16 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-27-20

  1. Huh. And we were just told this was a non-story…..

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/26/early-voters-want-to-change-vote-after-hunter-biden-exposes/

    “Some early voters want to change their vote after Hunter Biden exposés”

    “The Post’s exposés on Hunter Biden appear to have helped spark a rush of early voters seeing if they can change their minds — with New York one of a handful of states giving some that unexpected right.

    More than 58.5 million have already cast their ballots, and searches for “Can I change my vote” started trending over the last few days — linked to searches for “Hunter Biden,” according to Google Trends data.

    The biggest interest has come from Arizona, Tennessee and Virginia, all states that — like most of the US — only give residents one shot at the polls.

    But “in some states, you can submit your ballot, have a change of heart and, and submit a new ballot,” Matthew Weil, director of the Election Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Newsy.

    That includes New York, at least for those who mailed in an absentee ballot.

    “The Election Law recognizes that plans change,” the Empire State’s Board of Elections says.

    “Even if you request or cast and return an absentee ballot, you may still go to the polls and vote in person,” the rules state.

    “The Board of Elections is required to check the poll book before canvassing any absentee ballot. If the voter comes to the poll site, on Election Day or during early voting and votes in person, the absentee ballot is set aside and not counted.”

    Those who change their mind after mailing in a vote can also go to the County Board of Elections to request a new ballot to override the initial one, with the last one sent in counting.

    But those who voted early in-person do not get the same second chance. “Once you’ve voted at a machine, that’s it,” a Board of Elections spokesperson told The Post. “You cast one vote and that is complete.”

    Michigan, Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin all have specific election laws allowing residents to change their minds after casting an initial vote — with those in the Badger State even getting three chances.

    In a recent update, the Wisconsin Elections Commission also noted that “many voters” had been getting in contact to see how they could revoke their initial absentee ballot — something they can easily do.”

    Like

  2. I’m sure it will be fine. After all, it won’t be much different than what the networks offer now, biased and one sided content.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/trained-marxist-and-blm-co-founder-patrisse-cullors-signs-warner-bros-tv-deal/

    ““Trained Marxist” and BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Signs Warner Bros. TV Deal

    “the pact will see Cullors develop and produce original programming across all platforms, including broadcast, cable and streaming””

    “It’s no secret that the Black Lives Matter movement and its co-founder (and self-identified “Marxist”) Patrisse Cullors has long accused American capitalism of being fundamentally, systemically racist and “wiping out entire communities“; these assertions are core tenets of multiple official Black Lives Matter organizations.

    But that hasn’t stopped Cullors from signing a big contract with a major purveyor of BLM-reviled corporate consumerism: Warner Bros Television.

    BLM’s disdain for American capitalism is well documented.

    In a 2015 interview with The Real News and Jason Ball, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors explained:

    We [BLM] actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”

    “Cullors’ co-founder, Alicia Garza, opined in 2015:

    In the same way, we are living in political moment where for the first time in a long time we are talking about alternatives to capitalism…whether that’s abolishing a criminal justice system that feeds off the labor and the lives of black and brown people, whether that’s abolishing an economic system that thrives on exploitation, poverty and misery: this is the time for us to not just dream about what could be, but also start to build alternatives that we want to see.

    Meanwhile, a 2018 review of Cullors’ memoir in Time magazine reported:

    Cullors weaves her intellectual influences into this narrative, from black feminist writers like Audre Lorde and bell hooks, to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong. Reading those social philosophers “provided a new understanding around what our economies could look like,” she says.”

    Like

  3. Reap it Chucky!

    You built this, along with Dirty Harry Reid.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/10/chuck-schumer-reaps-what-he-sowed.php

    “President Trump is said by some to be a divisive influence within the Republican Party. Yet, GOP Senators and House members have been extraordinarily united during the past three and a half years.

    During today’s proceedings, Chuck Schumer lashed out at Republicans for hypocrisy in judicial confirmations. He cited the case of Merrick Garland, whom President Obama nominated in 2016. Judge Garland wasn’t confirmed. The GOP controlled Senate didn’t even give him a hearing.

