I think at this point, Keith Olbermann has edged out Rob Reiner, Bette Middler, Mark Ruffalo, et al, as the sniveling weasel whose demise would put the widest smile on my face.

I think maybe we are giving too much credit top CNN for their "fairness". The handling of the debate was indeed well done on their part, but I suspect it was more for their benefit.

They saw two ships that were going to crash into each other and the possibility that one or both were going down - they just decided they didn't want to further damage their shaky reputations - so they just tossed the raw meat into the fray and said "have at it"!

They ended up with a small boost to their creditability and hopes of increasing their declining viewership. Maybe I am wrong, but the history of those two moderators seems to show an ulterior motive for playing nice.

was talking to a friend and they said they were disappointed that Trump didn't answer all the questions

told him that was a clever move by Trump. No matter what the question is, give your campaign speech

It doesn't matter why they were fair. It matters only that they were fair.

Today in his rally in Virginia, Donald Trump said CNN treated him fairly and complemented the moderators and he did point out that this was only after years of abuse by CNN and its people.

My belief is that, yes, they were fair because they knew they were being closely scrutinized and they were aware of the predictions from a countless number of sources that CNN was going to pull its usual shit.

Whatever the case, they stayed out of the way, and that's all that matters.

Mark Dice believes the Dems are going to put the task of removing Drooling Joe on the delegates at the convention, and there is some evidence to support his belief, in the form of MSNBC commentary contained in this video.

It would be just like the top Dems to get others to do their dirty work while they to lie the public that they still want President Cadaver.

"Obama" says it all beginning at 8:23

For those of you who like Vivek.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...gn=nl&recip=26773771

Ramaswamy: What the Country Witnessed Last Night Was No Accident

Vivek Ramaswamy recently gave his theory about why the first presidential debate was scheduled before either party held their conventions, and after Thursday’s night’s disastrous debate performance by President Biden, it appears he may be right.

The entrepreneur explained that “anything can happen before the [DNC] convention,” which is scheduled for August.

Ramaswamy said Democrats likely don’t want to get another nominee too soon, which would allow for a proper vetting process and the “honeymoon phase to fade.” Swapping in another candidate near the convention date would resolve those concerns.

Ramaswamy was clear he wasn’t saying the situation would definitely unfold this way, but he went on to question why the first debate was held so early.

“This is the earliest presidential debate in American history and the first ever, to my knowledge, that has taken place before the nominating convention of either party,” he said on Fox News. “Ask yourself why they're doing it. And more importantly, ask yourself why the Democrats made it a condition of Biden debating that they place that date that early. You got to skate to where the puck is going.

"And that’s why I think it’s so important that we not fixate on Joe Biden," he continued, "we have to stand for our own vision…as conservatives and as Americans. That’s how were gonna win elections, not by fixating on Biden because there’s a good chance it may not even be him.”

cont...

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
just on X that Steve Bannon's appeal to Supreme Court was denied and he must report to prison on Monday. Fuck John Roberts.

For contempt of Congress? Will he be in the same cell block as Eric Holder?

.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

For contempt of Congress? Will he be in the same cell block as Eric Holder?

.

No. Merrick Garland.

I am praying daily that they vote for inherent contempt. I would love to see that commie little man in a jail cell.

I’ve only been awake for about 30 minutes now (I work nights and sleep during the day) and have already seen 4 commercials on tv for Biden telling us how terrible of a person Trump is. Jan 6th blah blah blah.

Living in Wisconsin…this is going to be a few loooong months.

quote:

Originally posted by Largefarva:
I’ve only been awake for about 30 minutes now (I work nights and sleep during the day) and have already seen 4 commercials on tv for Biden telling us how terrible of a person Trump is. Jan 6th blah blah blah.

Living in Wisconsin…this is going to be a few loooong months.

Did it look like this?

After some thought about the situation and trying to make some sense of it, I’ve decided what I would have done if I were the chief string-puller for the party of the Left once it became undeniably obvious that that man could not be reelected.

First, make it obvious to as much of the electorate as possible, including their traditional base, that that man was not fit to serve another term in office, and why: Because it was so clear that he had no chance of being reelected, and therefore sooner or later he would have to be replaced by someone who stood a chance, and thereby priming that pump.

That would be a little tricky because it couldn’t be rushed or be too obvious that he was being allowed to do things that demonstrated his state of decline. That’s why despite the obvious, his traditional loyal supporters in the BS media, the White House, and elsewhere would continue to deny what was clear for anyone to see. Some people would actually believe what was being said rather than what their lying eyes were telling them, but that wouldn’t matter much at the early stage of the process. And more important, the expressed loyalty would help prevent cracks in the base because some people thought he was being abandoned—and especially abandoned for no good reason: “Without him, who?”

The “This is fine” stage could be, and was dragged out for some time.

The next step is when the usual supporters are told to dial it back, and are given “bring it to a head” justification for turning off the gush. This debate was the justification, and that it was going to be would have not only been clear to the head string-puller(s), but was specifically chosen for the purpose. Now that the switch has been flipped from constant support to authorization to start the criticisms, that can be expected to proceed and increase.

So, what’s next? The last stage in the process of removing the liability to the party of the Left that that man represents is to have him declare that due to “health” or other reason(s) he recognizes himself that he couldn’t serve out another term; not that he isn’t competent now, but he wouldn’t last another four years. With that announcement, the sighs of relief from the east and left coasts would be audible across the country, and he would gain praise and sympathy for being so brave and honest as to make the decision.

