2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: rhayder on September 10, 2024, 05:18:55 PM
-
Topping off a horrible debate performance by Trump. Taylor Swift Publicly endorses Kamala Harris for President.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-rcna170547 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-rcna170547)
-
cool story, bro...
Topping off a horrible debate performance by Trump. Taylor Swift Publicly endorses Kamala Harris for President.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-rcna170547 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-rcna170547)
-
Yeah. Swift's track record of judging people has been stellar.
:rofl: :geekdanc: :popcorn:
-
Actually I think Trump did pretty well. :thumbsup:
Taylor Swift? Who cares. Sensible people knows she influences the voter base that goes baaa.....no critical thinkers there. :rofl:
-
Hahhahaha what abt the project? Guess the media told u to talk abt something else.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
:rofl:
:rofl: It's pretty easy to see he was totally unprepared and has very little knowledge of what it takes to lead the country. He's just a grumpy old man that complains and lies. He lost on points, substance and style.
He was all upbeat, smiling, and in a good mood when he was interviewed after the debate. He called it a good debate, one of the better ones he participated in.
So your TDS is showing.
Just enjoy yourself supporting princess kamala, and continue to hope that she will make your dreams come true.
-
so you admit you were lying about trump being responsible about project 2025?
The Project2025 is still a disaster endorsed by JD Vance and written by past members of the Trump administration. It's so horrible he denies it. Yet still he supports a 6 week abortion ban in Florida and is willing to sign a nationwide abortion ban.
When you have Trump lying about people eating cats, and crowd sizes fetishes on a national debate, it is so bizarro and tends to float to the topic of the day.
Why you want to be led by a liar and a loser that only cares about himself continues to intrigue me. She destroyed him because he has no self control, you want someone without self control to have the nuclear codes?
-
"working on a great plan" is different than "working on my plan"
agenda 47 is the only plan trump has
'aligns well with the RNC platform" how specifically, give examples where it is similar and different, don't make vague generalizations
if it's true as you say, you should be able to easily compare and contrast the two...
What are you talking about? He said the Heritage foundation and the team were working on a great plan. Project2025 is the only plan he he has. It aligns well witht he RNC platform as well.
https://youtu.be/PiVcVLYzeQM (https://youtu.be/PiVcVLYzeQM)
-
please prove "he is willing to sign a nationwide abortion ban"
that's counter to what he has said many times
if it's true, you should be able to cite many examples...
The Project2025 is still a disaster endorsed by JD Vance and written by past members of the Trump administration. It's so horrible he denies it. Yet still he supports a 6 week abortion ban in Florida and is willing to sign a nationwide abortion ban.
When you have Trump lying about people eating cats, and crowd sizes fetishes on a national debate, it is so bizarro and tends to float to the topic of the day.
Why you want to be led by a liar and a loser that only cares about himself continues to intrigue me. She destroyed him because he has no self control, you want someone without self control to have the nuclear codes?
-
You should really watch the debate. We know the Republican politicians support a nationwide abortion ban, it is part of Project2025 which was written by members of the Trump administration. It is supported by the radical Heritage foundation. When asked to say that he would not sign a nationwide abortion ban, Trump refused! He said he supports the Florida 6 week abortion ban and will vote for it.
All lies.
if you watched the debate, you would know better.
or, you do know better, and you can't stop lying.
-
you managed to make a whole post without proving anything i asked
typical...
You should really watch the debate. We know the Republican politicians support a nationwide abortion ban, it is part of Project2025 which was written by members of the Trump administration. It is supported by the radical Heritage foundation. When asked to say that he would not sign a nationwide abortion ban, Trump refused! He said he supports the Florida 6 week abortion ban and will vote for it.
-
Everyone saw what happened tonight. 3 against one and they still lost. The media has zero credibility, and people who shamelessly repeat their lies are either morons or hypocrites.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb57fa768-a728-41ab-80e2-f6dfc234adf5_1290x815.jpeg)
-
Ask Trump to prove he won the election. He is still claiming that he is the winner of the 2020 election. Spreading election lies and misinformation.
Also, It appears he still thinks he is running against Biden. Might want to check on that.
Don't you have some booster shots to take or a sex change to schedule for your kids?
-
...because I really care about what Taylor swift thinks.
-
She was literally given every advantage and still lost
-
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff11928a4-d12f-4693-893b-9cce2af5ffa5_707x906.jpeg)
-
Ask Trump to prove he won the election. He is still claiming that he is the winner of the 2020 election. Spreading election lies and misinformation.