    Maybe Garland should have received a hearing out of courtesy. However, the hearing would have been a waste of time. Garland did not have the votes to be confirmed.

    Amy Coney Barrett has the votes. That’s the difference between these two election-year nominees.

    Why is it, though, that these days Supreme Court nominees likely can’t get the votes needed for confirmation if the opposing party controls the Senate? The answer has lots to do with the efforts of Chuck Schumer.

    Jonathan Adler provides the history:

    Prior to [Shumer’s] arrival in the Senate, senators were generally reluctant to openly oppose judicial nominees on ideological grounds, but Schumer worked to change that. He enthusiastically supported a blockade of Bush appellate nominees and rejected President Bush’s appeal for a presumptive confirmation schedule.

    Once Republicans retook the Senate, Schumer pushed for the repeated filibusters of President Bush’s nominees and, even after the “Gang of 14” deal, continued in his attempts to use this obstructionist tactic.

    Schumer led an unsuccessful effort to filibuster confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Afterwards, in a 2007 speech to the American Constitution Society, he proclaimed he should have done even more to block Alito’s confirmation, and argued that the Senate should not confirm any additional Bush nominees to the Supreme Court should any more vacancies arise. In his view, senators should seek to prevent judicial confirmations that might tilt the balance of the Court in a way they do not like, including by simply refusing to confirm them – something he would conveniently forget in 2016.

    Senator Schumer did not think both parties should have recourse to the same tools of obstruction, however. When Senate Republicans started filibustering some of President Obama’s appellate nominees he eagerly joined then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to go nuclear, even though Republicans had (at that point) not blocked any more Obama nominees than Democrats had blocked Bush nominees (five each). No matter. The filibuster was gone, and three of Obama’s five blocked nominees were confirmed (all to the D.C. Circuit).

    During the closed session, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) rebuked Schumer for his short memory: “I hope our colleague from New York is happy with what he has built. I hope he is happy with where his ingenuity has gotten the Senate.” There is no question that McConnell upped the ante over the past four years. One might say he hit back twice as hard. Nonetheless, if Schumer is unhappy, he should consider his role in getting the Senate to this point.”

    Like

  4. Oh goody.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/26/7-open-leftist-threats-that-political-terror-is-coming-to-america-whether-trump-wins-or-not/

    “7 Open Leftist Threats That Political Terror Is Coming To America Whether Trump Wins Or Not

    Examples of hostilities toward Trump and his supporters abound, but leftists’ threats of terror are even greater should Biden win the presidency.”

    “Many leftists have directed some deeply disturbing rhetoric at conservatives and Trump supporters in recent months, claiming President Trump’s bombast is responsible for the political polarization of today’s America. This is pure nonsense.

    Sure, Trump talks about MS-13 as “animals,” Antifa as “thugs,” and Hillary Clinton as crooked enough to “be in jail.” His supporters know his presentation to be a bombastic and theatrical schtick, but he never threatens any group of voters.

    By contrast, some ominous tones, even homicidal and terrorist tones, are coming from the mainstream left. Increasingly, through mainstream media and Big Tech, high-profile leftists are speaking openly about violence to be inflicted on Trump and all his supporters.

    I’m not talking specifically about the Antifa and Black Lives Matter street violence we’ve seen in places like Denver and Portland, which includes outright murders of Trump supporters. I’m referring here to voices that normalize and promote open terror against any freedom-respecting person who has different views from those blessed by left-wing leaders, media, and Big Tech. Seven examples are included below.

    1. A Think Tank Guy Should Meet…A Firing Squad
    First, in a chilling Twitter incident, agitator Nils Gilman called for the execution of journalist and former Trump adviser Michael Anton. Gilman publicly stated, “Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.” Brasillach was a Nazi collaborator in France whose fate was execution by firing squad. Neither Gilman nor Twitter took down the tweet, despite many protests, including a public letter of grave concern from the Claremont Institute, where Anton is a senior fellow.”

