When it comes to understanding what the alt-left is doing politically, Laura Ingraham gets it better than most

[2aguy]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

Yep.

Local law enforcement is more than adequately outfitted to the point of militarization, at least that's some of what the protestors are saying, and the states have their national guard troops. If they wanted to stop any of this they could. They don't want the bad optics of those actions undertaken by their order on the 6 o'clock news.

If Trump did step in and, for instance, send in troops, he'd be castigated for it. He was roundly criticized for even the suggestion of calling in troops to quell the riots.

Here in Illinois, our esteemed Governor and Mayor of Chicago publicly said “He should stay out of our business".

In Illinois this is 100% on local government. They told Trump in no uncertain terms to piss off, while they sat and watched it burn.

Similar situation in Seattle, where the dumbass mayor referred to CHOP as "The Summer of Love", then stood back and let these loons do whatever they wanted, only now taking action after, very predictably, things went to total shit. Their bed. They can sleep in it.

Perhaps, but they are creating a political environment for the election. In spite of this all going on in blue cities and states, watch how they try to pass the blame to the President. "Look at all the protests and riots under President Trump!!!!" That's what we're going to hear, if they aren't hearing it already on CNN and like.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason. Every one of these Mayors and Governors know if they call the President for assistance, he will have their cities back to near normal in less than 48 hours. So why don't they? Because it would make them look like the failures they are, and Trump the hero that moved in to save the day.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason.


You don't have to think it sometimes...this is exactly what they are doing...

Before the riots there were polls showing Trump was over 40% approval in the Black community...... so, in order to change that, the democrats ordered the riots......they were simply waiting for an event and they chose the Floyd killing. They ordered out their antifa and black lives matter terrorist groups in an organized and coordinated attack in the democrat cities they control......

Expect more of this before the election...

Trump has never had 40% support in the black community. The Democrats ordered nothing. You are the animals who need to be put down.

You say that as the democrat party terrorist groups, antifa and black lives matter, burn, loot and kill in primarily Black neighborhoods.......

 

[busybee01]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to grow, the wind will take it higher.

Right now, the USA is South Africa and the Republican Party are the National Party of South Africa. No one is funding the uprising. This is a groundswell of public support to equality and an end to police brutality and murder of citizens.

This isn't just happening in the USA, just as calls for justice in South Africa came from all over the world.

Wow....you post some stupid things but that is really one of the most stupid things you have ever posted...

The only institutional racism in this country is found in the democrat party...the party of racism, violence and hate........the democrat party terrorist groups, antifa and black lives matter are burning, looting and killing, and you have the testicles to claim the Republicans are the racists?

How the F**k walk upright with balls that big? The core groups of the democrat party are racist...the leaders of the democrat party, bill clinton and barak obama are racists and have friends and allies of the worst racist backgrounds....

The democrat party is burning, looting and killing, in majority black neighborhoods......and you have the balls to call republicans racist....you really are vile.

Institutional racism is present in the Republican Party. They have lost the black vote, female vote, Latino vote, Asian vote and every other group you can think of.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

She is the only major television host calling these motherfuckers EXACTLY what they really are....after I have been doing so for well over a decade.

She is calling them Bolshevists and communists.....which they are.

FINALLY, after years of ringing this bell. Somebody is loudly designating these assholes by their true identity.

They are a bunch of goose-stepping communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers trying to overthrow our republican form of government and replace it with communism for a few minutes (see CHAZ/CHOP). Then, if they don't immediately revert to socialism, the vacuum of power will fill, giving us some horrible warlord as a dictator for who knows how long.

This is why they should not be allowed to exist.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

All this shows is that she went to school and hung out with a lot of conservatives. She wasn't a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, just some domestic policy flunky. Big whoop. I've clerked for David Peterson, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, and for Heenan Blaikie, the law firm of Prime Ministers Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chretien. The Prospect is basically a student newspaper for grads.

Her work after 1991 is more impressive, but she clearly did not distinguish herself at Skadden, since she didn't make partner. She did make connections, hence the cover of the Times Magazine.

