| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 41 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:51:23 |
| Calls: | 213 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 823 |
| Messages: | 114,852 |
| Posted today: | 3 |
When he plays video clips at the rally, the media doesn't show the content of the video clip. Instead, the media just shows Trump standing while the video clip plays.
The reason they don't: The content of the video clips incriminates Democrats.
When he plays video clips at the rally, the media doesn't show the conte the video clip. Instead, the media just shows Trump standing while the v clip plays.
Really!?
The reason they don't: The content of the video clips incriminates Democ
Do you have evidence of said incriminations?
But what would you do with the evidence if you saw it? Wouldn't you want to hide from it?
But what would you do with the evidence if you saw it? Wouldn't you want hide from it?
Why would I want to hide from the evidence? I seek truth.
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was encoded but clear.
Aaron Thomas wrote to All <=-
The reason they don't: The content of the video clips incriminates Democrats.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
If you want to see the evidence, you need to go to a Trump rally, or
find amateur video footage of Trump's video clips taken by rally-goers.
Alan Ianson wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was encoded but clear.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-
Why would I want to hide from the evidence? I seek truth.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats.
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was encoded but clear.
Trump hired an assassin to kill Liz Cheney? That's un-American.
fWhen he plays video clips at the rally, the media doesn't show the content
the video clip. Instead, the media just shows Trump standing while the video >> clip plays.
Really!?
The reason they don't: The content of the video clips incriminates Democrats.
That makes no sense at all.
If you want to see the evidence, you need to go to a Trump rally, or find amateur video footage of Trump's video clips taken by rally-goer
You'd think that there'd be amateur video footage of the atrocities on YouTube. Unless YouTube is WOKE. Maybe YouTube is hiding the footage so
as to mask their ANTI-WOKENESS?
Why would I want to hide from the evidence? I seek truth.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats.
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was
encoded but clear.
Trump hired an assassin to kill Liz Cheney? That's un-American.
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was
encoded but clear.
Was he wearing his proud boy ensemble? The black suit, gold tie, black
and gold MAGA cap?
Aaron is right here, they usually don't show it. During the rally he got shot at, they did not show it but I assumed that was because he got shot
at. I have seen other footage from later rallies where Trump shows the same graphic and the news does not show what is on the screen.
Aaron is right here, they usually don't show it. During the rally he got
shot at, they did not show it but I assumed that was because he got shot
at. I have seen other footage from later rallies where Trump shows the same >> graphic and the news does not show what is on the screen.
Trump was invited to 60 minutes. He could have presented anything he choose but
he chose not to be there.
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was
encoded but clear.
Trump hired an assassin to kill Liz Cheney? That's un-American.
Why would I want to hide from the evidence? I seek truth.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats.
OK, what evidence?
Donald put out a hit on Liz Cheney and Tucker was all giggles. It was >> encoded but clear.
Trump hired an assassin to kill Liz Cheney? That's un-American.
Since Al doesn't like providing links, here are a couple and he is actually onto something (twice in one day, must be a record):
"Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump's suggestion Thursday that former Rep. Liz Cheney should stand 'with nine barrels shooting at her' cast a menacing new shadow over the final days of the presidential race, stoking fresh backlash against the former president's frequent and increasingly violent threats targeting political opponents.
"Arizona's top prosecutor said on Friday that her office was
investigating whether Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump violated state law for suggesting a prominent critic should face gunfire in combat."
After Trump got shot, the Republicans and MAGAs were all calling for an end to the "violent rhetoric" that supposedly caused it. How soon they forget.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats.
OK, what evidence?
In one of the videos there are family members of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12 year old who was killed by 2 illegal immigrants in Texas.
The evidence is that they illegally entered after Biden and Kamala ended the Remain in Mexico executive order signed by Trump.
There's also evidence that neither Biden nor Harris offered an apology for their role in the girl's death.
That's just 1 video that he plays.
He plays different videos of different things at different rallies, but the media never moves the camera so the viewers at home can see what's being shown, and of course they never acknowledge the content of Trump's video clips later on either.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats.
Was he wearing his proud boy ensemble? The black suit, gold tie, black
and gold MAGA cap?
Since Al doesn't like providing links, here are a couple and he is actually onto something (twice in one day, must be a record):
There's missing context though. Trump's complaint is that Liz Cheney is "a war
hawk" and that she doesn't hesitate to send hundreds of troops into the enemy'
trap while she hides in a cozy office in DC. "She should have 9 barrels shooting at her to see how she feels about it."
"Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump's suggestion Thursday that former Rep. Liz Cheney should stand 'with nine barrels shooting at her' cast a menacing new shadow over the final days of the presidential race, stoking fresh backlash against the former president's frequent and increasingly violent threats targeting political opponents.
See how this "news" is incredibly flawed?
