tvc184

Perhaps he was seeking an end.

🤣 How are you busting my bubble? Why should Trump debate if he is going to win? Most people would lose support if they refused a debate but not Trump. His claimed abuse of the White House, from the legacy media spin, doesn’t exist. In think Trump won three cases this week in front of the Supreme Court or the DC Circuit Court. Yeah, I have a problem with his antics. Almost everyone does. When he was elected in 2016 I am almost everybody. I knew they supported him said, now if he would just shut up and govern. He hasn’t and he won’t. He’s a narcissist. ……. and yet the public still supports his agenda more than anything the Democrats have to offer.

Remember…. KBH as a sitting and popular US Senator was up 26% at this point with big name backers and then lost by 21%.

Sorry, Kamala will never be the president. Unless the Democrats get serious then they will get beat worse in 2028 when they will have to defend their antics and can no longer use anyone but Trump.

🤣🤣🤣 Rent free! NEWSFLASH: This breaking story just in to the Associated Press, Donald Trump has won the presidency! Any thinking person would not be asking how a convicted felon won the election but how lame the message was from the Democrat candidate was that allowed Trump to gain ground in every state. 🤣🤣🤣

Meaning what? Maybe it’s past my bedtime but I don’t see the connection.

He should have self deported back to his home country or anywhere else.

Who here hasn’t tripped? With Biden, it was not a trip. It was turning around to shake hands with someone who was not there and standing there befuddled wondering where the person should be. It was being let away from a public event by the Easter bunny. It was turning to walk off stage and not knowing how to get there. It was forgetting what the topic was in the middle of a sentence. With Biden it was an obvious mental acuity issue, but being unsteady on his feet for being old.

Biden had to be led away by the Easter Bunny. Just sayin’….. 🤣

Most people probably would but the only people who can do it are the ones holding the position.

They don’t. Where do you see that in my comment?

How does showing a person’s face confirm that he is a federal agent? What does a banker’s face look like? Nurse? Police officer? Cashier? Carpenter? Please explain the rationale that showing a person’s face divulges his profession or his criminal intent. It would sure make it easier for the police if they could simply spot criminals and make arrests by looking say them.

That’s the same logic of preventing school shootings by declaring schools as gun free zones.

The Dems just want to be doxxing them.

Mexico sued several US firearms manufacturers as being responsible for murders in Mexico It was not completely unexpected to be a winning case for firearms manufacturers but the unanimous decision, authored by Kagan, is a welcome sight. The case is Smith & Wesson et al. V. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) Smith & Wesson was sued along with six other gun manufacturers (Colt, Glock, Ruger, Baretta, etc.) in the United States by Mexico. The claim (that might have shut them down) was that those manufacturers were responsible for gun violence in Mexico and because the cartels used American manufactured guns. Mexico claimed that since the manufacturers did not strictly police or regulate who bought goes from FFL’s, they were responsible. The First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico ruled in favor of Mexico saying the suit could go forward. The firearms manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court and their ruling was issued a few hours ago. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the federal law, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects firearms manufacturers from lawsuits in state and federal courts unless it can be shown that the manufacturer was complicit by aiding and abetting the illegal gun transfers. Mexico showed no evidence that any of the manufacturers were knowingly helping the drug cartels to obtain the guns. The decision was authored by Elana Kagan who in her order wrote…. “Finally, Mexico's allegations about the manufacturers’ design and marketing decisions" add nothing of consequence. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers' production of "military style" assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 ri-fles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too” So in the Opinion of the Court written by Kagan, the AR15, AK47 and similar guns are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers”. She then noted that the AR15 is the most popular rifle in the country. That language may come up in the next session or two when the Supreme Court takes up the assault weapons ban in some states under the premise that they should not be included in the common use test in the Supreme Court cases of Heller and Bruen. The main facts that are important here in my opinion are that even the liberal leaning justices, saw the stupidity of Mexico‘s claim and issued a ruling to protect gun manufacturers against what I think is a frivolous claim and that Kagan wrote the opinion. In doing so wrote that the assault rifles and even sniper rifles were widely legal and purchased by consumers and that the AR15 was the most popular rifle in the country. The flabbergasting part is that the First Circuit Court thought that the manufacturers should be liable if one of their weapons was later used to commit a crime. I guess in their opinion, if a drunk driver killed someone, the family should be able to sue Exxon-Mobil for manufacturing the gasoline.