It's a new wall, so it will be on the northern border of New Mexico.
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
It's a new wall, so it will be on the northern border of New Mexico.
Hüsker Dü
DA
t don't know the difference, nor do his disciples. New, old, Mexico is Mexico to the dutiful ignoramous'.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Sore losers don’t congratulate. An old classic
Bruddah IZ
DA
More cheese?
Bruddah IZ
DA
How merciful.
Bruddah IZ
DA
What’s the difference between a teaser rate and QE?
Sheriff Joe
DA
New Poll Shows Voter Enthusiasm at a 20 Year High and It Has Democrats Nervous
Posted at 3:43 pm on October 24, 2019 by streiff
President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Coming off the 2018 drubbing the GOP took in House races, some things started to change. Perhaps more people woke up and realized that the sham Mueller investigation was nothing more nor less than a coup attempt by parts of the FBI and Intelligence Community working as Stumabteilungen for the Democrat party. Perhaps some came to the realization that the Kavanaugh hearing was a foreshadowing of how conservative men were going to be treated in the future. Many, I think, realized that nothing would make the Democrats happier than turning us into some kind of Third World sh**hole where down was up and we had to called bearded creatures with a package “her.”
If February, a new poll was released that completely blew up the prevailing conventional wisdomabout voter enthusiasm:
A new survey his company, the Tarrance Group, conducted for the centrist Republican Ripon Society uncovered an 11-point “intensity” gap among white Republicans and white Democrats.
“We had in 2010 a nine-point advantage on intensity. Going into 2014 we had a seven-point advantage on intensity, meaning our voters are more intense about voting. Right now we have an 11-point advantage,” he said. “I’ve never seen a double-digit advantage in terms of intensity to vote.”
In 2010, Republicans took control of the House. In 2014, they took over the Senate.
“Why is it 11? It’s intensity toward the president,” he explained.
A deeper plunge into the numbers, Goeas said, is even more remarkable.
For example, Republican women, who typically don’t express voting eagerness in levels as high as men, are equal for the first time, at 89 percent, he said. What’s more, on the issue of intensity, they are just three points back.
“Not only is there no gender gap, there’s no intensity gap with Republicans wanting to vote Republican this year, all driven by the president,” the strategist said.
Now a new one is out from CNNand it builds on the February poll in a way that should scare the bejeezus out of the Democrats. This is the top line. Voters today are nearly 20 points more enthusiastic about voting for president than the were in 2008 when the bloom was still on the Obama rose.
Currently 88 percent of registered voters responding to the poll in question are enthusiastic in varying degrees about voting in the 2020 presidential election; only 11 percent are not. Of the enthused super-majority, 47 percent describe themselves as extremely enthusiastic and 24 percent as very enthusiastic. Taking the “extremely” and “very” enthusiastic voters together, that’s 71 percent currently. In late October 2016, the comparable number was 46 percent (though in September 2015 it was a bit higher at 55 percent, indicating that a decent number of voters weren’t happy with the general-election options; usually enthusiasm goes up as an election approaches). At this point in the 2012 cycle, 51 percent of voters described themselves as “extremely” or “very” enthusiastic.
For me the recent benchmark of voter enthusiasm was the 2008 election that lifted Barack Obama to the presidency (I will never forget the citywide street celebration that broke out in Washington the minute he was forecast as the winner). Just before that election, 37 percent of registered voters said they were “extremely” enthusiastic about voting, with 32 percent “very” enthusiastic. That’s right: More than a year out, we’re at or above 2008 levels of voter enthusiasm. And the percentage of extremely enthusiastic folks is a lot higher.
Of course, chickens can't count, but that is 18,000 new troops...
And I'm sure Huli Huli Boi will be apoplectic over this news...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ks-armor-syria-protect-oil-fields/4089195002/
unless, you know, he's a liar and a hypocrite.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Lol! You Fries U Administrators crack me up. We’ve rotated carriers in to the Med and the Persian Gulf every 6 months for at least the last 50 years to make sure the oil flows. Been there done that. I love how Trump spools you mullets.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Let me know if you’ve heard this one before.
BREAKING: Origins of the Russia Investigation Is Now A Criminal Inquiry
Bronson Stocking | Oct 24, 2019 9:12 PM
Source: AP Photo/Mark Thiessen
The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, according to The New York Times. The Justice Department has been conducting an administrative review of the origins of the Russian investigation, but that review has now been shifted into a criminal inquiry.
BREAKING: Origins of the Russia Investigation Is Now A Criminal Inquiry
Bronson Stocking | Oct 24, 2019 9:12 PM
Source: AP Photo/Mark Thiessen
The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, according to The New York Times. The Justice Department has been conducting an administrative review of the origins of the Russian investigation, but that review has now been shifted into a criminal inquiry.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Barr is a serious guy,
I bet clapper, Brennan, Obama and that whore that unmasked all those innocents don’t sleep well tonight.
BREAKING: DOJ Administrative Review Into Russia Probe Takes Serious Turn
By Ryan Saavedra
DailyWire.com
Facebook
Twitter
Mail
The U.S. Department of Justice’s administrative review into the origins of the Russia investigation has a taken a major turn into a full-fledged criminal investigation.
The review, led by U.S. attorney John Durham, has shifted from being an administrative review into being a criminal investigation, The New York Times reported, noting that the move gives Durham “the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.”
