placeholder

Are you claiming that the Trump campaign was forced by the prosecution to expend funds on filing frivolous delaying motions? And whether or not chumps have a vote, or the strength of Trump's lead, have no bearing on the question of why the trials have been delayed.

Devastating Hawaii fires made ‘much more dangerous’ by climate change Hawaii is experiencing increasingly dry conditions, with scientists calculating that 90% of the state is getting less rainfall than it did a century ago, with the period since 2008 particularly dry. The growing susceptibility of Hawaii to major fires was highlighted by a 2015 study that found that rainfall has been 31% lower in the wet season since 1990, in selected monitoring sites on the islands. The state, known for its volcanoes and lush forests, is in parts drying out as global heating continues to escalate. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/11/hawaii-fires-made-more-dangerous-by-climate-crisis

Well, there had been warnings about the serious threat posed by fires since 2014. And apparently nothing was done about that. And should have been. On the other had, sometimes conditions are so bad, that preventative measures simply aren't enough. In Australia, for instance, it was argued that the fires were so bad because the usual preventative measures weren't taken. That turned out to be untrue. Even areas that had been thinned etc, fire raged out of control.

Which makes them chumps. But says nothing pertinent about the issue of how filing baseless motions has affected the Trump campaign's finances.

The fact is though, that they have been repeatedly scolded by judges for filing baseless motions. In other words, much of the delay is self-inflicted.

Evidence is slowly emerging of what? That the White House influenced the investigation? Can you share any of that evidence with us?

Well, if Trump's lawyers hadn't spent incurred so many expenses in filing frivolous motions, the Trump campaign would have a lot more funding still at its disposal.

Rather, he should be a lot less unhinged.

"Virtually guaranteed?" Do most similar FBI raids result in a shootout?

You mean the "smoking gun" committee? Why would anyone believe anything that these people claim? They are still doing their damnedest to try and spin Devon Archer's testimony that pretty much refuted all their claims about Joe Biden benefitting from Hunter Biden's business dealings.

Funny but empty. Like lots of right wingers here you seem to believe that absence of evidence = evidence

The reason for the delays in Trump's various trials is the frivolous motions raised by his attorney for which they have repeatedly been scolded by judges. If the trial is further delayed, which Trump's attorney are pushing for, Trump will have no one to blame but himself.

As Weiss has testified, he was never impeded by Garland in any way whatsoever during his investigations. This looks like a cosmetic move to officially seal what was always the case.

If you mean he spent most of his time sitting or leaning against something. But if you mean he wasn't capable of walking or holding a rifle, not really. As I pointed out, he volunteered to take neighbors to church. He wasn't housebound.

A lie is a falsehood that is known to be false by the person who says it. What Biden says was definitely false, but that doesn't prove it was a lie. As for Hunter Biden's quote, it's clearly someone engaging in a hyperbolic complaint about their expenditures on behalf of the family. Given the Hunter Biden was 49 in 2019, going back thirty years would make him 19 yeas old. Are you seriously suggesting that Hunter Biden was corruptly paying his father when he was 19 years old? Got any more nonsense to share with us?

Thanks for the argle-bargle. The fact is that comments like yours stress personality over programs. The most important question is where a candidate stands on the issues. Why should I care about how fit, say, Tim Scott is, or the alleged content of character compared to Joe Biden's, if the agenda he backs is one I find deplorable?

"Largely immobile?" I've read reports from neighbors that he often volunteered to give neighbors rides to church meetings. He had a walking stick. He wasn't confined to a wheelchair, was he? As for the rest, do you know how long the FBI waited for him to answer the door? Do you know how he responded? What, if anything he said? You got some evidence to share with us? Or are you just indulging in your penchant for fictionalizing?

The Republicans are in deep trouble over this issue. Before Dobbs, it was ardent right-to-lifers who were motivated to turn out in elections. Now it's going to be supporters of abortion rights as well. And they are far more likely to vote Democratic. Since the Dobbs decision, Democrats have over performed in special elections and did far better in the general elections than was predicted.

While most of the stuff you posted can't be fact checked because it's either based on conspiracy theory or just opinions, your assertion about tax rates being at their highest in decades most certainly can be checked. And it is nonsense: Here is a historical graph of corporate tax rates in the UK https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/corporate-tax-rate And here are income tax rates: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/personal-income-tax-rate

In other words, you've got nothing.

The FBI had strong grounds to believe that Robertson would violently resist arrest. What has this got to do with Hunter Biden? Did the FBI have strong grounds to believe that Hunter Biden would violently resist arrest? Or even resist arrest at all?

Can you show me where Chomper Higgott replied to this comment of yours? Mind-reading much?

I forget all about the death threats that Hunter Biden repeatedly posted. I can't seem to find any via google. Could you share with the rest of us links to those? On the off chance that they don't exist, could you explain why your mention of Hunter Biden isn't ridiculous?

Really? I wasn't aware that Chomper Higgott had replied to you yet. Are you reading his mind? I am aware that Chomper Higgot's comment was in response to nonsense from Hanaguma that because Robertson wasn't a sniper, therefore he posed no threat. As though the highly specialized skills of snipers, who are trained to shoot at targets from a long distance, or even his physical fitness, are relevant in this case.

So, if the FBI attempts to serve a warrant, it is permissible to threaten them with weapons? Waco was, in effect, a hostage situation. That wasn't the case here.