The timing of that announcement would also be planned very carefully to maximize its benefits. Ideally it would be early enough for the replacement candidate to develop a bit of recognition and some steam before the election. On the other hand, it needs to be late enough that the new guy doesn’t lose the spillover votes based on sympathy for the current man by the time of the election, and while also limiting his exposure to the inevitable counterattacks.

Yes, switching candidates at this late (or later) date would not be without risks and difficulties of various sorts, but, I believe, not as risky as not changing candidates at all. And of course it’s just speculation and perhaps proof that I shouldn’t be a political string-puller, but it will be interesting to see how close I am to being correct later.

Added: In now reading the post by 6guns, it seems I am not the only one speculating about what is going on, but these ideas really did occur to me independently.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
For those of you who like Vivek.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...gn=nl&recip=26773771

Ramaswamy: What the Country Witnessed Last Night Was No Accident

I think it may be that the Dems capitalized on what really was Biden's insistence at having this debate and having it so early.

Today, Ramaswamy told Stuart Varney that in terms of a replacement, the Dems have locked themselves into this identity politics horse shit of having a black woman as Biden's VP, and since it appears that it's going to be anybody but Kamala Harris replacing Joe, he hinted that it might be Michelle Obama as the ultimate choice of the Dem convention delegates.

The problem with this is- beyond her public insistence that she has no desire or intention to run- with Trump gaining strength despite all the chains the leftists have hung around his neck, if she decided to run, both she and her husband place themselves in the position of being defeated by a man who is a "convicted felon", and the implications of how the country actually feels about the Obamas if she were to be defeated. I just can't see either of them putting themselves in that position. Their massive egos would not be able to bear the strain.

And though I think Hillary Clinton is not a viable choice, for a variety of reasons, I find her- for the reasons stated above- to be a more likely candidate. Now, it's a tossup what would be worse in Hil's evil eyes: losing again t Trump, or passing up an opportunity to defeat him.

There's no way to know about any of this, of course, because every last one of these evil crooks is as crooked as a corkscrew.

The rules of the Democratic party make it almost impossible to replace Biden atop the ticket unless he voluntarily steps aside. Biden currently has 3,894 of the nearly 4,000 estimated pledged delegates so far, most of whom are required to stick with him through the first round of voting, which will be held virtually online ahead of the Democratic National Convention. Some 25% of delegates at the convention would be needed to hold a vote opening the way to another candidate’s chance to be the nominee. That remains very unlikely.

“Things are dark. No doubt about it,” says one hand who has been sitting in the West Wing since Day One. “But onward. That’s the only option that’s on the table.”

If Biden could be convinced to step aside there would be chaos inside the party unlike anything since 1968. Vice President Kamala Harris would start with advantages of incumbency, but her approval number is low and she would be vulnerable to a challenge. Prominent contenders, nominally jockeying for 2028 but all quietly talked about as possible Biden replacements in 2024, include Governors Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gavin Newsom of California, and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.

https://time.com/6993760/joe-b...den&linkId=485636054

quote:

...but all quietly talked about as possible Biden replacements in 2024, include Governors Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gavin Newsom of California, and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois.

Whitey ain't gonna cut it with the identity and race-obsessed leftists. Kamala Harris is a huge problem of their own making. They should never have picked her but I'm glad they did.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/l...4e53e01308e704392be4

As the Supreme Court limited obstruction charges against January 6 rioters on Friday, the Supreme Court still has to decide on former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. The final opinions from the court will be released on Monday, including the immunity ruling.

The case involves Trump’s appeal for immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion charges, which landed at the Supreme Court late in the term and instantly overshadowed most of the docket.

Trump argued that without immunity, presidents would be hamstrung in office, always fearful of being second guessed by a zealous prosecutor after leaving the White House. That position appeared to have some purchase on the conservative Supreme Court during oral arguments in April, though it didn’t appear Trump would be able to get Smith’s case tossed entirely.

The immunity case, appears likely to come down to whether Trump’s post-election actions were “official” – that is, steps he was taking as president – or whether they were “private,” which would not likely receive immunity.

An appeals court in Washington sided against Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

For contempt of Congress? Will he be in the same cell block as Eric Holder?

.

No. Merrick Garland.

I think his point is, there are two systems of justice, one for the entrenched swamp creatures, and the other (injustice) for MAGA patriots. Holder was held in criminal contempt by the House GOP years ago, and where has he been all this time? Making money on speaking circus and writing memoirs, spending not a single second in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

I think his point is, there are two systems of justice, one for the entrenched swamp creatures, and the other (injustice) for MAGA patriots. Holder was held in criminal contempt by the House GOP years ago, and where has he been all this time? Making money on speaking circus and writing memoirs, spending not a single second in prison.

Yes sir. That is what I am saying. Thank you.


.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

I think his point is, there are two systems of justice, one for the entrenched swamp creatures, and the other (injustice) for MAGA patriots. Holder was held in criminal contempt by the House GOP years ago, and where has he been all this time? Making money on speaking circus and writing memoirs, spending not a single second in prison.

Uhh, yes I know. I was joking back and making the same point with the most current AG to be found in contempt of Congress yet is facing zero repercussions.