Also, It appears he still thinks he is running against Biden. Might want to check on that.
We have an entire thread about this WITH evidence posted. I told you many times months ago to read the ENTIRE ELECTION FRAUD thread. You obviously didn't read it.
-
...because I really care about what Taylor swift thinks.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Ask Trump to prove he won the election. He is still claiming that he is the winner of the 2020 election. Spreading election lies and misinformation.
Also, It appears he still thinks he is running against Biden. Might want to check on that.
Ask the judges that denied an incumbent president standing to allow Trump's legal team to present that evidence.
He can't prove the election was stolen without a chance to actually present evidence.
From the many "anomalies" i've seen published about the 2020 election, if it wasn't stolen, we're wide open to it happening this election or the next. The process has zero integrity.
-
So 3 on 1 ?
He was fact checked on migrants not eating pets, it's illegal in every state to kill a baby after birth, and that he lost the 2020 election.
We expect him to confront dictators and he can't handle answering 3 questions truthfully?
Aside from these items I guess he had nothing to say.
The argument by Dem Debater #2 was that there is no proof of what Trump said.
Therefore, it may actually be true, and you would be wrong.
As for the after-birth murder of newborns, ....
“[Third trimester abortions are] done in cases where there may be severe
deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular
example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,”
Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP.
“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The
infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html
That process does not describe an abortion. A delivery has already occurred.
This process describes how the doctor and mother can decide post-delivery whether the infant -- his word -- will live or die.
That's called a homicide, not an abortion. Post-delivery termination of the infant's life.
You really have no morals, ddo you?
-
Trump should not chicken out and do a debate on fox. He will still be an utter disgrace on that too. Even if the mods don't point out his endless lies.
-
Why should I care what a singer, or any celebrity endorses?
As for the debate, it was garbage. There were a few good blows back and forth but Trump did crappy, Harris was crappy, and the moderators were terrible.
-
Trump should not chicken out and do a debate on fox. He will still be an utter disgrace on that too. Even if the mods don't point out his endless lies.
What about your princess's lies. She get's a free pass like last time?
Your term "chicken out" can be applied to her highness also. Would have loved to have seen that Sept. 4th debate but I guess the princess wasn't ready.
Trump, with all his "shortcomings" still shows up even if not quite as prepared.
By the way, moderators are not supposed to fact check. That's why the ABC "debate" was a joke.
-
People are beginning to realize who the real "bully" is here. It's not Trump.
Time to trim the huge, ugly tree called government down to size. Getting too big, smug, and obnoxious.
-
Swifts pick in men isn't the greatest. Maybe her pick in women is better? I'd watch that OF video. Her and Hyena. I mean, why not add in AOC and generate billions in revenue.
-
Trump should not chicken out and do a debate on fox. He will still be an utter disgrace on that too. Even if the mods don't point out his endless lies.
When a debate ends, the winner is usually less interested in a rematch. They know they won, and a rematch just gives the other side a second chance to do better.
The loser is the one who will push for a second debate, because they know they need to repair the damage.
Remember when Obama failed miserably in the first debate against Romney? The whole MSM was ready to throw in the towel. Only after Candy Crowley, the supposed moderator, inaccurately fact-checked Romney (at Obama's request) did Romney realize he was being tag teamed. Romney's answers were still better, but Obama gained back his confidence which in turn let him throw zingers to score points.
So, pay attention to who is calling for another debate. That will show you without a doubt which side knows they lost.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjVt3cuNzsk
-
She was literally given every advantage and still lost
That has not been proven to be true. The ear rings she is wearing to share many similarities with the ear pieces by that company but they also closely resemble a model of Tiffany ear rings.
After looking at both, what she is wearing during the debate looks more like the Tiffany ear rings than that brand of earpiece.
-
That has not been proven to be true. The ear rings she is wearing to share many similarities with the ear pieces by that company but they also closely resemble a model of Tiffany ear rings.
After looking at both, what she is wearing during the debate looks more like the Tiffany ear rings than that brand of earpiece.
If these were part of a kick starter project, could the project developers not be contacted and provided a regular pair of Tiffany earrings to retrofit? If it were me, I'd have provided 2 identical pair of earrings -- one with the BT electronics and one without. Then you can be seen with the regular pair before and after the debate, and nobody would take a second glance.
