User Panel
|
|
Quoted:
I'll tell you why the polls are wrong: Conservatives are not polled. Look at how many polls heavily favored Democrats in the samples. At the other end: People often don't let themselves be polled. People are sick and tired of being solicited for everything under the sun and polling is no different. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Timing of the announcement with Giuliani in the news is suspicious to you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I just don't think the guys cheese is quite centered on his cracker anymore if you know what mean View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
|
I WANT the House of Representatives to hold an impeachment vote so the issue can move to the senate where Trump will most certainly be able to both bring into focus the democratic mis-deeds, and the attempted coup, then the senate can reject the impeachment and we can move on.
I have even thought that it would be smart for the Republicans in the house to ask for an impeachment vote, just to get the ball rolling into the senate and shortstop all the BS in the house. The House democrats will drag this out as long as possible, so having republicans ask for the vote would short stop their tactic. Much like when all the representatives were calling for the dissolution of I.C.E., then once a vote on the issue was requested they backed off. The great irony would be if republicans asked for an impeachment vote in the house of representatives, the democrats would be faced with voting in favor of something the republicans asked for (which they hate), or voting against impeachment... The irony of those two choices would be truly entertaining to watch. |
|
|
Quoted:
This is supposed to be the sampling data for the Fox news poll. https://i.redd.it/96a4nbxnhpr31.jpg View Quote But....they have a headline This isn't going to turn out like they think. |
|
Quoted:
This is supposed to be the sampling data for the Fox news poll. https://i.redd.it/96a4nbxnhpr31.jpg View Quote Republicans as sampled against Democrats: Total Number: -29% Men: -15% Women: -38% White: +2.5% Black: -87% Non-White: -78% White Men: +27% White Women: -25% Non-White Men: -73% Non-White Women: -83% Under 45: -52% 45+: -4% In the second section, they sampled Democrats that more strongly identified with the Democrat Party than Republicans that identified with the Republican Party. If I'm reading that correctly. Would also like to see the rest of this section Again, Republicans vs Democrats sampled. Urban: -55% Suburban: -38% Rural: +25.7% Suburban Women: -49% Section three. Also want to see the rest. White College Degree: -20% White No Degree: +22% White Men Degree: +10% White Men No Degree: +48% White Women Degree: -49% White Women No Degree: +11% Of an interesting note is the Lib/Mod/Cons stats. Democrats 80%/44%/20% There is a pretty strong indicator of the fractures in the Democrat party, between the hardcore liberals and the more moderate, even occasionally conservative Democrats. Republicans 9%/18%/62% Here, while the Republicans don't as strongly identify as conservative, there is drastically less of split in positions. Overall, a great example of how to abuse statistics. |
|
Quoted:
Of the ones that showed battleground state losses, most were almost certainly within the margin of error. - Pennsylvania won by just 44,292 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +1.9, actual was Trump +0.7 - Wisconsin won by just 22,748 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +6.5, actual was Trump +0.7 - Michigan won by just 10,704 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +3.4, actual was Trump +0.3 Of just those 3, Wisconsin is the only one that could be considered diverging significantly from the polled results in part because they expected a larger showing for Stein and Johnson. Given that it's Wisconsin, that's not really going that far out on a limb I don't think. Polling also showed Trump winning Ohio decently, which he did, and eeking out a win in Florida, which he also did. Again, aside from the 5.8% divergence in Wisconsin, polling for battleground states was, no surprise, pretty close. So, again, ignore them if you want but I wouldn't recommend it. I would, however, recommend keeping an eye on Real Clear Politics for the aggregate polling which tends to give a more accurate result since it helps eliminates outliers which both sides like to use. Of course I didn't mention it because it's not really relevant. It was more "forecasting" (aka propaganda), not polling conducted by polling firms. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure Trump was polling behind in several of the battleground states he won. - Pennsylvania won by just 44,292 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +1.9, actual was Trump +0.7 - Wisconsin won by just 22,748 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +6.5, actual was Trump +0.7 - Michigan won by just 10,704 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +3.4, actual was Trump +0.3 Of just those 3, Wisconsin is the only one that could be considered diverging significantly from the polled results in part because they expected a larger showing for Stein and Johnson. Given that it's Wisconsin, that's not really going that far out on a limb I don't think. Polling also showed Trump winning Ohio decently, which he did, and eeking out a win in Florida, which he also did. Again, aside from the 5.8% divergence in Wisconsin, polling for battleground states was, no surprise, pretty close. So, again, ignore them if you want but I wouldn't recommend it. I would, however, recommend keeping an eye on Real Clear Politics for the aggregate polling which tends to give a more accurate result since it helps eliminates outliers which both sides like to use. Quoted:
Plus you don't even mention the "95% chance of winning" the electoral college the whole media was talking about on election day. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. |
|
Quoted:
Thank you. Drives me crazy seeing people gleefully ignorant towards polling and how it works. For many it's much easier to simply scream out "fake polls!" and dismiss any polling data they don't like. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure Trump was polling behind in several of the battleground states he won. - Pennsylvania won by just 44,292 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +1.9, actual was Trump +0.7 - Wisconsin won by just 22,748 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +6.5, actual was Trump +0.7 - Michigan won by just 10,704 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +3.4, actual was Trump +0.3 Of just those 3, Wisconsin is the only one that could be considered diverging significantly from the polled results in part because they expected a larger showing for Stein and Johnson. Given that it's Wisconsin, that's not really going that far out on a limb I don't think. Polling also showed Trump winning Ohio decently, which he did, and eeking out a win in Florida, which he also did. Again, aside from the 5.8% divergence in Wisconsin, polling for battleground states was, no surprise, pretty close. So, again, ignore them if you want but I wouldn't recommend it. I would, however, recommend keeping an eye on Real Clear Politics for the aggregate polling which tends to give a more accurate result since it helps eliminates outliers which both sides like to use. Quoted:
Plus you don't even mention the "95% chance of winning" the electoral college the whole media was talking about on election day. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. Even a die hard Northwestern Conservative such as yourself can see that. |
|
Quoted: Thank you. Drives me crazy seeing people gleefully ignorant towards polling and how it works. For many it's much easier to simply scream out "fake polls!" and dismiss any polling data they don't like. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. View Quote The methodology is usually if you look into it. |
|
Quoted:
I WANT the House of Representatives to hold an impeachment vote so the issue can move to the senate where Trump will most certainly be able to both bring into focus the democratic mis-deeds, and the attempted coup, then the senate can reject the impeachment and we can move on. I have even thought that it would be smart for the Republicans in the house to ask for an impeachment vote, just to get the ball rolling into the senate and shortstop all the BS in the house. The House democrats will drag this out as long as possible, so having republicans ask for the vote would short stop their tactic. Much like when all the representatives were calling for the dissolution of I.C.E., then once a vote on the issue was requested they backed off. The great irony would be if republicans asked for an impeachment vote in the house of representatives, the democrats would be faced with voting in favor of something the republicans asked for (which they hate), or voting against impeachment... The irony of those two choices would be truly entertaining to watch. View Quote about being exposed. No one is ever going to do anything to them. They just dont want to lose the issue |
|
Quoted:
I dunno man, the poll above is pretty Even a die hard Northwestern Conservative such as yourself can see that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure Trump was polling behind in several of the battleground states he won. - Pennsylvania won by just 44,292 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +1.9, actual was Trump +0.7 - Wisconsin won by just 22,748 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +6.5, actual was Trump +0.7 - Michigan won by just 10,704 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +3.4, actual was Trump +0.3 Of just those 3, Wisconsin is the only one that could be considered diverging significantly from the polled results in part because they expected a larger showing for Stein and Johnson. Given that it's Wisconsin, that's not really going that far out on a limb I don't think. Polling also showed Trump winning Ohio decently, which he did, and eeking out a win in Florida, which he also did. Again, aside from the 5.8% divergence in Wisconsin, polling for battleground states was, no surprise, pretty close. So, again, ignore them if you want but I wouldn't recommend it. I would, however, recommend keeping an eye on Real Clear Politics for the aggregate polling which tends to give a more accurate result since it helps eliminates outliers which both sides like to use. Quoted:
Plus you don't even mention the "95% chance of winning" the electoral college the whole media was talking about on election day. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. Even a die hard Northwestern Conservative such as yourself can see that. I usually just go on realclearpolitics to see an overview of multiple polls to get a general idea. |
|
Quoted:
I agree, I was just talking specifically about the 2016 election polling. I usually just go on realclearpolitics to see an overview of multiple polls to get a general idea. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure Trump was polling behind in several of the battleground states he won. - Pennsylvania won by just 44,292 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +1.9, actual was Trump +0.7 - Wisconsin won by just 22,748 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +6.5, actual was Trump +0.7 - Michigan won by just 10,704 votes. Aggregate polling indicated Clinton +3.4, actual was Trump +0.3 Of just those 3, Wisconsin is the only one that could be considered diverging significantly from the polled results in part because they expected a larger showing for Stein and Johnson. Given that it's Wisconsin, that's not really going that far out on a limb I don't think. Polling also showed Trump winning Ohio decently, which he did, and eeking out a win in Florida, which he also did. Again, aside from the 5.8% divergence in Wisconsin, polling for battleground states was, no surprise, pretty close. So, again, ignore them if you want but I wouldn't recommend it. I would, however, recommend keeping an eye on Real Clear Politics for the aggregate polling which tends to give a more accurate result since it helps eliminates outliers which both sides like to use. Quoted:
Plus you don't even mention the "95% chance of winning" the electoral college the whole media was talking about on election day. That and the fact presidential and mid-term polling pre and post 2016 has been extremely accurate. 2016 was just an outlier but the polling was accurate again during the 2018 mid terms. Even a die hard Northwestern Conservative such as yourself can see that. I usually just go on realclearpolitics to see an overview of multiple polls to get a general idea. |
|
Quoted:
This is supposed to be the sampling data for the Fox news poll. https://i.redd.it/96a4nbxnhpr31.jpg View Quote I mentioned this in a previous post but there is not an even breakdown in numbers in the political parties. Take a look around at the state of our society and culture. In terms of raw numbers, Republicans are assuredly outnumbered by Dems and Constitutional Conservatives even more so. You're talking about an electorate that just gave a hardcore Maxist not one but two Presidential terms. That doesn't happen in a center-right nation. The damage has been done by the Left and we're on the wrong side of demographics. You all should be preparing accordingly. |
|
Quoted:
I hate to be the bearer of more bad news but, "oversampling" of Democrats isn't necessarily incorrect. I mentioned this in a previous post but there is not an even breakdown in numbers in the political parties. Take a look around at the state of our society and culture. In terms of raw numbers, Republicans are assuredly outnumbered by Dems and Constitutional Conservatives even more so. You're talking about an electorate that just gave a hardcore Maxist not one but two Presidential terms. That doesn't happen in a center-right nation. The damage has been done by the Left and we're on the wrong side of demographics. You all should be preparing accordingly. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I hate to be the bearer of more bad news but, "oversampling" of Democrats isn't necessarily incorrect. I mentioned this in a previous post but there is not an even breakdown in numbers in the political parties. Take a look around at the state of our society and culture. In terms of raw numbers, Republicans are assuredly outnumbered by Dems and Constitutional Conservatives even more so. You're talking about an electorate that just gave a hardcore Maxist not one but two Presidential terms. That doesn't happen in a center-right nation. The damage has been done by the Left and we're on the wrong side of demographics. You all should be preparing accordingly. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Democrats are 31 percent not 48, but keep on never trumping View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate to be the bearer of more bad news but, "oversampling" of Democrats isn't necessarily incorrect. I mentioned this in a previous post but there is not an even breakdown in numbers in the political parties. Take a look around at the state of our society and culture. In terms of raw numbers, Republicans are assuredly outnumbered by Dems and Constitutional Conservatives even more so. You're talking about an electorate that just gave a hardcore Maxist not one but two Presidential terms. That doesn't happen in a center-right nation. The damage has been done by the Left and we're on the wrong side of demographics. You all should be preparing accordingly. And I'm never what-ing now? Attached File I'm wondering if you actually know what the word "never" means or, if you're just as reactionary as the left with throwing "racist" out at everything that hurts your feelings, thus rendering it completely meaningless. As for the demographics side of things, how's the view in that sand you've got your head in? I'm sure Texas really isn't turning purple right before our eyes and it's all just a bad dream... Sleep tight. |
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
It was Joe. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/309598/F4ACDCA3-9C5F-45A7-B41A-6282C3D6B2C9_jpeg-1119967.JPG View Quote |
|
Quoted:
You know how I know it is all bullshit? The Democrats won't even come back for recess to vote in favor of an inquiry. If they were confident in the votes, they would come back from recess today and vote. If by this time next week, there isn't a full House vote to start an inquiry - there won't ever be an impeachment vote. Actions speak louder than words (and polls). View Quote The problem was their case is so garbage and weak it was quickly refuted and a lot of the public aren't interested. They don't need Bezos and Soros to support them, they already have that. They need enough of the electorate and from what I've seen a lot of non-political people are rolling their eyes at yet another muh-Russia. |
|
BTW rogue cops and prosecutors arresting these two "Guliani" guys.
It it reads more like the usual IC operation we've gotten to see along with NSA database abuses. Pathetic. |
|
Quoted:
It was Joe. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/309598/F4ACDCA3-9C5F-45A7-B41A-6282C3D6B2C9_jpeg-1119967.JPG View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I suspect this news coming out largely has to do with the hard Left's efforts to continue to push Biden out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I suspect this news coming out largely has to do with the hard Left's efforts to continue to push Biden out. |
|
Oh wow, all that and they don't even know the guy's name...
|
|
Quoted:
Please, don't back up your numbers with any citations or anything useful. And I'm never what-ing now? https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/102941/my_2016_election_ballot_filled_JPG-1119888.JPG I'm wondering if you actually know what the word "never" means or, if you're just as reactionary as the left with throwing "racist" out at everything that hurts your feelings, thus rendering it completely meaningless. As for the demographics side of things, how's the view in that sand you've got your head in? I'm sure Texas really isn't turning purple right before our eyes and it's all just a bad dream... Sleep tight. View Quote I believe Kangaroo dude voted for him too. |
|
Quoted:
If that is accurate, then it's little wonder the results are what they are. Republicans as sampled against Democrats: Total Number: -29% Men: -15% Women: -38% White: +2.5% Black: -87% Non-White: -78% White Men: +27% White Women: -25% Non-White Men: -73% Non-White Women: -83% Under 45: -52% 45+: -4% In the second section, they sampled Democrats that more strongly identified with the Democrat Party than Republicans that identified with the Republican Party. If I'm reading that correctly. Would also like to see the rest of this section Again, Republicans vs Democrats sampled. Urban: -55% Suburban: -38% Rural: +25.7% Suburban Women: -49% Section three. Also want to see the rest. White College Degree: -20% White No Degree: +22% White Men Degree: +10% White Men No Degree: +48% White Women Degree: -49% White Women No Degree: +11% Of an interesting note is the Lib/Mod/Cons stats. Democrats 80%/44%/20% There is a pretty strong indicator of the fractures in the Democrat party, between the hardcore liberals and the more moderate, even occasionally conservative Democrats. Republicans 9%/18%/62% Here, while the Republicans don't as strongly identify as conservative, there is drastically less of split in positions. Overall, a great example of how to abuse statistics. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
This is supposed to be the sampling data for the Fox news poll. https://i.redd.it/96a4nbxnhpr31.jpg Republicans as sampled against Democrats: Total Number: -29% Men: -15% Women: -38% White: +2.5% Black: -87% Non-White: -78% White Men: +27% White Women: -25% Non-White Men: -73% Non-White Women: -83% Under 45: -52% 45+: -4% In the second section, they sampled Democrats that more strongly identified with the Democrat Party than Republicans that identified with the Republican Party. If I'm reading that correctly. Would also like to see the rest of this section Again, Republicans vs Democrats sampled. Urban: -55% Suburban: -38% Rural: +25.7% Suburban Women: -49% Section three. Also want to see the rest. White College Degree: -20% White No Degree: +22% White Men Degree: +10% White Men No Degree: +48% White Women Degree: -49% White Women No Degree: +11% Of an interesting note is the Lib/Mod/Cons stats. Democrats 80%/44%/20% There is a pretty strong indicator of the fractures in the Democrat party, between the hardcore liberals and the more moderate, even occasionally conservative Democrats. Republicans 9%/18%/62% Here, while the Republicans don't as strongly identify as conservative, there is drastically less of split in positions. Overall, a great example of how to abuse statistics. |
|
|
Quoted:
It would be a lot less successful if he weren't, you know, a criminal. View Quote Quoted: The fact that you voted for him means little considering you trash the man non-stop on a conservative (more or less) forum of which the majority of the members feel he is doing a good job considering the hostile environment he works in. I believe Kangaroo dude voted for him too. View Quote Hint: It's not a Republican President politically equivalent to a Democrat from 50-60 years ago. The fact you think it is, is why we're screwed. |
|
|
Quoted:
Same exact Prosecutor that just went to court to block Dems from getting Trump's taxes. But you knew that, right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: If that is accurate, then it's little wonder the results are what they are. Republicans as sampled against Democrats: Total Number: -29% Men: -15% Women: -38% White: +2.5% Black: -87% Non-White: -78% White Men: +27% White Women: -25% Non-White Men: -73% Non-White Women: -83% Under 45: -52% 45+: -4% In the second section, they sampled Democrats that more strongly identified with the Democrat Party than Republicans that identified with the Republican Party. If I'm reading that correctly. Would also like to see the rest of this section Again, Republicans vs Democrats sampled. Urban: -55% Suburban: -38% Rural: +25.7% Suburban Women: -49% Section three. Also want to see the rest. White College Degree: -20% White No Degree: +22% White Men Degree: +10% White Men No Degree: +48% White Women Degree: -49% White Women No Degree: +11% Of an interesting note is the Lib/Mod/Cons stats. Democrats 80%/44%/20% There is a pretty strong indicator of the fractures in the Democrat party, between the hardcore liberals and the more moderate, even occasionally conservative Democrats. Republicans 9%/18%/62% Here, while the Republicans don't as strongly identify as conservative, there is drastically less of split in positions. Overall, a great example of how to abuse statistics. View Quote I think NBC had the +14 one. Naturally Nate Cheapsilver, RCP, and all the others kept those polls in there, ruining the averages. The message: "Omg guise he cant win srsly. ...stay home plz.. dont donate and tell everyone else to quit.." |
|
|
Quoted:
Another rogue prosecutor on the loose. View Quote
|
|
Did I forget to mention AG Barr was informed of the investigation back in February and strongly supported it? But, yes, obviously it's a "rogue" prosecutor.
|
|
Quoted:
View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Another rogue prosecutor on the loose.