    Gilman is head of the George Soros-funded Berggruen Institute and a co-founder of the “Transition Integrity Project,” which war-gamed the ouster of Trump from office regardless of whether he wins re-election. Anton’s crime, in Gilman’s mind, was publishing an article about Gilman’s project in the American Mind, titled “The Coming Coup.”

    Why is Gilman’s Sept. 21 death threat against Anton still up on Twitter an entire month later? Will it remain up after the election?

    2. Shoot This CEO For Not being Woke Enough
    Second, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo objected to the company Coinbase’s decision to ease up on forcing employees to engage in social justice agendas such as critical race theory. Costolo accused Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong of being among the “me-first capitalists” who would be the first lined up and “shot in the revolution.”

    Costolo, who has 1.5 million Twitter followers, added that he would “happily provide video commentary” of the executions. The tweet has disappeared, although there is no mention of it being deleted. One response comes with a screenshot though:”

    ———

    So expose the Biden family criminal org and get censored, make death threats and it’s “meh” from the censors.

    Like

  5. Unfriending Free Speech

    https://www.city-journal.org/gatekeepers-free-speech

    “On October 14, a New York Post story presented evidence that Hunter Biden had monetized access to his father, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. The exposé, based on the hard drive of a laptop computer alleged to have been owned by the younger Biden, may or may not hold water. It is, however, worth noting that no one has ever explained what else, besides the prospect of a direct connection to the Obama White House, could account for Ukrainian energy firm Burisma’s decision to make then-Vice President Biden’s dysfunctional son a board member and pay him $50,000 a month.

    The pixels had barely dried on the Post article before it generated, then became intertwined with, a controversy about the controversy. Within hours of its appearance on the newspaper’s website, two of the biggest social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, took steps to suppress the story. Facebook announced that, pending an independent assessment of whether the claims were accurate, it had adjusted its operating software to make it more difficult for users to share or discuss the article. Twitter went further, flatly preventing users from sharing the “potentially harmful” story. It also froze the Post’s own Twitter account, which has had no new entries for the past 11 days, as of this writing.

    If Facebook and Twitter intended to make the Biden laptop story go away, however, their intervention had the opposite effect. Questions about a political family’s corruption became part of a larger debate about the power of social media platforms. Do the proprietors of our digital public squares censor and curate our discourse there? Are the rules for what can and can’t be said clear and universally applicable, or arbitrary and selectively enforced?

    Other media platforms, too, have moved on from disinterested presentation and examination of the facts to explicitly supporting particular political causes. National Public Radio, for example, announced that it would have nothing to do with the Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories,” a managing editor explained, “and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” (In August, NPR felt that an excellent use of its journalists and listeners’ time was a long, sympathetic interview with Vicky Osterweil, who had written the book In Defense of Looting.) Similarly, Glenn Reynolds devoted one of his weekly USA Today columns to Facebook and Twitter’s efforts to halt the spread of the Post’s story on the Bidens. USA Today spiked the column without explanation; it was available only to readers of Reynolds’s blog.

    Open the aperture wider still, and it becomes clear that cutting-edge “liberal” thinking is increasingly hostile to liberty. John Stuart Mill believed that the free and full exchange of ideas not only honors the rights of the people who express them but also enhances the understanding of those who read or hear them. People shielded from ideas that they find noxious or absurd “have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say,” Mill wrote in On Liberty, in 1859. As a result, “they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess.”

    In the twenty-first century, left-of-center scholars, activists, and journalists increasingly view Mill’s case for free expression as an embarrassing anachronism. Worse still, they believe, is that the cost of giving maximum latitude to the presentation of diverse opinions has come to outweigh the benefits. It is a “mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society,” Georgetown law professor Michael Seidman said in 2018. Because the United States suffers from too much free speech exercised by too many people, Emily Bazelon of the Yale Law School wrote in the New York Times, our beleaguered democracy is “drowning in lies.”

    Instead of allowing a self-regulating public square, where sound evidence and reasoning prevail over arguments shown to rest on weaker facts and syllogisms, these thinkers want superintended discourse. The goal, according to the New Yorker’s Masha Gessen, is to establish and maintain “the sphere of legitimate controversy.” James Bennet, for example, lost his job as editorial page editor of the New York Times because he thought an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton endorsing the use of federal troops in riot-torn cities fell within that sphere. A staff revolt at the newspaper reflected the contrary belief that Cotton’s opinion was beyond the pale.”