One inconsistency might be enough for you to question it, but to a thinking person, would it not be more reasonable to assume an effort was made to add an inconsistency for the naysayers to hitch their denials to? Comparing what she wore to a photo on the project website won't prove anything except the ones she wore were different -- not that they weren't a cheat.
-
When a debate ends, the winner is usually less interested in a rematch. They know they won, and a rematch just gives the other side a second chance to do better..
A second debate isn't a rematch and when have you ever known Trump to admit he lost something even when he obviously did? Trump not being interested in a second debate has zero bearing on whether he was the "winner". I could just as easily say that Trump doesn't want to do a second debate because he knows he lost the first.
Trump's performance was garbage. He got a few good hits in but he fell for the bait as soon as Harris mentioned crowd size and he went off on the tangent about Hattians eating pets and rather than maturely walking back his statement when he was confronted that there wasn't any evidence of this actually happening he doubled down by saying he heard someone say it on TV. He couldn't stay on topic and ranted like an old angry man. Even Brit Hume from fox said “Make no mistake about it: Trump had a bad night,”
If you think he actually performed well during the debate then so be it but his proclaiming there won't be another debate is not indicative of how well he performed.
-
If these were part of a kick starter project, could the project developers not be contacted and provided a regular pair of Tiffany earrings to retrofit? If it were me, I'd have provided 2 identical pair of earrings -- one with the BT electronics and one without. Then you can be seen with the regular pair before and after the debate, and nobody would take a second glance.
One inconsistency might be enough for you to question it, but to a thinking person, would it not be more reasonable to assume an effort was made to add an inconsistency for the naysayers to hitch their denials to? Comparing what she wore to a photo on the project website won't prove anything except the ones she wore were different -- not that they weren't a cheat.
Is it possible that someone custom made the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings or modified the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings? Sure, such a thing could be done but anyone proclaiming it as a fact is just being lead by desires.
Honestly, if she really were going to wear earbuds then why not where tiny in-ear ones that wouldn't show up at all? Or why not hide those bone conducting earpieces under her hair where no one would be able to see it at all? Seems awfully risky to try and hide earbuds in plain sight when the product is publicly known. Again, not saying they could not have been earbuds but I would call it very unlikely.
If she was wearing earbuds and listening to someone coaching her then they must not have been working right because she really didn't say much of any substance.
-
A second debate isn't a rematch and when have you ever known Trump to admit he lost something even when he obviously did? Trump not being interested in a second debate has zero bearing on whether he was the "winner". I could just as easily say that Trump doesn't want to do a second debate because he knows he lost the first.
Trump's performance was garbage. He got a few good hits in but he fell for the bait as soon as Harris mentioned crowd size and he went off on the tangent about Hattians eating pets and rather than maturely walking back his statement when he was confronted that there wasn't any evidence of this actually happening he doubled down by saying he heard someone say it on TV. He couldn't stay on topic and ranted like an old angry man. Even Brit Hume from fox said “Make no mistake about it: Trump had a bad night,”
If you think he actually performed well during the debate then so be it but his proclaiming there won't be another debate is not indicative of how well he performed.
Wrong.
in the debates of 15 years ago when Obama was debating, each debate night was supposed to focus on different areas: economy, foreign policy, domestic social issues, etc. If you watched the debate this week, you should have seen the departure from that. They presented a hodge podge of topics, supposedly taken from the top issues on voters' minds.
So, if there is another debate, it won't be because it was programmed with a different area of topics. It'll be for Harris to rehabilitate her campaign closer to the election -- and that means trying to get Trump to make himself look worse. There's little chance that Harris can improve anymore than her current self.
-
Is it possible that someone custom made the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings or modified the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings? Sure, such a thing could be done but anyone proclaiming it as a fact is just being lead by desires.
Honestly, if she really were going to wear earbuds then why not where tiny in-ear ones that wouldn't show up at all? Or why not hide those bone conducting earpieces under her hair where no one would be able to see it at all? Seems awfully risky to try and hide earbuds in plain sight when the product is publicly known. Again, not saying they could not have been earbuds but I would call it very unlikely.
If she was wearing earbuds and listening to someone coaching her then they must not have been working right because she really didn't say much of any substance.
More unsupported questions.
:sleeping:
-
More unsupported questions.
:sleeping:
The people who opened the border, crashed the dollar, weaponized the justice system, and forced everyone to take dangerous experimental drugs would never stoop that low.
-
I read somewhere or watched something that stated that Taylor Swift's endorsement was supposed to be an "October surprise". The final push to get the princess through the election.
But instead the endorsement was revealed the same night as the debate ended.
