Whatever. In the meantime, Kamala has been installed as the democratic candidate, not thru the democratic process, but by the usual oligarchs. The woman polled at near zero on the previous election. Now, suddenly, she is the second coming?
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but Trump didn't collude with Russia, in spite of Nancy's and Hilary's lies.
Hunter and Joe ARE crooks. They set up kickback schemes in both Ukraine and China. Probably no one here can explain the first impeachment charges against Trump, or what Trump is alleged to have done. You just 'know' he's guilty, so why bother to try to comprehend. Right? Here's today's lesson: The first impeachment of Trump was for asking questions about Joe and Hunter's kickback scheme in Ukraine. It's only his JOB to ask such questions, but Nancy needed to distract the useful idiots away from what Trump was finding out, so she impeached him
How about Hunter's laptop? You were told it was a Russian fake. Were you dumb enough to believe the major media and 51 lying former security officers? I knew it was genuine all along. I guess I listen to the right people.
What insurrection on Jan 6? No one was arrested or tried for insurrection. Why not? Do you believe that they killed anyone? Why? Because you were lied to. The rioters were unarmed and killed no one. But Trump started it, right? He was over a mile away, and he was still giving his speech as the riot began. If you didn't know that, WHY don't you know it? Perhaps you need to switch news sources.
OK, kids, let me have it. Don't contemplate that what I've said here is precisely true. Get mad anyway, for TELLING the truth.
I'm not going to bother with your other claims because I have a life and don't have time to investigate and debunk every Republican talking point, but I'll just point out that J6 rioters were not all unarmed: many were armed to the teeth with firearms, stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. Dozens of rioters have been charged with using or carrying deadly weapons, and over 20 (20 as of July 2022 https://wapo.st/3MoROqM, probably many more now) have been convicted. The first person to be convicted of a crime related to Jan 6 was Guy Reffitt, who came with a Smith and Wesson and clad in body armor. Another guy is Christopher Alberts, who went to the Capitol wearing "a body armor vest containing metal plates, a two-way radio with a throat mic, and a military backpack containing eight bungee cords, a flashlight, a ski mask, a meal-ready-to-eat kit, a first aid kit, military trousers, and a pocketknife. That day, Alberts carried with him, in a holster, a 9-millimeter pistol loaded with 12 rounds of ammunition and an additional bullet in the chamber. Alberts also wore a separate holster containing an additional 12 rounds of ammunition, which included “hollow point” bullets." https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-and-carrying-firearm-during
There is justified mistrust of the media because it has been proven over and over again to be biased, easily controlled and manipulated by government force (both sides - but given how much has been exposed from the Biden administration about Covid and social media and the aforementioned bias, it is far more from the Ds than it is from Trump or the Rs), politicised and untrustworthy (doesn't the explosion of interest in Substack etc show that MSM isn't doing its job?).
Does that excuse Trump's behaviour and statements (often just "insinuations" so that it is difficult to technically call something a "lie")? No. But it is wrong to pin the entire mistrust situation on him. That job is being done by MSM itself.
Trump's most damaging lie is calling honest media "fake news." That more than anything else has fueled our polarization by herding Republicans into right-wing media bubbles that dismiss all outside sources as liars. It makes all his other lies possible by convincing his followers that the fact-checkers are the real liars.
Mr. Ayres specifically asked his readers to post their favorite Trump lie. None have. I'll tell you why. If you read through the 60,000 lies posted on CNN's "Trump lies" website, (most of the 60K are repeats) you will not find a single lie that meets the legal definition. In other words, you won't find lies like Biden's "The border is closed," or "I never talked to my son about business," or Waltz's "I carried weapons like this in combat," or Harris' "I grew up in the Bay (Oakland)," when actually, it was the People’s Republic of Berkeley and after that, some town in Canada. PS: you might search out the legal definition of a lie first before you claim Trump committed one.
Calling it Truth Social was just another piece of the dystopian jigsaw that Trump is creating to untether reality from, the truth. I'm reminded of something Stephanie Grisham said at the DNC, where she said that Trump told her that if you keep saying something eventually people will believe you. And haven't we seen that up in neon lights from Trump and the Trump campaign?
