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https://patch.com/minnesota/across-mn/tim-walz-repealed-mn-law-protecting-babies-born-after-failed-abortions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

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."   

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.



Not a Nazi, but KKK.