But it didn't move the needle either way for the princess.
-
Is it possible that someone custom made the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings or modified the earbuds to closely resemble Tiffany earrings? Sure, such a thing could be done but anyone proclaiming it as a fact is just being lead by desires.
Honestly, if she really were going to wear earbuds then why not where tiny in-ear ones that wouldn't show up at all? Or why not hide those bone conducting earpieces under her hair where no one would be able to see it at all? Seems awfully risky to try and hide earbuds in plain sight when the product is publicly known. Again, not saying they could not have been earbuds but I would call it very unlikely.
If she was wearing earbuds and listening to someone coaching her then they must not have been working right because she really didn't say much of any substance.
Have you never worn an ear device? Even the "covert" ones are visible to someone looking for one. Their best option was to use rings with a speaker. What they didn't factor in was the power of using the internet to find the truth. This is something their campaign and admin haven't understood yet. Instead, they rely on controlling the flow of information.
-
I wear ear devices. I get called out all the time when at the craps tables. Next time I'll tell them my auntie kamala made these especially for me...... ;)
:rofl:
Seriously, though, the only reason sh*t like these flies around is because she is known to be very weak on interviews and when confronted with impromptu questions from reporters.
She looked unusually out of character that night but of course, ABC helped with that.
-
Starting a sentence with "honestly". So you were lying to us before?. So dumb.
Anyone with an SDR tuned to those ISM freqs can figure out if the hyena was wearing a wireless receiver.
-
Starting a sentence with "honestly". So you were lying to us before?. So dumb.
Anyone with an SDR tuned to those ISM freqs can figure out if the hyena was wearing a wireless receiver.
Yeah, people that start their statement with "honestly", are not, well, honest. :rofl:
Yes, it is an inherent biden administration trait and yes, it is so dumb.......
And I'd also like to add: Anyone that laughs and smiles and giggles regularly often hides lack of confidence and sincerity.
-
They were asked to produce evidence and they had nothing.
He has no case and over 60 judges said so. Even Judges that he appointed ruled that he had no evidence and no standing. They have never provided any evidence of election fraud and never will. Anomalies are not evidence. They already tried that fishing expedition in AZ and came up with nothing.
They were asked by whom? Show me the details, not just your biased, uninformed opinion.
-
They were asked by whom? Show me the details, not just your biased, uninformed opinion.
Giuliani already admitted that he lied in court so it's over. Now Trump is hanging out with Nazis. Conservative values.
-
Giuliani already admitted that he lied in court so it's over. Now Trump is hanging out with Nazis.
When you post Nazi nonsense, you've lost any ounce of credibility and truthfulness you might have had.
Get a life.
-
When you post Nazi nonsense, you've lost any ounce of credibility and truthfulness you might have had.
Get a life.
People on this board and Trump are still promoting the cat eating Haitian lie that was started by the following Neo Nazi group. This is who you believe?
(https://www.peoplesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Ohio-Nazis-are-back.jpg)
-
those are feds...
Giuliani already admitted that he lied in court so it's over. Now Trump is hanging out with Nazis. Conservative values.
-
They were asked to produce evidence and they had nothing.
He has no case and over 60 judges said so. Even Judges that he appointed ruled that he had no evidence and no standing. They have never provided any evidence of election fraud and never will. Anomalies are not evidence. They already tried that fishing expedition in AZ and came up with nothing.
They were asked by whom? Show me the details, not just your biased, uninformed opinion.
Answer Flapp's question. They were asked by whom? Answer the question.
Because I'd like to know too.
-
Answer Flapp's question. They were asked by whom? Answer the question.
Because I'd like to know too.
Xhe doesn't answer questions asked. Xhe instead deflects or post no reply. There are a lot of post asking for good evidence and no replies.
-
only time I heard xhe answer questions was when xhe crossed the yellow line during a cease fire.
-
Yeah, people that start their statement with "honestly", are not, well, honest. :rofl:
Non-sequitur you missed the meaning of the word in that context. It is not about my truthfulness rather it is a phrase that takes the edge off of the sentence to follow that someone might not like. In other words I am about to point out a flaw in the reasoning but I don't want it to sound rude. If you are familiar with the bible you will see times where Jesus said "truly I tell you..." It doesn't mean Jesus was lying all the other times.
-
Have you never worn an ear device? Even the "covert" ones are visible to someone looking for one. Their best option was to use rings with a speaker. What they didn't factor in was the power of using the internet to find the truth. This is something their campaign and admin haven't understood yet. Instead, they rely on controlling the flow of information.