    Like

  6. Looks like Trump’s critics have been horribly wrong once again.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-nobel-prize-deroy-murdock

    “Deroy Murdock: Trump’s 4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations show he’s a peacemaker — not warmonger as critics claim

    Despite the left’s caricature of Trump as a mad bomber, he has started no new wars”

    “I am sick of winning peace deals!

    All kidding aside, Friday’s news that Israel and Sudan will establish diplomatic relations is just the latest international breakthrough arranged by President Trump. The third such peace pact between the Jewish state and its Muslim neighbors since Aug. 13 mocks the chilling forecasts that Trump’s election would trigger mushroom clouds.

    “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes,” Hillary Clinton warned in 2016, Politico reported. “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”

    And Tom Engelhardt wrote in The Nation in 2017: “Donald Trump is actively trying to destroy the planet.”

    Hate Trump, Inc. must be boiling mad to see their bête noir rack up peace agreements and repeatedly gain the attention of the Nobel Prize Committee.

    Despite the left’s caricature of Trump as a mad bomber, he has started no new wars. Much like President Ronald Reagan, Trump rebuilt the military (which the Obama-Biden administration depleted), and then used this potential firepower and his outsized personality to forge peace through strength.

    This has included Trump’s efforts in North Korea, where a denuclearization agreement remains elusive, but the underground atomic tests of the Obama-Biden era have yielded to subterranean quietude and intermittent dialogue between Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

    The ISIS caliphate was a bloodthirsty, belligerent threat to U.S. and allied interests. Obama-Biden let the Islamofascist quasi-state grow to the size of two New Jerseys. (A lovely place, but one will suffice.) Trump unshackled U.S. GIs, and the caliphate was sandblasted off the map.

    Even before Friday’s announcement, Trump’s unprecedented, unconventional strategy yielded two agreements that doubled the number of Arab nations — atop Egypt and Jordan — that recognize Israel, a country only half the size of the late ISIS caliphate.

    In Afghanistan, the chaos that Obama-Biden left behind has evolved into a Trump-driven cease-fire and zero deaths of American forces since early February.

    And now, Nobel Peace Prize nominations are landing in Trump’s path like rose petals. Since last month, Trump has earned a stunning four such honors.

    The first nomination rebuked Obama-Biden’s lack of serious movement towards Balkan tranquility. Under Trump, this stasis yielded to a commercial-relations accord between Serbia and Kosovo.

    “We’ve been fighting and talking about the same thing for decades,” said Richard Grenell, the former U.S. ambassador to Germany and acting director of national intelligence, who helped negotiate this compact.

    “They have been fighting about the same symbolism, words, verbs, adjectives,” Grenell added. “It’s been a nightmare. And what President Trump said to me was, ‘They’re fighting politically about everything. Why don’t we give it a try to do something different and creative? Why not try to do economics first and let the politics follow the economics?’ That proved to actually be a formula that they were eager for. No one had been talking to them about this.””

    Like

  7. The media can’t report it, they have an election to sway….

    https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2020/10/27/philadelphia-riots-media-silent/

    “Philadelphia Riots, Dozens Of Cops Injured, Most Media Silent”

    “In this day and age, any officer-involved shooting is likely to spark a riot. The media has gotten everyone so conditioned to the idea that police are simply gunning down folks for fun that they don’t bother to get any facts before deciding to burn everything to the ground.

    We’ve seen this time and time again.

    Unfortunately, we also saw it again last night.

    Angry crowds took to the streets in West Philadelphia overnight after police shot and killed a man armed with a knife Monday, with some in the crowds throwing rocks and bricks at police and some looting or vandalizing businesses.

    At least 30 police officers were hurt, police said. One was hospitalized, a 56-year-old sergeant who was struck by a pickup truck at 52nd and Walnut streets early Tuesday. Her leg was broken, among other injuries, police said.