All this "joy" and she's running barely ahead of the *third* airing of The Trump Show. Meanwhile, Democrats look set to lose the Senate in addition to the House. Do you ever wonder why?
What makes you so confident the Democrats will lose the House? That's not what polls and reality is telling us. The Senate is a tougher hill to climb, but not the House.
I'm seeing an R lean or a toss-up according to forecasters, I'm feeling a Republican edge according to the fact that's nothing much has changed in the past four years, and I'm hoping Mike Johnson stays Speaker because he is one of the few in the House on either side with an ounce of decency and, moreover, a pair.
I see 2020 all over again. I expect there will be a significant number of Republicans and independents voting for Harris/against Trump but still voting for Republicans down the ballot. If Harris wins the popular vote (pretty much a given) she could pull it out by less than 100,000 spread across three of the only six states that matter in the election.
Even after all the Republican gerrymandering the balance of power will likely not change in the House with either side possibly a very narrow majority. No red or blue waves.
The Senate will probably shift narrowly toward a Republican majority. It will be interesting to see if they do away with the filibuster and who will replace McConnell.
For those of us who see a divided government as a positive thing this will be the best outcome.
Keep the criminally corrupt weirdo out of the White House and have a Congress that can keep Democrats under control.
Congressional Republicans - nearly to a man - defended & continue to defend that "criminally corrupt weirdo" & it's not like anyone is unaware of that fact. Why, then, are willing to forgive this obvious & enormous error in judgment in order to - as you say - "keep Democrats under control?" What, on the part of Democrats, could be so odious to voters that they'd forgive congressional Republicans for covering for Trump? (Are you brave enough to say it?)
Whatever. In the meantime, Kamala has been installed as the democratic candidate, not thru the democratic process, but by the usual oligarchs. The woman polled at near zero on the previous election. Now, suddenly, she is the second coming?
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but Trump didn't collude with Russia, in spite of Nancy's and Hilary's lies.
Hunter and Joe ARE crooks. They set up kickback schemes in both Ukraine and China. Probably no one here can explain the first impeachment charges against Trump, or what Trump is alleged to have done. You just 'know' he's guilty, so why bother to try to comprehend. Right? Here's today's lesson: The first impeachment of Trump was for asking questions about Joe and Hunter's kickback scheme in Ukraine. It's only his JOB to ask such questions, but Nancy needed to distract the useful idiots away from what Trump was finding out, so she impeached him
How about Hunter's laptop? You were told it was a Russian fake. Were you dumb enough to believe the major media and 51 lying former security officers? I knew it was genuine all along. I guess I listen to the right people.
What insurrection on Jan 6? No one was arrested or tried for insurrection. Why not? Do you believe that they killed anyone? Why? Because you were lied to. The rioters were unarmed and killed no one. But Trump started it, right? He was over a mile away, and he was still giving his speech as the riot began. If you didn't know that, WHY don't you know it? Perhaps you need to switch news sources.
OK, kids, let me have it. Don't contemplate that what I've said here is precisely true. Get mad anyway, for TELLING the truth.
Oh, and then there's this:
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/cp/148090598
I'm not going to bother with your other claims because I have a life and don't have time to investigate and debunk every Republican talking point, but I'll just point out that J6 rioters were not all unarmed: many were armed to the teeth with firearms, stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. Dozens of rioters have been charged with using or carrying deadly weapons, and over 20 (20 as of July 2022 https://wapo.st/3MoROqM, probably many more now) have been convicted. The first person to be convicted of a crime related to Jan 6 was Guy Reffitt, who came with a Smith and Wesson and clad in body armor. Another guy is Christopher Alberts, who went to the Capitol wearing "a body armor vest containing metal plates, a two-way radio with a throat mic, and a military backpack containing eight bungee cords, a flashlight, a ski mask, a meal-ready-to-eat kit, a first aid kit, military trousers, and a pocketknife. That day, Alberts carried with him, in a holster, a 9-millimeter pistol loaded with 12 rounds of ammunition and an additional bullet in the chamber. Alberts also wore a separate holster containing an additional 12 rounds of ammunition, which included “hollow point” bullets." https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maryland-man-sentenced-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-and-carrying-firearm-during
A good summary for everyone living in the alternative universe.