You are entitled to your suspicions. As I indicated, it is not impossible, I just think it unlikely.
-
People on this board and Trump are still promoting the cat eating Haitian lie that was started by the following Neo Nazi group. This is who you believe?
(https://www.peoplesworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Ohio-Nazis-are-back.jpg)
So because Trump repeated a story that a Nazi group also repeated that means they are hanging out?
BTW, there was a clip of what sounded like a black man speaking at some sort of meeting and he said they were eating pets so it's not like some nazi conspriacy.
-
Anyone with an SDR tuned to those ISM freqs can figure out if the hyena was wearing a wireless receiver.
How would you filter it out from the noise from all the other Bluetooth devices in the room?
-
How would you filter it out from the noise from all the other Bluetooth devices in the room?
you learn
-
you learn
I'll take your word for it. Sounds like the best option would be to take a jammer in with you to stop Harris from cheating if she was. Might be breaking some laws though...
-
Non-sequitur you missed the meaning of the word in that context. It is not about my truthfulness rather it is a phrase that takes the edge off of the sentence to follow that someone might not like. In other words I am about to point out a flaw in the reasoning but I don't want it to sound rude. If you are familiar with the bible you will see times where Jesus said "truly I tell you..." It doesn't mean Jesus was lying all the other times.
Honest wasn't a word back then? To me "truly" and "honesty" is different.
-
I'll take your word for it. Sounds like the best option would be to take a jammer in with you to stop Harris from cheating if she was. Might be breaking some laws though...
Hey slick. You mentioned the illegal jammer not me. I did not mention anything about emitting RF.
-
Non-sequitur you missed the meaning of the word in that context. It is not about my truthfulness rather it is a phrase that takes the edge off of the sentence to follow that someone might not like. In other words I am about to point out a flaw in the reasoning but I don't want it to sound rude. If you are familiar with the bible you will see times where Jesus said "truly I tell you..." It doesn't mean Jesus was lying all the other times.
When i was growing up, a sentence that started with "honestly" meant the entire sentence was going to be one of exasperation.
"Honestly, I don't know why you can't understand how ignorant you sound!"
So, keep your little grammar lectures to yourself unless you're going to present all possible uses of the terms. All you're doing is microfocusing on one word because you don't see the witticism implied by others.
Honestly!!
-
You are entitled to your suspicions. As I indicated, it is not impossible, I just think it unlikely.
Sounds like you've jumped to a conclusion unsupported by any facts.
A wise person withholds their opinion until they can state it beyond the level of "unlikely."
I can just as easily say it's unlikely that Harris would reject the offer to cheat given her debate performance of the past. Also it's a given that in 2016, the DNC co-chair, Donna Brazile, cheated by sending advance copies of CNN-sponsored candidate events to her friends working on the Hillary Clinton campaign.
So, is it really unlikely a Democrat would once again cheat given their history and the current "win at all costs" attitude of the Democrats?
I'm not jumping to a conclusion. I'm basing mine on experience and probabilities. You seem to be straddling the fence and refusing to look at anything that doesn't rise to the level of direct, incontrovertible evidence.
Don't be ashamed if you can't yet form an opinion either way. You have set an extremely high a bar for yourself. But holding others to that standard doesn't do anything to promote discussion. It's just argumentative.
Maybe you should wait to post your actual opinion instead of constantly shooting others' opinions down with words like "unlikely" -- an comment unsupported by any real evidence. It just makes you sound desperate for attention.
-
How would you filter it out from the noise from all the other Bluetooth devices in the room?
One way is to examine the specs of the device she's being suspected of using. Bluetooth technology uses the 2.4 GHz ISM spectrum band (2400 to 2483.5 MHz). WiFi uses 2.4, 5.0 and 6.0 GHz spectrum bands.
WiFi is not often point-to-point, meaning it needs a device between devices to connect them, such as a WiFi access point and router. BT, however, is point-to-point between paired devices.
It's just science. I can isolate every device on my WiFi network with an Android app: WiFiman. Each device reports its individual IP address, network connection (SSID), and band being used.
BlueTooth is easier. BT devices have a shorter range, so anyone in the studio using it could be identified by signal strength.
Most importantly, this was a closed set without an audience. Everyone there could be told to turn off all cellphone or other wireless devices.
Simple.