    All the officers, except for the one struck by the truck, had been treated and released as of early Tuesday.

    The violence followed protests in response to the death of Walter Wallace, a Black man who police shot and killed Monday in the city’s Cobbs Creek neighborhood.

    Police said several stores were looted, including several Rite Aid stores in West Philadelphia, clothing and shoe stores and at least one restaurant. They could also be seen trying to break into a check cashing store and going in and out of a beauty supply store.

    In other words, it was a significant riot.

    I mean, if 30 police officers are injured, I’m going to say it’s a big thing.

    However, it seems that while the NY Post is willing to cover the riot, few others are. For example, while Fox News covered the riots, their chief competitors didn’t.”

    Like

  8. If it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all…..

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/saving-private-biden-11603749110

    “In the thick of the 2016 presidential campaign, the front page of the New York Times handed down the word from on high: In the era of Donald Trump, press objectivity was a luxury America could not afford.

    It turned out that biased press coverage wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Trump from winning. So for 2020 the press introduced a new corollary: Joe Biden must never be asked a tough question.”

    ————–

    “This see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach to Mr. Biden started with Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who accused the candidate of having sexually harassed her in 1993, when she’d worked for him. When Julie Swetnick asserted in 2018—without any corroboration—that she witnessed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes at high-school parties, the Times ran the story the same day. But when Ms. Reade accused Mr. Biden of sexual assault, the previous believe-the-woman standard was given the heave-ho, and the Times waited 19 days to report it…

    Or what about the Associated Press? In September it revised its stylebook to say reporters should use the term “unrest” instead of “riots” to describe the criminal violence in cities from Portland, Ore., to Kenosha, Wis. The AP now frowns on “looting” as well, urging greater sensitivity because President Trump has used the term.

    It’s the job of the press to ask the hard questions and insist on answers, even at the risk of looking obnoxious. It isn’t biased, for example, to ask President Trump why, with polls showing more than half of the American people saying they are better off today than before he was elected, so many will still vote against him because they don’t like his personality and temperament.

    But the toughness should apply equally. And no honest observer could say that, for example, of the recent and dueling town halls, where on ABC Mr. Biden had a leisurely chat with George Stephanopoulos while on NBC Savannah Guthrie savaged Mr. Trump.”

    Like

  9. She’s gonna need to get right to work. 🙂

    https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/10/27/associate-justice-amy-coney-barrett-busy-schedule-ahead/

    “As of last night’s swearing-in ceremony, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett (will we ever grow tired of saying that?) is now a member of the nation’s highest court. From the sound of things, however, she’s not going to have much time to celebrate because she has plenty of work ahead of her. A number of closely watched cases with the potential for carrying historical impact are heading her way. Some have been in the pipeline for quite a while, but others involving disputes in next week’s election may arrive on an emergency basis. Predictably, we already have Democrats and their media allies demanding that Barrett recuse herself from any rulings more complicated than the naming of a new post office. (Free Beacon)

    The Court is currently handling an emergency application involving absentee mail-in ballot deadlines in North Carolina, a hotly contested battleground. Democrats and progressive advocacy groups are pressing Barrett to recuse herself from such matters, arguing that President Donald Trump has created an appearance of bias by connecting her nomination with post-election court battles. Beyond the election, the Court will soon decide whether to hear an abortion appeal from Mississippi, which could embolden state-level efforts to restrict the procedure…

    Barrett is facing heavy pressure to disqualify herself from such cases, after Trump said the Senate should confirm his nominee to ensure the Court has a full complement of justices to resolve any post-election disputes. The pressure campaign leans on a 2009 Supreme Court case involving a West Virginia coal baron who donated $3 million to help elect a state judge. That judge in turn cast a deciding vote protecting the donor’s company from a $50 million damages judgment.

    The idea that Barrett should recuse herself from any case involving the election is laughable on its face. It would be a weak argument even if President Trump had cited a specific court case when speaking about her nomination and confirmation, but all he said was that the court should be fully staffed in the event of a court challenge involving the various states’ election laws and results. You can certainly make the argument that the court would have been capable of handling those challenges with eight justices (as they’ve been doing thus far this term anyway), but nine justices are far less likely to deadlock. What the Democrats are doing here should be obvious, but what they’re really saying is that Barret should recuse herself for any case that arises while the President who nominated her is still in office.