The resume is a highly polished account of a distinctly mediocre career. Yes she passed the bar, but wasn't much of a lawyer. She seems to have travelled far on her looks and her connections.

 

[busybee01]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Her resume is certainly not one of an "entertainer" although her reporting is usually presented in an entertaining manner.
Why do you think that she is an entertainer?

Because she is a conservative woman..........the left wing democrats can pile any amount of hate on conservative women without repercussions....

She is a far right wing extremist who is complicit with Trump. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Republican Party. She is no conservative.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

I am not going to waste time chasing down your walls of assorted cut’n’paste. use your own words why don’t you? You have no clue on what I support if all you can do is throw in your pre-organized cut’n’paste spam.

Yes...typical left winger....I explain it without links...and you accuse me of lying....I use links, and you say it's just cut n Paste.....you doofus. Everything people need to know about background checks and the anti-gun bait and switch is in those links...so you need to ignore them.......

No. I am just saying your walls of cut’n’paste don’t really highlight your points...because you are not making them. For example, why don’t you SAY universal background checks are largely uninforceable and then support it, rather than throwing up a mish mash of cut’n’paste, leaving the reader to sort through it and figure out what your point is.

Frankly, even with that, people support background checks, it is up to Congress to create an appropriate well written bill, and even with the Pew poll you referenced, the MAJORITY of respondents were disappointed/angry it did not pass.

The 90% claim has not been debunked.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Institutional racism is present in the Republican Party. They have lost the black vote, female vote, Latino vote, Asian vote and every other group you can think of.

You have been duped. "Institutional Racism" is capitalism. They want to destroy the free market. They are communists.

This is way bigger than the two idiot parties constantly at war with each other.

This is an American existential crisis, and we need to rid the world of this threat forever. We MUST crack a few eggs to do so.

.

 

[Billiejeens]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Her resume is certainly not one of an "entertainer" although her reporting is usually presented in an entertaining manner.
Why do you think that she is an entertainer?

Because she is a conservative woman..........the left wing democrats can pile any amount of hate on conservative women without repercussions....

She is a far right w9ing extremist who is complicit with Trump. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Republican Party. She is no conservative.

I laugh
You should not speak on matters that you know nothing of.

 

[busybee01]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

She is the only major television host calling these motherfuckers EXACTLY what they really are....after I have been doing so for well over a decade.

She is calling them Bolshevists and communists.....which they are.

FINALLY, after years of ringing this bell. Somebody is loudly designating these assholes by their true identity.

They are a bunch of goose-stepping communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers trying to overthrow our republican form of government and replace it with communism for a few minutes (see CHAZ/CHOP). Then, if they don't immediately revert to socialism, the vacuum of power will fill, giving us some horrible warlord as a dictator for who knows how long.

This is why they should not be allowed to exist.

.

She is the motherfucker. Republicans are the party of racism and every other ism you can think of. They are Nazis. Right wing violence has killed more people than left wing violence.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

I went and looked at the actual Reason poll survey (did you?) and boy talk about misleading questions! However in the three questions related to guns, it said nothing about background checks.

They do not provide a link to the Rassmuson poll so I can’t comment on that.

It is true that when specific policies are mentioned as opposed to generic ideas, support often drops...and is often where how questions are framed makes a big difference. Healthcare 2013 was a good example where individual components received wide popular approval, but the legislation itself not. Also a good how questions were framed influenced perceptions (this was evident in the poll by Reason).

The Pew Poll mentioned in your article was only on how people reacted to legislation being voted down....majority disappointed/angry. 47/39.

Reading the actual polls, as opposed to the spin some articles put on them is enlightening, particularly since it still does not debunk the claim that 90% of Americans support background checks.

They support the words "Background Checks." Since they don't know what that actually means the 90% support number is meaningless...and a lie. Expose those same people to the truth of what Background Checks actually mean......and point out they require Gun registration, and then see what the people say in those polls...until then, the 90% number is a lie.

They don’t know what it means? Really? I certainly do.

