When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
"What's striking is that these are bilateral discussions that the president is having. In any other European democracy, that's not how it works. The discussions would have taken place between political groups. It would have made a big difference. But today, I think it's a bit late to try this option for Macron," said Rivière."
Le Pen was going to win in France before the extreme Left instructed their voting blocs to send their votes to other candidates, with the goal being to NOT allow Le Pen to win. I'm not sure how involved the U.S. government was, but I'm not surprised about any of this anymore. Crazy basement-dwelling pj-wearing conspiracy theorists have been proven right more than the MSM, so...
So bottom line is that Macron was supposed to have abdicated his power months ago. He has not. Can anyone see that happening here next January?
So bottom line is that Macron was supposed to have abdicated his power months ago. He has not. Can anyone see that happening here next January?
I want to start by clarifying that I more or less agree with you, in broad terms.
So, why lie?
You have established here that Macron did not lose any election. While there are many practical differences between European style parliamentary governments and that of the US, the President is not the Legislature in either case.
Why, then, fabricate this falsehood, and state it as though it were an absolute fact?
That's the sort of thing which Lefties are known for doing, as the video which Stock just posted illustrates wonderfully. Knowingly uttering lies, even when they are truth-adjacent, and then doubling-down on their defense, merely serves to damage credibility and make everyone who is adjacent to your own school of political thought look foolish.
I want to start by clarifying that I more or less agree with you, in broad terms.
So, why lie?
You have established here that Macron did not lose any election. While there are many practical differences between European style parliamentary governments and that of the US, the President is not the Legislature in either case.
Why, then, fabricate this falsehood, and state it as though it were an absolute fact?
That's the sort of thing which Lefties are known for doing, as the video which Stock just posted illustrates wonderfully. Knowingly uttering lies, even when they are truth-adjacent, and then doubling-down on their defense, merely serves to damage credibility and make everyone who is adjacent to your own school of political thought look foolish.
"Emmanuel Macron lost the last round of elections. Emmanuel Macron is the current president of France." This is my original statement, which I didn't consider to be a lie. In the snap election, Macron did not have the plurality, and needs to appoint a new prime minister. He hasn't.
Prime minister offers to resign: Gabriel Attal plans to present his resignation on Monday but said if needed he could stay on through the Paris Olympics or longer.
My question--how long is too long? A year? Four years? It was never my intent to LIE, but to show what kind of confusion can come from an election. I think you know that Joe.
"Emmanuel Macron lost the last round of elections. Emmanuel Macron is the current president of France." This is my original statement, which I didn't consider to be a lie. In the snap election, Macron did not have the plurality, and needs to appoint a new prime minister. He hasn't.
Prime minister offers to resign: Gabriel Attal plans to present his resignation on Monday but said if needed he could stay on through the Paris Olympics or longer.
My question--how long is too long? A year? Four years? It was never my intent to LIE, but to show what kind of confusion can come from an election. I think you know that Joe.
The intricacies they drive the outcomes matter not, simply stick to the facts as Joe P suggests. Everything else is just white noise.
Did they change NY law to bring up charges from a decade+ ago against Trump? Sure but whats REAAAALLY important here is that it worked and they convicted him so, case closed, he's a convicted felon.
*Joe P smirks as he pushes his glasses back against his brow and mutters a lispy "GOTCHA MISTER" and fires some finger guns in your direction*
I believe they said that Trump was found guilty in a civil case and there are no felonies in civil cases, or did I miss some obscure part of this conversation?
The NY hush money trial was not a civil proceeding. Trump was found guilty by the jurors but has not been sentenced. We do not know if this going to be felonies, misdemeanors or dropped. The case was supposed to be about paying someone off and then turned into a tax evasion case. Lawfare rarely is straightforward. I'm willing to bet that this case will be dropped.
They just wanted him to wear the scarlet letter or be tarnished while running. It was done out of desperation. I have never seen or heard of government agencies being so desperate. It's much more than staying in power this time. It has to be about many people losing their jobs, some being prosecuted and others gaining a bad reputation. The more they went after Trump the more likely he will do what is right. They call it revenge, but if it is in the peoples best interest it is righteous.
Originally Posted by sixshooter
I believe they said that Trump was found guilty in a civil case and there are no felonies in civil cases, or did I miss some obscure part of this conversation?
The NY hush money trial was not a civil proceeding. Trump was found guilty by the jurors but has not been sentenced. We do not know if this going to be felonies, misdemeanors or dropped. The case was supposed to be about paying someone off and then turned into a tax evasion case. Lawfare rarely is straightforward. I'm willing to bet that this case will be dropped.
They just wanted him to wear the scarlet letter or be tarnished while running. It was done out of desperation. I have never seen or heard of government agencies being so desperate. It's much more than staying in power this time. It has to be about many people losing their jobs, some being prosecuted and others gaining a bad reputation. The more they went after Trump the more likely he will do what is right. They call it revenge, but if it is in the peoples best interest it is righteous.
The ruling's going to be overturned. The question is; will Letitia James and judge Engoron face charges for this sham of a trial? The jury is out for that one.
Lollerskates. Stupid socialists. People will vote with their feet and wallets in their own self-interest. People are more likely to do what they are incentivised to do. If you give them a strong incentive to leave, they will. Just like we give people incentives to remain underemployed, unemployed, or unmarried, and they do.
Could not have said it better myself. CA is a perfect example. The sad part is some of the people that are responsible for the high taxes, regulation and cost of living are leaving as well. It is like economic sprawl.
Originally Posted by sixshooter
Lollerskates. Stupid socialists. People will vote with their feet and wallets in their own self-interest. People are more likely to do what they are incentivised to do. If you give them a strong incentive to leave, they will. Just like we give people incentives to remain underemployed, unemployed, or unmarried, and they do.
-Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote this article, was responsible for the Saddam-Al Qaeda conspiracy theory that led to the Iraq War.
-Goldberg also single handedly convinced the outlet to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, Biden in 2024 and Harris in 2024.
-His next outlandish theory was the infamous “suckers and losers” story that came out in 2020. (Which has since been debunked.)
-Goldberg wrote a piece admitting his personal inaccuracies entitled "How Did I Get Iraq Wrong?".
-This claim fails to cite a single source and has already been debunked by people in the room.
-In this measly attempt of a hit piece, The Atlantic lies about how Trump handled the funeral of a fallen veteran. The family has already debunked that lie.
Mark Meadows who was cited in the piece states: “I was in the discussions featured in the Atlantic’s latest hit piece against President Trump. Let me say this.
Any suggestion that President Trump disparaged Ms. Guillen or refused to pay for her funeral expenses is absolutely false.
He was nothing but kind, gracious, and wanted to make sure that the military and the U.S. government did right by Vanessa Guillen and her family.”
The sister of the deceased soldier noted in the article has since responded saying: He “Wow. I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members. President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today.”
"Look my party may have locked you in your house and tried to force you to take an untested vaccine - but Trump is the real hitler!" - Kamala
10-22-2024 | 12:16 PM
0