    Some of the other cases that are brewing will almost certainly result in all manner of consternation. One of the biggest is probably Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization out of Mississippi. It involves a question of how and when states might be able to place limits on abortions based on how far along in the pregnancy the mother is. Mississippi’s law (two of them, actually) tried to set the bar at fifteen or six weeks. The laws were immediately challenged and shot down at every level in Mississippi, with the plaintiffs and the courts citing Roe v. Wade as precedent. Democrats are very nervous about the possibility of Barrett saying the law can stand, throwing the entire pro-life versus pro-abortion battle into further turmoil.

    Don’t be shocked if you hear calls for Barrett to recuse herself in the Dobbs case also, though she’s never been involved in hearing that specific case before. For that matter, she’ll probably hear demands to recuse herself from virtually all of the court’s work for as long as Trump is in office. Will she wind up doing that? I can’t imagine why she would. During her confirmation hearings, she pledged to follow the normal rules on recusal without citing any specific cases where that might be applicable. The Constitution provides two situations where judges must recuse themselves. Those are when the judge has a financial interest in the case’s outcome or when there is otherwise “a strong possibility that the judge’s decision will be biased.” The first is rarely applicable and wouldn’t impact Barrett’s ability to rule on any of the cases under discussion. The second is far more vague.”

    Like

  10. I found it interesting that there was supposed to be a big union rally for Biden here and it was cancelled when a protest group of union workers was quickly formed. The union claimed there would be too many in the outdoor space for Covid concerns. Call me skeptical. Winds of change around here are very apparent. How much we shall see.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Great link Tychicus.

    Here’s another you won’t see getting much press. Pictures of Hunter Biden and his Russian friends, along with some prostitutes. Note the Russians took the pictures, most likely for later blackmail use.

    Joe Biden is compromised.

    CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!!

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/breaking-exclusive-hunter-bidens-russian-blackmail-photos-uncovered-hunter-russians-hollywood/

    “One such example was in October 2018 on Devlin Drive West Hollywood with some ‘friends’. Hunter spent a night in this luxurious property with a group of girls and guys. One member of the group was a girl by the name of Christina. She has a California driver’s license. She also spent some time with Hunter.

    Christina has some friends.

    But these aren’t ordinary friends, it appears they are Russians. These guys hung out with Hunter Biden at the luxurious property in West Hollywood.

    The problem with this vacation was that multiple compromising pictures were taken of him by some of these ‘friends’ and the acts were captured on the CCTV cameras. One such picture shows Hunter in what appears to be an orgy, in others he models naked.”

    Like

  12. I voted for Nixon, twice! When he was forced out of the Presidency, I didn’t want to see or hear from him ever again. The closest I ever came to voting for a Democrat was not voting for a Representative for Congress because I didn’t like the Republican who was running.

    I guess I am a Republican, through and through!!

    In 2016 it was easy to vote for Trump; he was running against Hillary! Se was/is a horrible person. How could any honest person vote for her? How could Democrats nominate her in the first place? That is all to say there is something wrong with Democrats, something really wrong.

    Did you see Trump on any of those televised news conferences about Covid? He sure seemed reasonable to me. Why did they take them off the air? I recognized then that Trump looked too good and was making the “Talking Heads” of the MSM look foolish. Can’t have that!

    How long ago did Hunter Biden’s hard drive get taken by the FBI? Six months? A year? Long enough for the Democratic Party to get wind of it.

    I have often wondered just why there has been such a huge push for early voting and mail in voting…I just thought it was because Democratic voters are such poor voters- many of them seem to find it sooo hard to get to the polls.

    Now I realize, while the poor turn-out of Democratic voters is a good reason to push for them to vote early, an even better reason is it is so hard to change a mail-in or early vote. Did Democrats know that this Hunter Biden story would be coming out?

    IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK….

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.