-
https://youtu.be/nAniW8y5Ko4 (https://youtu.be/nAniW8y5Ko4)
-
The Project2025 is still a disaster endorsed by JD Vance and written by past members of the Trump administration. It's so horrible he denies it. Yet still he supports a 6 week abortion ban in Florida and is willing to sign a nationwide abortion ban.
When you have Trump lying about people eating cats, and crowd sizes fetishes on a national debate, it is so bizarro and tends to float to the topic of the day.
Why you want to be led by a liar and a loser that only cares about himself continues to intrigue me. She destroyed him because he has no self control, you want someone without self control to have the nuclear codes?
The same could be said about Rules for radicals, except no one has implemented anything from project 2025, where the democrats have been using Rules for Radicals as a playbook for years.
-
You should really watch the debate. We know the Republican politicians support a nationwide abortion ban, it is part of Project2025 which was written by members of the Trump administration. It is supported by the radical Heritage foundation. When asked to say that he would not sign a nationwide abortion ban, Trump refused! He said he supports the Florida 6 week abortion ban and will vote for it.
Does it matter if the Queen of England herself supports a national ban on abortion? If Trump holds the position that it should be left up to the states, and says publicly many times he does not support, and will not institute a nationwide abortion ban, then again you are just lying. If you have to lie to make a point, your point is not worth hearing.
-
So 3 on 1 ?
He was fact checked on migrants not eating pets, it's illegal in every state to kill a baby after birth, and that he lost the 2020 election.
We expect him to confront dictators and he can't handle answering 3 questions truthfully?
Aside from these items I guess he had nothing to say.
https://patch.com/minnesota/across-mn/tim-walz-repealed-mn-law-protecting-babies-born-after-failed-abortions
Five babies died in Minnesota after they were born alive due to a failed induced abortion in 2021.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/sep/11/ohio-attorney-general-dave-yost-backs-claims-about/
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost weighed in Wednesday in defense of former President Donald Trump’s claims of Haitian migrants eating pets by saying there is a credible claim that they are capturing geese for food.
“There’s a recorded police call from a witness who saw immigrants capturing geese for food in Springfield. Citizens testified to City Council,” Mr. Yost said on social media
-
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1zxXq68giXY
-
Why you want to be led by a liar and a loser that only cares about himself continues to intrigue me. She destroyed him because he has no self control, you want someone without self control to have the nuclear codes?
He had the nuclear codes. For 4 years. The world back then was in relative peace. There was little need to think about those codes.
The world right now is on the brink of a possible nuclear war. Whoever is elected in November unfortunately will have to deal with this possibility.
You are very focused on the candidates personality. I focus on policy. Trumps foreign policy is geared toward peace. kamala's policy is geared toward whoever pulls her strings at the moment. Her flip-flopping is exactly why I cannot and will not support her.
Trump's policies, which he makes very clear by the way, (unlike kamala's, who is the mystery door #1 on the Price is Right,) is what drives me to support him.
Policies. Not personality.
Thomas Jefferson once said, Those who don't know anything, give long explanations.
In other words: word salad. Seems like kamala is the world champion on word salad. nuff said.
-
Honest wasn't a word back then? To me "truly" and "honesty" is different.
Jesus also didn't speak English.
The point was about the speaking style where someone prefaces a sentence in this way. It is common and there are different ways it is done from a simple word like "honestly" so a phrase like "I am not going to sugar coat this..."
-
When i was growing up, a sentence that started with "honestly" meant the entire sentence was going to be one of exasperation.
"Honestly, I don't know why you can't understand how ignorant you sound!"
So, keep your little grammar lectures to yourself unless you're going to present all possible uses of the terms. All you're doing is microfocusing on one word because you don't see the witticism implied by others.
Honestly!!
I wouldn't have to give this little lesson if people understood common speaking styles. I don't need to give all the possible uses, I only needed to give the one in which I used it.
Maybe another example would help.
"Truth be told, everyone knows you are a troll on this forum". It is softening an uncomfortable truth that is about to be told.
-
Sounds like you've jumped to a conclusion unsupported by any facts.
A wise person withholds their opinion until they can state it beyond the level of "unlikely."
I can just as easily say it's unlikely that Harris would reject the offer to cheat given her debate performance of the past. Also it's a given that in 2016, the DNC co-chair, Donna Brazile, cheated by sending advance copies of CNN-sponsored candidate events to her friends working on the Hillary Clinton campaign.
So, is it really unlikely a Democrat would once again cheat given their history and the current "win at all costs" attitude of the Democrats?