Quinnepiac is highly regarded for polling...here is there 2013 poll questions (19-22) - they target specific ideas. 88% support increased background checks.

QU Poll Release Detail

Clinton, Christie Lead The Pack In Early Look At 2016, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 88% Support For Universal Gun Background Checks

poll.qu.edu

By an 88 - 10 percent margin, including 85 - 13 percent among voters in households with guns, American voters support background checks for all gun buyers. Voters also support 54 - 41 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons and back 54 - 42 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.

You keep lying.......they have no idea what background check means or the bait and switch you guys plan if you ever get universal background checks....

and here is the real reason you want universal background checks...

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

First off: tbe “bait and switch“ is entirely your opinion (fear mongering).

The fear mongering is passing ONE is not going to pas THE OTHER, which would require a completely new piece of legislation. That is most of what you, Ingraham, and the NRA does: fear monger.

 

[Billiejeens]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

Yep.

Local law enforcement is more than adequately outfitted to the point of militarization, at least that's some of what the protestors are saying, and the states have their national guard troops. If they wanted to stop any of this they could. They don't want the bad optics of those actions undertaken by their order on the 6 o'clock news.

If Trump did step in and, for instance, send in troops, he'd be castigated for it. He was roundly criticized for even the suggestion of calling in troops to quell the riots.

Here in Illinois, our esteemed Governor and Mayor of Chicago publicly said “He should stay out of our business".

In Illinois this is 100% on local government. They told Trump in no uncertain terms to piss off, while they sat and watched it burn.

Similar situation in Seattle, where the dumbass mayor referred to CHOP as "The Summer of Love", then stood back and let these loons do whatever they wanted, only now taking action after, very predictably, things went to total shit. Their bed. They can sleep in it.

Perhaps, but they are creating a political environment for the election. In spite of this all going on in blue cities and states, watch how they try to pass the blame to the President. "Look at all the protests and riots under President Trump!!!!" That's what we're going to hear, if they aren't hearing it already on CNN and like.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason. Every one of these Mayors and Governors know if they call the President for assistance, he will have their cities back to near normal in less than 48 hours. So why don't they? Because it would make them look like the failures they are, and Trump the hero that moved in to save the day.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason.


You don't have to think it sometimes...this is exactly what they are doing...

Before the riots there were polls showing Trump was over 40% approval in the Black community...... so, in order to change that, the democrats ordered the riots......they were simply waiting for an event and they chose the Floyd killing. They ordered out their antifa and black lives matter terrorist groups in an organized and coordinated attack in the democrat cities they control......

Expect more of this before the election...

Trump has never had 40% support in the black community. The Democrats ordered nothing. You are the animals who need to be put down.

You say that as the democrat party terrorist groups, antifa and black lives matter, burn, loot and kill in primarily Black neighborhoods.......

There is a bright side to almost everything

 

[shockedcanadian]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Her resume is certainly not one of an "entertainer" although her reporting is usually presented in an entertaining manner.
Why do you think that she is an entertainer?

Because she is a conservative woman..........the left wing democrats can pile any amount of hate on conservative women without repercussions....

She is a far right w9ing extremist who is complicit with Trump. Ronald Reagan would never be a part of the Trump Republican Party. She is no conservative.

What member would Reagan be then, Biden and AOCs party? You're mad if you believe this.

Reagan verbally attacked Russia while the naysayers told him he was going overboard and would cause WWIII. Trump is confronting China while those compromised or with their hands in the communists pocket are screaming for Trump to stop it (as they themselves sell out Americas future and National Security).

America will go the way of Russia 1990 if they don't confront this. Reagan would NOT be supportive of Bush or any of them today, Trump is the closest to his overall ideology. Patriotism and all. Trump has to constantly fight the Establishment and global socialist SOB's. Let's hope he continues to do so with a vengence, for all of our sake.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

I am not going to waste time chasing down your walls of assorted cut’n’paste. use your own words why don’t you? You have no clue on what I support if all you can do is throw in your pre-organized cut’n’paste spam.

