You read it ya crazy coot
2 Likes
The way you (over)react to @Loflyer could lead people to believe that you are some sort of “Right wing nutter”
I don’t believe that…but as I’ve previously said, your posts predominantly nitpick at the Democrats and posters who prefer Harris over Trump.
3 Likes
From the Age, a take I suppose and maybe with some merit - Trump will be disappointed the crap Cure cover band singer didn’t behave like mini Trump
“ This debate did not resolve a lingering issue with Vance: at age 39, with only two years’ experience in the Senate, is he really – really – ready to become the president if Trump, who would be the oldest person elected president, dies in office?
Harris cleared the bar on being “presidential” in the debate with Trump. Walz clearly showed he was fully capable of assuming the president’s office if required.
This debate will have no material effect on the outcome of the November election. In 2008, the Republican VP pick, Alaska’s Sarah (“I can see Russia from my house”) Palin was a drag on John McCain, but not responsible for his defeat by Barack Obama.
Vance, who is not popular, did not make the vicious personal attacks that Trump makes every day. As Trump’s final campaign progresses, he is becoming even more incandescent, extreme and reckless. “Kamala is mentally impaired … Joe Biden became mentally impaired. Kamala was born that way,” Trump told a rally last week. The crowd laughed at that one.
Vance followed Trump’s wake in pounding the bedrock of this campaign – immigration – but without Trump’s venom. Harris, Trump says, is “letting in people in who are going to walk into your house, break into your door, and they’ll do anything they want. These people are animals … These are stone-cold killers.”
This election now hinges on who gets their voters out: the Trump forces who have had enough of Biden and Harris, or the Harris forces who have had enough of Trump’s chaos? It is the Trump vote that is more certain. His crowds know but do not care about the rude excesses and filth that Trump dispenses daily. Very simply, they want him in to do the things he says he will do, and they trust he will absolutely do them. Starting with the mass deportation of immigrants.
Better, agreed. And funny
3 Likes
And? You better get used to it, and learn to love it.
A few posts “nitpick” Kamala Harris in 50,000+ posts. Give me a break, it’s a Politics thread 
My opinion at this moment is the Republicans will win November easily, Vance won this debate comprehensively in the first 3 quarters before the last quarter turned ino a weird agreeing fest for the last quarter and Walz improved near the end of the debate. Walz and Vance are miles better candidates than the deplorable two put up above them right now, and Walz is quirky but lovable and would destroy Kamala in a primary. Vance speaks like Trump could only dream as he’s eloquent speaking wise. Feel free to diagree with that opinion.
2 Likes
Yeah…Vance is such an outstanding individual
1 Like
Ooh…and here’s some more about what an “honest” guy he is:
1 Like
Somebody really living up to their blitz name in this thread. Could be right about the result though, seems like stupidity and hatred are on the up and up. Which will be extremely bad for us all. Oh well.
I did like Vance’s solution to gun violence in schools, stronger doors. That was enough for me
4 Likes
Thought he fell short in not asking for double glazing on windows, otherwise he destroyed Walz with that solution
2 Likes
Do you think this guy should go to jail?
Bombers won the flag this year.
How good was that?
We won last year too in case you missed it.
5 Likes
why are you comparing trump AND Harris as deplorable ?
I’m keen to know what you think are the “deplorable” Harris traits
2 Likes
Well, for one, apparently she laughs weird. Then she is too tough on crime (if you listen to libs) and not tough at all (if you speak to the MAGA crowd). Then there are her answers on policy which apparently are never specific enough except for when they are:
2 Likes
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/jack-smith-trump-case-00182258
Jack Smith lays out his case against Trump in vivid detail
In a newly unsealed legal brief, the special counsel revealed private, detailed conversations Trump had with GOP officials in his bid to subvert the 2020 election.
As his bid to hold on to power in 2020 grew increasingly desperate, Donald Trump pressed Republican Party Chair Ronna McDaniel to help promote a false claim that voting machines in Michigan had been manipulated.
McDaniel balked. She had spoken to the state’s House speaker, Lee Chatfield, a Republican, who told her the claim was “■■■■■■■ nuts.”
That detail was among a dossier of evidence unfurled Wednesday in a newly released legal brief by special counsel Jack Smith. The 165-page filing offers the most detailed look at Smith’s case charging Trump with orchestrating multiple criminal conspiracies in his failed quest to subvert Joe Biden’s victory.
The filing is replete with new revelations about the alleged scheme drawn from interviews with key figures such as former Vice President Mike Pence and Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
“With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results,” Smith’s prosecutors wrote. “The through line of these efforts was deceit: the defendant’s and co-conspirators’ knowingly false claims of election fraud.”