Ayn Rand said it perfectly:
“Mr. Roark, we’re alone here. Why don’t you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us.”
Roark replies “But I don’t think of you.”
From the 17th Surgeon General. It’s quite pertinent to your article and the current state of our country. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4855545-stockholm-syndrome-psychological-warfare-disinformation/
There is justified mistrust of the media because it has been proven over and over again to be biased, easily controlled and manipulated by government force (both sides - but given how much has been exposed from the Biden administration about Covid and social media and the aforementioned bias, it is far more from the Ds than it is from Trump or the Rs), politicised and untrustworthy (doesn't the explosion of interest in Substack etc show that MSM isn't doing its job?).
Does that excuse Trump's behaviour and statements (often just "insinuations" so that it is difficult to technically call something a "lie")? No. But it is wrong to pin the entire mistrust situation on him. That job is being done by MSM itself.
Trump's most damaging lie is calling honest media "fake news." That more than anything else has fueled our polarization by herding Republicans into right-wing media bubbles that dismiss all outside sources as liars. It makes all his other lies possible by convincing his followers that the fact-checkers are the real liars.
Mr. Ayres specifically asked his readers to post their favorite Trump lie. None have. I'll tell you why. If you read through the 60,000 lies posted on CNN's "Trump lies" website, (most of the 60K are repeats) you will not find a single lie that meets the legal definition. In other words, you won't find lies like Biden's "The border is closed," or "I never talked to my son about business," or Waltz's "I carried weapons like this in combat," or Harris' "I grew up in the Bay (Oakland)," when actually, it was the People’s Republic of Berkeley and after that, some town in Canada. PS: you might search out the legal definition of a lie first before you claim Trump committed one.
Calling it Truth Social was just another piece of the dystopian jigsaw that Trump is creating to untether reality from, the truth. I'm reminded of something Stephanie Grisham said at the DNC, where she said that Trump told her that if you keep saying something eventually people will believe you. And haven't we seen that up in neon lights from Trump and the Trump campaign?
All this "joy" and she's running barely ahead of the *third* airing of The Trump Show. Meanwhile, Democrats look set to lose the Senate in addition to the House. Do you ever wonder why?
What makes you so confident the Democrats will lose the House? That's not what polls and reality is telling us. The Senate is a tougher hill to climb, but not the House.
I'm seeing an R lean or a toss-up according to forecasters, I'm feeling a Republican edge according to the fact that's nothing much has changed in the past four years, and I'm hoping Mike Johnson stays Speaker because he is one of the few in the House on either side with an ounce of decency and, moreover, a pair.
I see 2020 all over again. I expect there will be a significant number of Republicans and independents voting for Harris/against Trump but still voting for Republicans down the ballot. If Harris wins the popular vote (pretty much a given) she could pull it out by less than 100,000 spread across three of the only six states that matter in the election.
Even after all the Republican gerrymandering the balance of power will likely not change in the House with either side possibly a very narrow majority. No red or blue waves.
The Senate will probably shift narrowly toward a Republican majority. It will be interesting to see if they do away with the filibuster and who will replace McConnell.
For those of us who see a divided government as a positive thing this will be the best outcome.
Keep the criminally corrupt weirdo out of the White House and have a Congress that can keep Democrats under control.
Congressional Republicans - nearly to a man - defended & continue to defend that "criminally corrupt weirdo" & it's not like anyone is unaware of that fact. Why, then, are willing to forgive this obvious & enormous error in judgment in order to - as you say - "keep Democrats under control?" What, on the part of Democrats, could be so odious to voters that they'd forgive congressional Republicans for covering for Trump? (Are you brave enough to say it?)
I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say here.