Vance could indict him as early as the first quarter of 2021. Oh, and pardons don't work for state law convictions, so don't even think about trying to pull that out of the magic get out of jail hat.
14 ( +15 / -1 )
Next stop for Trump after January 20 will be a trip to New York Criminal Court located at 100 Centre Street in New York. After that, he'll get to spend some quality time at Riker's Island.
18 ( +22 / -4 )
Har! Dream on, baby!
Is it possible to actually discuss what the article is about, or is that asking too much?
0 ( +1 / -1 )
It is an odd argument that the Left is making in which they have concluded that the Iranian regime will retaliate for Suleimams death by attacking and killing more more Americans.
This is not a "Left/Right" argument. Non-partisans and adults should be able to discuss this without the labels.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Just out of curiosity, what was the head of Iran's elite Quds Force doing in Iraq? I doubt he was on vacation.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
What specific law did he break?
2 specifically: Apportionment Authority and the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Both laws are intended to restrict the executive branch from undermining Congress’s “power of the purse” under the Constitution. Feel free to read more about it here:
Asking a foreign leader to investigate corruption that happened to involve Quid Pro Joe Biden is not an abuse of power, it's doing his damn job.
Nonsense on so many levels.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
OK Bass, since you enjoyed that last one from Colbert, here is another!
"It’s the most wonderful time of the year.
With Republicans screaming and Democrats dreaming
Impeachment is near!
It’s the most wonderful time of the year!
It’s the im-peachiest season of all
Getting dirt from the Ukraine
to help your next campaign will be your downfall
It’s the i-peachiest season of all
There’ll be transcripts for reading
The president’s tweeting that this whole thing is a hoax
There’ll be Nunes and Jordan
Executive privilege invoked
It’s the most wonderful time of the year
Yes the most wonderful time
Oh the most obvious crime
You’ll ever hear!"
(Watch it here)
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Many thanks to Stephen Colbert for this one!
Merry Christmas Trumpers!
5 ( +6 / -1 )
"Elf," "Polar Express," and "A Charlie Brown Christmas."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Neither. I say "Festivus for the rest of us."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It’s first hand for the people talking. Taylor said his aide told him he heard the person talking. so Taylor provided Third hand hearsay . . .
False. Ambassador Taylor's testimony is based on conversations which he had with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who had direct knowledge of both the phone call and the meetings related to it afterwards. Because of Taylor's closed door testimony, Sondland all of the sudden had to "revise" his testimony that he (Sondland) didn't know anything about the call or meetings to avoid perjury charges since Taylor's testimony helped "refresh" his memory.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Everyone in DC knows who the “whistleblower” is. Everyone on Twitter knows who he is. Everyone in every news room in America know who he is.
Then please, enlighten all of us with the name if you think that is somehow important or relevant.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
You can’t show it’s untrue,
Uh, yes we can. It's called the absence of actual evidence. You tried to once again provide speculation as actual proof. However, the burden of proof is on you because you've made the accusation. In the U.S. legal system, a person is innocent of any accusation until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
did you not see the threatening letter to the media from the whistleblower lawyers?
No, not in any credible media source.
fine subpoena Eric C and ask him under oath if he is or not. Man if people thought I was and I wasn’t- I would be begging to testify to clear myself.
No need to. Go back and look at what is in the Whistleblower Protection Act and then get back to me.
2 ( +2 / -0 )