Leaderboard

Translation... Come...join me.

It's an approach...for sure.

New York Post.

It was entertaining to watch Judge Barrett easily dismiss the white senators' "George Floyd" civil rights provocations by pointing out her two (Black) children. Ooops ! This is all political theatre, and the Democrats know it is over except for their screaming and shouting. "Elections have consequences." - President Barack Obama (2009)

Like Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Frederick Douglass?

I accept your surrender...General Grant style, bitches.

Agreed....you are in Canada !

Since I've been ignoring all stories about Hunter Biden, it's pretty hard to form an opinion one way or the other. So, at this point I don't know if he's guilty as charged by "fake" news A or innocent of all charges per "fake" news B. Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. We're unlikely to know the truth regardless of who happens to end up the next US President. Trump is a horror, but as some have said - he's only a symptom of a much bigger problem, and electing Biden isn't going to fix that problem.

So, you are not doing that, right? Duly noted.

You and I would be among the first to be rounded up. My IP address has most likely been submitted to authorities numerous times, by the likes of Mike Hardener.

Operation Klauswitz... Quickly, burn ze papers...

Democrats this morning...

Joe Biden?

You were wrong. Pretty simple.

....and I assume you support Hunter's & Joe's actions in the Ukraine and other nations re: influence peddling. I mean why not? You're already supporting brown-shirts in the streets.

Nancy exposed herself on TV. Looking good, baby... ooh yeah!

Lol. Dem Senators trying their luck at a battle of wits with ACB is like as many butterflies attacking Conan the Barbarian. The confirmation process is once again a bloodsport, but this time the shoe is on the other foot. Side note, this era of "WE NEED TO APPOINT WOMEN EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S 2015, 2020" or whatever has put some real duds in high places of late (eg Theresa Tam, Chrystia Freeland, Kamala Harris etc) but there are some up-and-coming women who take a backseat to no man. ACB and Dr Lewis tower over most of their 'peers'.

Uh oh!

What a great way to illustrate that you don't understand 'statistics'! You have obviously never heard of 'standard of deviation'.... When pollsters say "92%" and especially "At this point, even a large polling miss would not be enough for Mr. Trump to win — it will take a sudden and striking change in the fundamentals of the presidential race", and then Trump blows her out by a lopsided margin like 306-232 - it's actual proof that they didn't know wtf they were talking about. They didn't get bit by the randomness bug, they were just wrong. This isn't a case where they said 'this had a chance to go either way'. This is a case where they're saying, "we checked into it - we know exactly what's going to happen in this specific instance" and they had it upside-down. They yapped like liberals (= they looked like total fools). For your edification: 1) people don't have "a 1% chance of ever being in a car accident in their lifetime". It's actually much higher than that. It's almost an eventuality. 2) This isn't really about true randomness, and you can't judge it as if it was just a binary option. Being close counts in this type of measurement. It's like "There's a 92% chance your child will be 4'9" tall" and they wind up being 7' tall. They weren't just wrong, they were clueless. They were so far outside of the SDev that their prediction was useless. If the kid was 4'8 or 4'10 you'd give them a pass but they failed, utterly. You'd never tell a family member to go ask for their opinion again.

It’s not like 2016 was ‘the dark ages’, it’s actually still the best indicator we have of polling accuracy. Their excuses for being wrong don’t mean jack shit to me, they were just completely out to lunch.

Guy's a riot