gatomontes99

One rape isn't even a drop in the bucket. The numbers are staggering. Last year, per the CBP, 1.6 million people were encountered crossing the border. Known got a ways excluded. Of the 1.6 million, over 1 million were adults. It is estimated, based on interviews by a Mexican newspaper, that 30% of women were forced to have sex as payment for travel. If half of the adults are women, that 30% would mean 150,000 women were raped as a result of Joe Biden and the left's open border policy. Let that sink in. 150,000 women raped. 150,000. Shut. Down. The. Border. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_of_migrants_from_Latin_America_to_the_United_States

Ukraine has been closely aligned with NATO since the fall of the USSR. They had intense talks with NATO about membership in 2010, but those fell apart. Your assertion that Ukraine wasn't working with NATO in any capacity is not true by any respect. It is also not germane to this discussion. 2014 was a different set of circumstances from 2022. In 2022, there were two stated reasons. The laughable NAZI excuse and the worry that NATO would accept Ukraine. Now, NATO isn't likely to accept Ukraine because that would mean they would instantly be at war with Russia. They won't accept Ukraine until a peace deal is met.

Lmao.. Joe is the corruption in Ukraine. And I've seen no indication that he doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. Further, if someone is writing for Joe, so everything Joe says is scripted, why does the WH keep issuing Corrections for what Joe said? BTW, they did issue this statement just under 1 year prior to the invasion: Supporting Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Aspirations:  As the United States and Allies reaffirmed in the June 2021 NATO Summit Communique, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.  We also remain committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing reforms.   It was a dumb thing to say. And it proves that you lied about Joe not wanting Ukraine to join NATO.

Or for f's sake. Don't be dense. With respect to Ukraine and the OP, the point that Trump clearly made is that making public statements about Ukraine joining was poking the bear. The statements were the problem. With respect to the Russia invading NATO thing, that was a sarcastic remark born out of frustration that the member states were not pulling their own weight. It wasn't an invitation to invade. Don't be so glib. Intentionally ignorant statements still make you look ignorant.

That is not always true: https://legal-info.lawyers.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/restraining-orders.html "In federal courts, the object of the order (the person subject to the order) is not necessarily entitled to notice of the application; in state courts, notice is typically required, though the time period may be quite short and might not apply in a domestic violence situation."

You can be critical of our president and not be supporting Putin. This isn't a one has to be right and the other has to be wrong kind of thing. This is a one is a more-on and the other is evil kind of thing. Biden is the more-on

No. He won't do that. Honestly, I would prefer the SCOTUS had set the bar a little higher than a restraining order. I am glad that a restraining order has some level of evidence that must be presented to remove the owner's rights. However, I would prefer that the defendant have an opportunity to defend against the claims. A lot of restraining orders are based on testimony and few allow the person in question to speak on their behalf. I would prefer a trial or, at the very least, a hearing to determine the necessity of removing rights. That said, I know there are a lot of people that have been harmed after a restraining order is issued. Still, that doesn't justify removing an ondovidual's rights. Stats could say 100% of people with this trait will commit that crime and it still wouldn't justify arresting everyone with the trait. Punishment should be for real actions and proven in a court.

You should have watched the Tucker interview of Putin. Putin said, in no uncertain terms, that he started the war because he felt threatened by Ukraine joining NATO. Now, don't mistake that for the truth. But it is clear that Putin was going to use any indication that Ulraine would join NATO as justification for war. What Trump is saying, and he's correct, is that the public proclamation that Ukraine would join would provoke Putin into invading. And it did. The problem we have with Joe is that he doesn't know what he can and can't say. He's practically declared war on China in two instances, the white house has to correct his speeches every time he talks, hes just a walking talking suit with no clue what is going on.

That's most libs.

He chose the ignore it road.

So your argument is that you can't use the government to undo the unconstitutional over reach of the government? Fascinating.

Good. Let's use any means necessary to undo the Banana Republic b.s. that is the Biden admin.

Ill go moderate on this. The right answer here is to allow the Ten Commandments but not require it. That's the point of freedom of religion. The government should not be for OR AGAINST any religion. The left is against Christianity. They want to BAN the Ten Commandments. That is wrong as well. Just allow it to be hung, if that's the school's perogative

I really don't think you understand. Your assertion is unsupported and illogical. It is unsupported in that it is nothing more than your assertion. You are the only one claiming the Republicans are using illegal immigrants to garner votes. Your assertionis illogical because Republicans are doing everything wrong if they are trying to use illegals to gain votes. They are sending illegals to blue states. They are pushing laws to require proof of citizenship. They are building walls to slow illegal immigration. Everything they are doing is designed to prevent illegal immigrants from coming and staying in America. Why would they do everything in their power to stop something that could keep them in power? But the Democrats, they are doing just the opposite. They are allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses and thus giving them the opportunity to register. They are trying to make illegal immigrants and thus giving them a legal means to vote. They are trying to let as many in as they can, because illegal voting doesn't help if it's in small numbers. Your assertion is unsupported and illogical. Either support it and add some logic to back up the assertion or admit you are just making the assertion without merit. We all know it is the later. If you did say you made the assertion without merit, that might actually benefit you. But you won't, will you? No. You can't. So you will either ignore this or make the assertion again, without support or logic, because that is what your fantasy world must be like to maintain your cognitive health.

What in the world? The democrats are literally creating avenues for illegal aliens to vote while doing everything they can to get as many as they can into the country. And you try to make this about Republicans? What a tool.

What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about poor or uneducated?

It's ironic that you say someone isn't credible while they provide probable facts and you provide nothing but your opinion. Why don't you say the same thing about CNN and NBC who each paid out over $200 million for their false reporting about Nicholas Sandman? Is it your own internal biases that drove you to ignore those facts? No it doesn't. A decision to remove rights because they are involved Ona corporation is a serious civil rights violation.

No one said there is no difference between people and corporations. What was said is that corporations are made of people and those people still have their God given rights while representing a corporation. Your post shows an inherent jealously for people of wealth and a bigoted hatred for any thing they might do.

And yet, other outlets are reporting it to. Are you two claiming tmshe didn't say it? Or do you just attack Fox News because of your internal biases? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rachel-maddow-calls-supreme-court-flagrantly-corrupt-says-they-ve-already-effectively-given-trump-immunity/ar-BB1oslMx

Joe won Pennsylvania by less than 100,000 votes. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/pennsylvania If Trump wons Pennsylvania, Joe cant win the election. So what does he do? He is offering free citizenship. All you have to do is marry someone that is legal. No big deal.

The motor voter law of 1993 let's anyone that gets a driver's license register to vote too. And these states have passed laws allowing illegal immigrants to get a license. https://www.ncsl.org/immigration/states-offering-drivers-licenses-to-immigrants These guys testified, before congress, about the thousands of illegal aliens voting in Pennsylvania.

Have to keep pushing this stuff out to the light. I wouldn't be surprised to see players on both sides in similar schemes. My guess is that players that are never Trumpers on the right are in some of these things.

Ted Talk that perfectly illustrates how a movement gets started.

Who identified that China was manipulating the value of their money and subsidizing their products? Joe is just doing what Trump started. He doesn't get credit.