2/5The Day After | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 656READ MORE
Report: Attorney General Chris Christie?READ MORE
Is Antifa Is A Terrorist Organization?YESNOThe Blue Wave That Never Came | The Matt Walsh ShowREAD MORE
Upstate NY Mayor Not Sorry For Insulting Dem VotersREAD MORE
state that federal investigators must have a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed before they can open up an investigation, and that “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient.”
“Mr. Durham has indicated he wants to interview former officials who ran the C.I.A. in 2016 but has yet to question either Mr. Brennan or James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence,” The Times added. “Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.”
I bet clapper, Brennan, Obama and that whore that unmasked all those innocents don’t sleep well tonight.
BREAKING: DOJ Administrative Review Into Russia Probe Takes Serious Turn
By Ryan Saavedra
DailyWire.com
The U.S. Department of Justice’s administrative review into the origins of the Russia investigation has a taken a major turn into a full-fledged criminal investigation.
The review, led by U.S. attorney John Durham, has shifted from being an administrative review into being a criminal investigation, The New York Times reported, noting that the move gives Durham “the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.”
2/5The Day After | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 656READ MORE
state that federal investigators must have a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed before they can open up an investigation, and that “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient.”
“Mr. Durham has indicated he wants to interview former officials who ran the C.I.A. in 2016 but has yet to question either Mr. Brennan or James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence,” The Times added. “Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.”
Sheriff Joe
DA
Are you dummies paying attention?
OCTOBER 24TH, 2019
Study: Data Suggests Conservative Content Leads To ‘De-Radicalization,’ Not Radicalization
By James Barrett
DailyWire.com
Facebook
Twitter
Mail
A new study out of Penn State’s Political Science Department found that rather than conservative content online leading to radicalization, as the popular “gateway” narrative insists, the reverse appears to be true.
The study, titled “A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics,” published online in October, takes a closer look at the popular narrative that YouTube serves as a “radicalizing agent,” particularly for the right. Conservative content, the narrative goes, supposedly acts as a “gateway” for viewers, potentially leading them to the fringes of the far-right.
The Day After | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 656READ MORE
Report: Attorney General Chris Christie?READ MORE
Is Antifa Is A Terrorist Organization?YESNOThe Blue Wave That Never Came | The Matt Walsh ShowREAD MORE
Upstate NY Mayor Not Sorry For Insulting Dem VotersREAD MORE
SKIP NOWYour feedback matters.Is this advertisementrelevant to you?Yes, it is!Not really
OCTOBER 24TH, 2019
Study: Data Suggests Conservative Content Leads To ‘De-Radicalization,’ Not Radicalization
By James Barrett
DailyWire.com
A new study out of Penn State’s Political Science Department found that rather than conservative content online leading to radicalization, as the popular “gateway” narrative insists, the reverse appears to be true.
The study, titled “A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics,” published online in October, takes a closer look at the popular narrative that YouTube serves as a “radicalizing agent,” particularly for the right. Conservative content, the narrative goes, supposedly acts as a “gateway” for viewers, potentially leading them to the fringes of the far-right.
The Day After | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 656READ MORE
SKIP NOWYour feedback matters.Is this advertisementrelevant to you?Yes, it is!Not really
Sheriff Joe
DA
Hero’s always hide their faces.Apparently a Chief Gunner's Mate. I can't see all his ribbons but the gold rating badge indicates at least 12 years service, and that looks like a Kuwait Liberation ribbon on the bottom row, which were awarded for action in 1990-91.
Bruddah IZ
DA
”...we don’t make policy here gentleman. Elected officials do that. We are the instruments of that policy”. — Mike Metcalf, “Viper”Apparently a Chief Gunner's Mate. I can't see all his ribbons but the gold rating badge indicates at least 12 years service, and that looks like a Kuwait Liberation ribbon on the bottom row, which were awarded for action in 1990-91.
It takes a real liar to conflate “tanks and armored vehicles” in oil fields with boats floating in the Med and the Gulf.
Unclear if he’s a liar or just delusional.
He doesn’t even understand military issues and I think he pushes paper around for the feds.
Sheriff Joe
DA
You “ think” huh?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Report: Democrats Say ‘Whistleblower’s’ Testimony No Longer Needed
Getty Images
JOSHUA CAPLAN24 Oct 20191,674
2:50
House Democrats believe there is sufficient evidence to advance their closed-door impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump without seeking testimony from the so-called “whistleblower,” whose complaint initially prompted the probe, according to a Thursday evening report.
The Washington Post, citing several House Democrats, reports that the so-called “whistleblower’s” testimony is no longer a priority in the wake of testimonies delivered by Ukraine’s top diplomat, William Taylor, and former National Security Council senior director Fiona Hill, before congressional investigators.
Getty Images
JOSHUA CAPLAN24 Oct 20191,674
2:50
House Democrats believe there is sufficient evidence to advance their closed-door impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump without seeking testimony from the so-called “whistleblower,” whose complaint initially prompted the probe, according to a Thursday evening report.
The Washington Post, citing several House Democrats, reports that the so-called “whistleblower’s” testimony is no longer a priority in the wake of testimonies delivered by Ukraine’s top diplomat, William Taylor, and former National Security Council senior director Fiona Hill, before congressional investigators.