tilaceer

No, we dont know, despite what has already been posted on here that it appears you have not read. Please enlighten us why Dems voted against it, and why this particular piece of legislation is different to the laws that already exist in regard to this issue.

As its Fun Friday ! Some expert opinions on Trump having dementia, (passed down from his father, like his wealth). Trump Not Having Dementia: Dr Ronny Jackson, (or Johnson according to Trump): The Candyman Trump Having Dementia: Suzanne Lachmann: New York psychologist John Gartner: Psychologist and former professor at Johns Hopkins University Medical School Dr. Lance Dodes: A supervising analyst emeritus of the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and retired Harvard Medical School professor Justin Frank: Former Professor of Psychiatry at George Washington Medical School Vincent Greenwood: Executive director of the Washington Center For Cognitive Therapy Harry Segal: Senior lecturer at Cornell University and Weill Cornell Medical School Over 700 mental health experts submitted a petition to Congress warning of Trump’s declining mental health.

Domestic violence can be considered a crime of moral turpitude or aggravated felony and is also listed by name in the federal statutory grounds of deportability, meaning an immigrant convicted of this crime can be removed from the United States. The Bill was performative and did not do what Republicans claimed it would do. Specifically, it: -did not add any new protections for victims of DV -did not add any grounds for deportation that do not already exist without this bill -did not add any new grounds for denial of entry into the US that do not already exist without this bill But the bigger problem is that it was drafted so broadly that it risked making being a victim of DV grounds for inadmissibility or deportation. And as Jerry has already posted, Nader gives a reasonable argument why to oppose this theatrical legislation, especially when the legislation to deport already exists. If I see that 158 politicians opposed a bill, especially considering who some of those are, I want to find out what their reasonings are. But, in a rush to post something, (anything), derogatory about Dems a link is posted, typically from Fox (who would never post both sides of a story), and then Maga's run around like chickens with their heads cut off without doing any research. Fox is all they need !

Mainstream media show Harris getting more people than Trump, so perhaps you could share your link with us that proves otherwise, as required by forum rules, (btw her name is spelled with a capital K ) ? For example: (Please note that these numbers do not contain the many Trump supporters who left during his rallies). Crowd size estimates at campaign events Harris Sat., Aug. 10 Las Vegas 6,200 Tue., Aug. 20 Milwaukee, Wis. 12,800 Thu., Aug. 29 Savannah, Ga. 6,200 Trump Fri., Aug. 9 Bozeman, Mont. 4,300 Sat., Aug. 17 Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 5,900 Fri., Aug. 23 Glendale, Ariz. 11,500

Unsubstantiated opinion. C'mon, you are better than this garbage.

Nothing to do with Harris supporters or pop singers. Its all about having a commodity that you want to sell and trying to entice people to buy into that product by using what is perceived as popular at the time. Wrestlers/Sports people, "celebrities", musicians (or Ted Nugent), Russian Government, film or tv stars are just some who are deemed as influencers. Politics, Tobacco, Alcohol, Pillows, Signature Guitars (don't get me started), whitegoods, automobiles and bikes as an example. The difference is when people lend their support because they really believe in what they are endorsing, or those who do it just for licensing revenue for example, vodka, steaks, energy drinks, fragrancies, lamps, eyeglasses, chocolate etc. I don't think its a bad thing if someone can use their reach to encourage others to become politically aware. Both sides have used this to try and lever an advantage. At the moment its Swift. Politics is big business. Trump appears butt hurt because he does not have an endorsement from someone who has as much visibility. If he did, you can bet your life he would use it to the max, brother !

A thief offering to pay the money back is still theft. Trump admitted it and offered/forced to pay the money back. Obtaining money by deception.....Theft. I knew that you would try and pull the "The judge never actually called him a thief card, so therefore he is not a thief". You are nitpicking to try and obfuscate. Nothing to apologise for. He has defrauded people and organisations for financial benefit....ie thieved.

You could ask Laura Loomer.

Absolute laughable rubbish. Why do Trumpers persist in spouting blatantly false information ?

What is seditious conspiracy? It is a federal crime found in Section 2384 of Title 18 of the United States code. That law makes it a crime for two or more people to actively plot to overthrow by force the federal government, to levy war against it, to unlawfully seize federal property or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”

Supposition. No, I wouldnt.

Trump bashing is never useless. Until that person is removed from every aspect of public life and is held to account for his actions, he is fair game.

Coincidence after Trumps rant ? I think not. Springfield, subject of baseless pet-eating claim spread by Trump at debate, receives bomb threats https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/springfield-bomb-threats-1.7321289

Makes them feel like big men. Small p3nis syndrome, just like daddy.

Funny, you didn't think Bill Maher was a joke when you used him to justify your comment that Trump won the previous debate by the biggest margin ever, because everybody said so. That everybody consisted of you, Shaun and Bill.

Gee, that's an intelligent response Frank. Does your credibility a world of good........not.

Remind us again, how much money did Trump and his family make whilst he was President, even though they were supposed to divest themselves from the business's during this sad timeframe ? Please also include Ivanka's 28 'foreign trademarks approved whilst appointed by nepotism to The White House.

You are now on Susan's Christmas card list.

Maga's will maintain that Trump won, and mainly justify that by bashing Harris. Never Trumpers will maintain that Harris won and cite various reasons why they feel this. Irrespective, I feel that his performance tonight will not win him anymore votes and indeed might cost him votes. There is no need for him to court Trumpers as they will never change their mind, but in trying to sway swing, independent's and those on the fence I believe he failed. Guess we will find out soon enough.

Even more scarier that Project 25.. https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-ziklag-secret-christian-charity-2024-election

QED

Reminds me of a dog, (cricket?), that is being scolded for doing something wrong and doesn't want to look at the owner to try and pretend it's not happening.

Your hostile news outlet comment is a standard maga obfuscation. What I wrote is standard modus operandi for Trumpers, as your selective responses illustrate.