After Trump got shot, the Republicans and MAGAs were all calling for an end to the "violent rhetoric" that supposedly caused it. How soon they forget.
I believe that Liz wants to keep the wars going because wars create opportunities for opportunists. But she really should get a feel for it first.
Because the evidence also incriminates people who support Democrats. >>OK, what evidence?
In one of the videos there are family members of Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12 old who was killed by 2 illegal immigrants in Texas.
That's a tragedy whether immigrants are involved or not.
How does that incriminate people who support democrats?
There's also evidence that neither Biden nor Harris offered an apology f their role in the girl's death.
They had no role in the girl's death.
That's not news, it's all propaganda.
I'm not sure if the camera can get a good image of the TV screen, I
think the networks would need a copy of the video to present a clear picture and audio.
If you really care about the border you need to vote for people who can and will do something about it. You are supporting Trump, who just recently killed a bipartisan border deal.
The republican's have had a majority in the house and have done
absolutely nothing with it. Don't vote for these sorts of politicians.
No I understood the context. There is a difference between pointing out someone is a warhawk and what Trump said. Observe:
"Liz Cheney is a warhawk. She might feel differently if she herself had ever been involved in a live combat situation."
"Liz Cheney is a warhawk. She should have 9 barrels shooting at her to see how she feels about it."
How does that incriminate people who support democrats?
They voted for the termination of Trump's Remain in Mexico executive order.
They had no role in the girl's death.
They didn't target her, but their termination of Trump's Remain in Mexico executive order is what caused this to happen, and the Biden/Harris administration is negligent. That's the role that Biden and Harris played in the girl's death.
That's not news, it's all propaganda.
You can say stuff like that to me all you want I guess but don't say that to the victims' surviving relatives because it's arrogant, ignorant, and insensitive. Try listening to the audio of them speaking in the Trump rally video. If it doesn't break your heart, then you're got to be reptilian.
Yea the video wouldn't be totally clear, and it could have a glare or something, but it gives fuller context to the viewers at home than the side of Trump's face does.
If you really care about the border you need to vote for people who can
and will do something about it. You are supporting Trump, who just
recently killed a bipartisan border deal.
Read the bill. Make sure you fully understand it. Then, you will fully understand why intelligent people rejected that bill.
The republican's have had a majority in the house and have done
absolutely nothing with it. Don't vote for these sorts of politicians.
I agree with you on the first part, but I still vote for Republicans whenever there is an option to. This year, I actually did vote for 3 Democrats because they didn't have any opponents running against them, and I don't leave anything blank on my ballot.
Now you can high five me 3 times :)
They voted for the termination of Trump's Remain in Mexico executive ord
Democrats may or may not have voted for "remain in Mexico". In any case those voters are not criminals.
I'm sure there is a story around the girls death but we don't know what
it is. Biden/Harris had no role in the girls death.
That's not news, it's all propaganda.
You can say stuff like that to me all you want I guess but don't say tha the victims' surviving relatives because it's arrogant, ignorant, and insensitive. Try listening to the audio of them speaking in the Trump ra video. If it doesn't break your heart, then you're got to be reptilian.
It's not arrogant, it is a simple truth.
Yea the video wouldn't be totally clear, and it could have a glare or something, but it gives fuller context to the viewers at home than the s of Trump's face does.
If Trump has any real news he can present it to any news outlet to
present to the American people along with the/his story.
and will do something about it. You are supporting Trump, who just
recently killed a bipartisan border deal.
Read the bill. Make sure you fully understand it. Then, you will fully understand why intelligent people rejected that bill.
It would have been a start, a step in the right direction.
Titles like democrat/republican/something else don't mean much to me.
What these candidates can and or will do or not do is what I look for.
Not criminals, but killers.
I'm sure there is a story around the girls death but we don't know what
it is. Biden/Harris had no role in the girls death.
Yes, we do know what the story is. I just told it to you.
No, he can't. The media only airs news that helps Democrats. They aren't going to air a story about "victims of illegal immigrants blame Biden/Harris." To get that news, you have to watch the video from the Trump rally.
It would have been a start, a step in the right direction.
What's the right direction? To legitimize thousands of migrant crossings per day? To not deport the millions who have already been imported during the Biden/Harris administration? Those are steps in the wrong direction.
Congress can't do anything other than make empty promises. The have the power to do more, but they don't have the ambition. And you're right that it don't matter which party they're from.
To me it doesn't sound threatening. Maybe this has something to do with the wa
that people from NY speak. People around here use metaphors a lot, especially people from NYC (like Trump.)
No matter how it sounds to you though, don't expect Trump to be investigated for threatening an endangered rino :)
The republican's have had a majority in the house and have done
absolutely nothing with it. Don't vote for these sorts of politicians.
How does that incriminate people who support democrats?
They voted for the termination of Trump's Remain in Mexico executive order.