The filing is a blueprint of the evidence the special counsel hopes to present to a jury some day. The trial in the case had been scheduled to begin earlier this year, but the Supreme Court delayed the proceedings by eight months while it weighed Trump’s claim that he was immune from the charges.
The high court’s ruling endorsed a sweeping view of presidential immunity and tasked the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, with reviewing Smith’s evidence to determine whether any of it should be barred from consideration. That process could take months to resolve and likely result in yet another trip to the Supreme Court.
Smith’s new filing is squarely aimed at showing Trump’s conduct in 2020 was taken in his capacity as a candidate for office — not in his official capacity as president. As a result, the special counsel argues, Trump’s conduct should not be protected by immunity.
Smith submitted the sprawling legal brief to Chutkan last week, but it remained sealed until Wednesday. Over Trump’s objection, Chutkan publicly released a redacted version of the filing.
The filing contains details of private conversations Trump engaged in with Republican legislators and operatives throughout the post-election period in 2020, describing how they nearly all warned him that his allegations of election fraud were flimsy and false.
Smith also accuses Trump of intentionally stoking the fury of the mob that ransacked the Capitol and assaulted police on Jan. 6, 2021. Once Pence refused to join the alleged conspiracy, the special counsel alleges, Trump realized his only option to cling to power was to derail Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results on Jan. 6.
Smith reveals that Trump was alone in the Oval Office dining room when he issued an incendiary tweet about Pence during some of the most violent moments of the attack. Rioters — some of them chanting “hang Mike Pence!” — amplified the tweet, which accused Pence of lacking “the courage to do what should have been done.”
Many of the new details in the filing are clearly the result of interviews Smith’s team conducted with people who spoke directly to Trump during the critical two-month period between Election Day and Jan. 6 — and phone records confirm. When many of Trump’s aides and other fellow Republicans responded to his false claims with skepticism or outright repudiation, Trump responded with a mix of private pressure and public attacks, prosecutors say.
Trump’s lawyers aggressively fought Smith’s request to file the compilation of evidence with the court and opposed placing it on the public record. However, Chutkan ordered the release of the filing Wednesday with limited redactions. Though most names are blacked out in the public version of the document, many people can be identified from the context in which they are mentioned.
Trump responded angrily to the judge’s decision, firing off a series of messages on his Truth Social account, asserting without evidence that Smith’s prosecutors are driven by politics.
“The release of the falsehood-ridden, Unconstitutional J6 brief immediately following Tim Walz’s disastrous debate performance is another obvious attempt by the Harris-Biden regime to undermine American Democracy and interfere in this election,” Trump wrote, blasting the case as an “Unconstitutional Witch Hunt that should be dismissed entirely, together with ALL of the remaining Democrat hoaxes.”
Trump’s claim about the timing of the document’s release ignores the fact that it was Chutkan, not prosecutors, who controlled when it was made public.
Much of the new filing is devoted to arguing that many of Trump’s actions following Election Day were political or private in nature, and thus shouldn’t be considered part of the official duties a president may be entitled to immunity for. Smith’s submission also seems to have been prepared with an eye to the issue returning to the Supreme Court.
The filing quotes from a concurring opinion Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on the immunity issue earlier this year, echoing her position that there is “no plausible argument” that the alleged effort by Trump to organize false slates of electors was related to Trump’s official duties.
Smith notes that many of Trump’s conversations with Pence were in their “private capacities as running mates,” rather than discussions of Pence’s official duties on Jan. 6.
The new filing includes other developments, including allegations that additional individuals acted as co-conspirators with Trump, even though they were not among the six individuals referenced but unnamed in Smith’s original indictment last year and a revised indictment he issued in August in response to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. None of the alleged co-conspirators other than Trump are charged in the case.
In her order Wednesday releasing Smith’s filing, Chutkan also took a swipe at Trump’s lawyers, faulting them for littering their briefs with claims that prosecutors were engaged in “bad-faith partisan bias.”
“These accusations, for which Defendant provides no support, continue a pattern of defense filings focusing on political rhetoric rather than addressing the legal issues at hand,” Chutkan wrote. “Not only is that focus unresponsive and unhelpful to the court, but it is also unbefitting of experienced defense counsel and undermining of the judicial proceedings in this case.”
11 Likes
5 Likes
As long as Harris hangs on to PA … she should win next month.
2 Likes
incredible how people’s preferred candidates always seem to do very well in debates
5 Likes
interesting polls
3 Likes