Wonder when they had contact with Adam Schiff. Could this be another setup |
|
Quoted:
Did I forget to mention AG Barr was informed of the investigation back in February and strongly supported it? But, yes, obviously it's a "rogue" prosecutor. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Another rogue prosecutor on the loose. My faith in any prosecutor, Trump appointee or not, is non existent. From what I've seen, Democrats and the GOPe have managed to sneak a few of their own into the mix of these appointments and they later on become part of the resistance brigade. |
|
Quoted:
Hate to be a a skeptic but have you noticed all the BS indictments and allegations levied against Trump and his campaign? My faith in any prosecutor, Trump appointee or not, is non existent. From what I've seen, Democrats and the GOPe have managed to sneak a few of their own into the mix of these appointments and they later on become part of the resistance brigade. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Well at least there are Hannity's "bombshells". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Hate to be a a skeptic but have you noticed all the BS indictments and allegations levied against Trump and his campaign? My faith in any prosecutor, Trump appointee or not, is non existent. From what I've seen, Democrats and the GOPe have managed to sneak a few of their own into the mix of these appointments and they later on become part of the resistance brigade. |
|
Impeachment 9 11 2019 10 10 |
|
Quoted:
Well at least there are Hannity's "bombshells". View Quote But let's be abundantly clear that if the party affiliations were reversed, the shit that has come out about the muller probe, the spying on the Trump campaign, the stuff developing in the Ukraine...pretty much anything John Solomon has been reporting on in the last few years...then Washington DC would have ground to an absolute halt. There would have been indictments and arrests and jail sentences. There would have been wailing and gnashing of teeth that makes the current media bullshit look tame by comparison. That isn't happening because the abuses of power, the lawbreaking, the malfeasance, the grift is all going in the direction that the elitist cabal likes. So it's a non issue. What Solomon has been reporting over the last few years is legitimately bombshell material. But it isn't moving the needle because the media is pretending none of it exists. Including the latest revelations that John Solomon was being spied on by, at a minimum, Obama appointees in the State department. And that's not the first time he was being monitored, either. So all this stuff is legitimately huge news. It's simply apparent at this point that the democrats are 100% in for using every lever of power possible to get their preferred end result without any concern for how it is happening. Like this entire impeachment thing in the first place. They've been talking about impeachment since Trump was elected. You know, after they tried to get the electors to break with hundreds of years of established tradition and nullify the votes of millions because Their Girl had to win to keep all this deep state profiteering going. They were looking for the excuse and it never came. So they're done waiting for the right excuse. They'll just manufacture one real quick and proceed without any regard for past precedent. I mean, we learned pretty clearly that the concept of due process was of zero concern to democrats during the Kavenaugh debacle. Everyone remembers that, right? A completely specious allegation made by somebody who couldn't even get the details of her own story right got taken super, super serial by the democrats who all voted not to confirm him. After they promoted complete bullshit to be promoted that also turned out to completely crumble under any reasonable investigation because fuck due process. What matters is that he didn't get a seat on the court. Because that fucks up their plans. So they branded him a rapist on absolutely no evidence and they're still on the campaign trail talking about impeaching him. This is no different. The "whistleblower's" lawyers are now saying they want their client to submit testimony in writing and to never have to appear to testify. Which means he will not be cross examined. So they want to impeach over a phone call we already have the transcripts for, based on the word of a "whistleblower" who didn't actually meet the requirements of being a whistleblower in the first place, who submitted his complaint on a form that got backdated to make it look like it was kosher, and after having been in contact with the House Intel comittiee's chairman. Contact that the chairman lied about, and contact that the ICIG claims not to have been informed of. A "whistleblower" who we now know worked with Biden and it's possible even traveled with Biden to Ukraine for Biden's intimidation and graft tour. And now this "whistleblower" doesn't even want to appear under oath and answer any questions. He wants to phone in his "testimony" through his lawyers in a manner that will not allow ANY cross-examination or scrutiny. And we're supposed to impeach a president on that basis. It could not be any more evident what is really going on here. |
|
Quoted: Hannity is a low-IQ conservative grifter boomer with those stupid “tick tock” tweets that turn out to be nothing burgers. View Quote You know how many resulted in ANYTHING prosecutorial or Grand Jury actions? NONE!!! |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.