No, he can't. The media only airs news that helps Democrats. They aren't going to air a story about "victims of illegal immigrants blame Biden/Harris." To get that news, you have to watch the video from the Tr rally.
There are no facts or news coming out of a Trump rally.
If you don't think that politicians should be held responsible when their actions cause deaths, then that's our biggest difference.
At least three times since 1973, the Democrats have had a majority in Congress and held the White House, yet they did nothing to codify abortion rights even though they ran on that issue multiple times.
Supreme court justices Kavanaugh and Barret both said that Roe v Wade was precedent and settled law when they had their hearings, so why codify it?
I don't see abortion as a political issue, it is a matter of health care for women. I don't think we need laws that block a womans right to privacy or health care.
Should we not vote for those sorts of politicians, too?
Democrats seem to be standing for a womens right to privacy and abortion. On that issue the democrats seem to be the only choice.
If you don't think that politicians should be held responsible when their actions cause deaths, then that's our biggest difference.
Politians are not responsible for that girls death. Don't be silly.
The long answer is because precedent can be overturned by a later court interpretation. An example would be a case that introduces some other legal question or precedent that previously-questioned SC candidates had not considered.
If it is codified into law in a manner that is Constitutional and doesn't violate any pre-existing laws, it is much less likely to be overturned by a later court interpretation.
I don't see abortion as a political issue, it is a matter of health care for >> women. I don't think we need laws that block a womans right to privacy or
health care.
I don't necessarily either but, for many, many years now, both parties have made it so, and the Democrats in particular have campaigned as the
champions of this issue. Yet, when given opportunities to fix it once and for all, they not only failed but they didn't even *attempt* to do so!
Democrats seem to be standing for a womens right to privacy and abortion. On >> that issue the democrats seem to be the only choice.
Why would you believe them now? Kamala is campaigning on similar terms...
making abortion permanently legal nationally... that just about every previous Democrat in my adult lifetime has campaigned on. When given the chance, *NONE* of them did *anything* to protect womens' rights beyond lip service.
Politians are not responsible for that girls death. Don't be silly.
While I would often agree with this sentiment, if the policies of an administration are so irresponsible that they lead to civilian deaths, I
tend to disagree.
There are many who still blame the policies of Bush (2), and sometimes Clinton also, which they believe allowed several foreign nationals to overstay their welcomes and lead to the 9/11 attacks. Oddly, some of
those same folks find it "silly" to blame the actions of illegal immigrants (who, by definition, have overstaid their welcome) who are here as the
result of Biden administration policies, on Biden's administration.
Why are these rights even being questioned?
A woman should have the right to privacy and to do what she wants/needs with her body. This is what ~70% of the people want.
It became an issue now because the GOP was campaigning on it although they hav
recently (since Roe v. Wade was overturned) removed any talk about it from their websites been pushing it.
Democrats seem to be standing for a womens right to privacy and abortion. O
that issue the democrats seem to be the only choice.
Why would you believe them now? Kamala is campaigning on similar terms...
She has no choice since Roe was overturned. It is an issue now.
I don't know ultimately what will happen now. Perhaps it will be codified into
law.
We are he now not because of the Democrats, but because the GOP spent billions
to get their choices on the supreme court. One thing thay wanted was to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I have never heard such stories.
Bush and Clinton are (of course) not responsible for 9/11!
Silly arguments!
Why are these rights even being questioned?
A woman should have the right to privacy and to do what she wants/needs with >> her body. This is what ~70% of the people want.
Because this one involves an activity that some believe to be murder (but I am not one of them so long as it is done early enough).
They campaigned on it because the Democrats were. I can remember when it
was ok for a Republican candidate to have more neutral stance. The
Democrats kept playing with the issue (while doing nothing about it!) until the conservative Christians swayed enough Republicans to act on it.
Which Kamala and her D friends may not do if their promises are as fake as their predecessors.
If it had been codified before, and passed Constitutional muster, there
would be nothing for the GOP to have overturned. We are here because Democrats, when given the chance, did nothing despite warning us for
*years* that the GOP was going to come after women's rights.
I guess they cried wolf often enough, the wolf finally showed up and took them up on it.
Bush and Clinton are (of course) not responsible for 9/11!
Silly arguments!
Yes, but this is proof you don't know what you are talking about because those arguments have been made.
I guess they cried wolf often enough, the wolf finally showed up and took them up on it.
See what I mean?
I guess they cried wolf often enough, the wolf finally showed up and took >> > them up on it.
See what I mean?
You do understand the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, right?
I guess they cried wolf often enough, the wolf finally showed up and took
them up on it.
See what I mean?
You do understand the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, right?
I see the wolf.
Mike Powell wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-
He cried "wolf" when there was not one there so many times that,
finally, when a wolf was there no one believed him and it was
ultimately his fault that he got eaten.
So I suspect you don't even see what you mean.