I'm not jumping to a conclusion. I'm basing mine on experience and probabilities. You seem to be straddling the fence and refusing to look at anything that doesn't rise to the level of direct, incontrovertible evidence.
Don't be ashamed if you can't yet form an opinion either way. You have set an extremely high a bar for yourself. But holding others to that standard doesn't do anything to promote discussion. It's just argumentative.
Maybe you should wait to post your actual opinion instead of constantly shooting others' opinions down with words like "unlikely" -- an comment unsupported by any real evidence. It just makes you sound desperate for attention.
Wrong.
I jumped to no conclusion, I pointed out that a loose resemblance of two products isn't enough evidence to determine she cheated.
When I said it was unlikely, that is my simply my prediction for whether this conspiracy theory is true. Not much different than if you said it was unlikely that a particular football team would win the superbowl next year.
BTW, I predict with high likelihood you are just trolling.
-
The people who opened the border, crashed the dollar, weaponized the justice system, and forced everyone to take dangerous experimental drugs would never stoop that low.
That sounds like a wacko conspiracy theorist speaking.
-
So because Trump repeated a story that a Nazi group also repeated that means they are hanging out?
BTW, there was a clip of what sounded like a black man speaking at some sort of meeting and he said they were eating pets so it's not like some nazi conspriacy.
There are black Nazis. I have no idea why but they do exist.
-
That sounds like a wacko conspiracy theorist speaking.
Every one of the "theories" he listed are demonstrably true.
Try again, hater.
-
Hey slick. You mentioned the illegal jammer not me. I did not mention anything about emitting RF.
The government is allowed to use jammers during briefings.
-
Does it matter if the Queen of England herself supports a national ban on abortion? If Trump holds the position that it should be left up to the states, and says publicly many times he does not support, and will not institute a nationwide abortion ban, then again you are just lying. If you have to lie to make a point, your point is not worth hearing.
He refused to say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it came to his desk. This means he would consider it and won't rule out a national abortion ban.
-
The government is allowed to use jammers during briefings.
Wrong. They only use them in emergencies, like near a bomb threat scene if it happens to be on a cellular trigger.
it's illegal to jam cell phone signals for a briefing. What would that even accomplish? A jammer won't interfere with video or audio recordings if the device is close enough to the briefer.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
-
Every one of the "theories" he listed are demonstrably true.
Try again, hater.
If they weren't proven in court they are not true and just lies correct?
-
Wrong. They only use them in emergencies, like near a bomb threat scene if it happens to be on a cellular trigger.
it's illegal to jam cell phone signals for a briefing. What would that even accomplish? A jammer won't interfere with video or audio recordings if the device is close enough to the briefer.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
You have no military experience. The government uses jammers.
-
He refused to say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it came to his desk. This means he would consider it and won't rule out a national abortion ban.
You're an idiot.
Trump didn't answer the hypothetical question either way because THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has already ruled that the federal government does not have the right to decide questions on abortion. Period. No further need to look at anything any presidential candidate says on the matter.
The STATES have full authority to allow their legislators and voters to decide on abortion issues.
The US Congress would not be able to pass a "national abortion ban" without violating the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade. So, any "bill" Trump may or may not veto is purely hypothetical and can not happen in the 4 years he'll be in office. It would take the SCOTUS to reverse their ruling, and that isn't possible given the makeup of the SCOTUS isn't changing soon.
-
You have no military experience. The government uses jammers.
I have 10 years as a Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence officer.
The military uses jammers in-theater for combat tactics. i worked on the E-3 AWACS program, and our jammers were capable of not only jamming enemy radar and communications, but also of using multiple platforms (e.g. 2 AWACS) to locate the position of jammers using triangulation of the jamming signals being used against our warfighters.
So, once again, you are wrong. These tactics are ILLEGAL to use on US soil to disrupt US signals during peacetime. Law enforcement, as i said, can us it in emergency situations, but not for "briefings." :rofl:
-
He refused to say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it came to his desk. This means he would consider it and won't rule out a national abortion ban.
Why would he make a hypothetical? SCOTUS already ruled on the issue. Try to keep up.
-
You have no military experience. The government uses jammers.
Please show where Flapp said the government doesn't use jammers. In fact, he said 1 instance of when they do use them and posted the evidence.
Nice try, trying to change the answer.
-
There are black Nazis. I have no idea why but they do exist.
You're unaware of a lot of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLNDqxrUUwQ
Not a Nazi, but KKK.
-
There are black Nazis. I have no idea why but they do exist.
Okay, so a black nazi spoke at some town hall meeting and reported a third party story about some illegal aliens eating pets that means Trump hangs with Nazis? WTF
-
Okay, so a black nazi spoke at some town hall meeting and reported a third party story about some illegal aliens eating pets that means Trump hangs with Nazis? WTF
He hangs out with Laura Loomer who is a keynote speaker at events for Klansmen and Nazis and she is a self proclaimed white advocate(supremacist). So yeah, Trump is hanging out with Nazi's, white supremacists. They are all the same group. They share the same ideology and hate for the United States and non-white people.
Trumps JD Vance admitted today that they are creating this story that was originated by the Blood Tribe Nazi group.
-
He hangs out with Laura Loomer who is a keynote speaker at events for Klansmen and Nazis and she is a self proclaimed white advocate(supremacist). So yeah, Trump is hanging out with Nazi's, white supremacists. They are all the same group. They share the same ideology and hate for the United States and non-white people.
Show proof she's got anything to do with Nazis, the Klan or White Supremacists.
If you can't, then you're just bashing her because she's associated with Trump, nothing more.
TDS.
https://youtu.be/l60MnDJklnM
-
Show proof she's got anything to do with Nazis, the Klan or White Supremacists.
If you can't, then you're just bashing her because she's associated with Trump, nothing more.
She is a keynote speaker at their meetings. Have you heard her speak? She is a white supremacist. She is a well known racist.
-
She is a keynote speaker at their meetings. Have you heard her speak? She is a white supremacist. She is a well known racist.
You typing stuff is not proof.
Put up or shut up.
-
You typing stuff is not proof.
Put up or shut up.
We've asked for proof of his statements for some time now and either get no reply, a deflection, or something that didn't answer the question of proof.
-
We've asked for proof of his statements for some time now and either get no reply, a deflection, or something that didn't answer the question of proof.
I know, but the more times we ask, the more times xhe demonstrates our accusation is factual.
-
And the other shoe has dropped ...
Taylor Swift's Kamala endorsement backfires: poll.
After Swift expressed her support, 20% of poll respondents
said they were "somewhat" or "less likely" to vote for Harris.
Assuming that 20% are still going to vote, and also assuming they switch to Trump, that's a 40% swing in votes going from Harris to Trump from those people polled.
Amazing!! I guess celebrity endorsements are no longer in vogue.
Maybe the Internet is exposing the truth about celebrities? Most of the ones not smart enough to keep their opinions to themselves show just how stupid their opinions are. And that doesn't just include politics.
https://youtu.be/Dq-n1pJPfQw
-
You typing stuff is not proof.
Put up or shut up.
Common knowledge is not so common anymore.
-
Common knowledge is not so common anymore.
such as staying behind the yellow line during a cease fire at a range
-
You typing stuff is not proof.
Put up or shut up.
Common knowledge is not so common anymore.
such as staying behind the yellow line during a cease fire at a range
Common knowledge is still here. But not in their realm.
-
such as staying behind the yellow line during a cease fire at a range
===========
Is this a joke or did this actually happen?
-
Common knowledge is not so common anymore.
So, you have only what's in your head to offer as proof.
Gotcha.
I guess you also don't know what "put up or shut up" means.
Too much to hope you'll shut up even though you still haven't been able to put up any facts.
-
Common knowledge is not so common anymore.
To a few and these few all have 1 topic in common.
-
===========
Is this a joke or did this actually happen?
common knowledge
-
He refused to say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it came to his desk. This means he would consider it and won't rule out a national abortion ban.
and after a debate, and 3 interviews hasn't answered the question are Americans better off under the Biden/ Harris administration. This means she KNOWS we were all better off under Trump. .
-
and after a debate, and 3 interviews hasn't answered the question are Americans better off under the Biden/ Harris administration. This means she KNOWS we were all better off under Trump. .
Everyone knows, but there is a sizable population out there that is suffering illogically from TDS.
These never-Trumpers would rather bend over and take it, no matter how big, and no matter for how long. :rofl:
Sad thing is, these people are the financially elite, and they are brainwashing the poor lower and middle class sheeple to follow along.
-
He refused to say that he would veto a national abortion ban if it came to his desk. This means he would consider it and won't rule out a national abortion ban.
So what? That is so vague as to be functionally useless. A national ban could mean anything from no abortion ever (Something most Americans are against) to no abortions in the 3rd trimester with exceptions for the life of the mother. (Something most americans are for)