Yes...typical left winger....I explain it without links...and you accuse me of lying....I use links, and you say it's just cut n Paste.....you doofus. Everything people need to know about background checks and the anti-gun bait and switch is in those links...so you need to ignore them.......

No. I am just saying your walls of cut’n’paste don’t really highlight your points...because you are not making them. For example, why don’t you SAY universal background checks are largely uninforceable and then support it, rather than throwing up a mish mash of cut’n’paste, leaving the reader to sort through it and figure out what your point is.

Frankly, even with that, people support background checks, it is up to Congress to create an appropriate well written bill, and even with the Pew poll you referenced, the MAJORITY of respondents were disappointed/angry it did not pass.

The 90% claim has not been debunked.

It is a meaningless number.....it is based on a lie. I showed you what you guys plan on doing...

Your desire for background checks has nothing to do with stopping criminals from getting guns, since you know they don't stop criminals from getting guns.

You want background checks as a tool to intimidate and threaten normal gun owners with felonies if they fail to properly jump through your legal hoops.......and your main goal is to get a gun registration up and running for when you get the power to confiscate guns.

Tell that to the people taking the polls and show them my links...then ask the question.....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She is the motherfucker. Republicans are the party of racism and every other ism you can think of. They are Nazis. Right wing violence has killed more people than left wing violence.

She may be a motherfucker. At least she is repeating what I have been yelling for 12+ years.

I don't give a fuck about the Republican Party. I am not one of them.

"Racism" is really code for capitalism, isn't it? Answer truthfully.

But, both Mao and Lenin killed at least 5x that of the Nazis, EACH, so no. Fascism may be an awful killer, but your communism has racked up 70+ MILLION deaths.

.

 

[2aguy]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

She is the only major television host calling these motherfuckers EXACTLY what they really are....after I have been doing so for well over a decade.

She is calling them Bolshevists and communists.....which they are.

FINALLY, after years of ringing this bell. Somebody is loudly designating these assholes by their true identity.

They are a bunch of goose-stepping communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers trying to overthrow our republican form of government and replace it with communism for a few minutes (see CHAZ/CHOP). Then, if they don't immediately revert to socialism, the vacuum of power will fill, giving us some horrible warlord as a dictator for who knows how long.

This is why they should not be allowed to exist.

.

She is the motherfucker. Republicans are the party of racism and every other ism you can think of. They are Nazis. Right wing violence has killed more people than left wing violence.

Yes...I get it now...you are a troll....left wing socialist actually did murder close to if not over 100 million people....and the left wing democrat party members are the ones burning, looting and killing the last 3 weeks.........but keep trolling.

 

[Dragonlady]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

The mayor doesn't see a need to do any of the things you suggest, and it's her city, not yours. The citizens have told her it's time for the police to shape up and change the way they're doing things, and unlike you and Donald Trump, the mayor is listening to her citizens and THEIR concerns, not denying there is a problem.

 

[2aguy]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

The mayor doesn't see a need to do any of the things you suggest, and it's her city, not yours. The citizens have told her it's time for the police to shape up and change the way they're doing things, and unlike you and Donald Trump, the mayor is listening to her citizens and THEIR concerns, not denying there is a problem.

She has denied it being a problem since they took it over, you twit.....

 

[Dragonlady]

She is the motherfucker. Republicans are the party of racism and every other ism you can think of. They are Nazis. Right wing violence has killed more people than left wing violence.

She may be a motherfucker. At least she is repeating what I have been yelling for 12+ years.

I don't give a fuck about the Republican Party. I am not one of them.

"Racism" is really code for capitalism, isn't it? Answer truthfully.

But, both Mao and Lenin killed at least 5x that of the Nazis, EACH, so no. Fascism may be an awful killer, but your communism has racked up 70+ MILLION deaths.

No one here is a communist. We are all capitalists. It is actually possible to be card carrying capitalist and not be a racist, sexist, homophobic POS. In fact, capitalism is unleashed when you don't spend all of your time and energy fighting to hold people down, and keep them from having the same opportunities that you enjoy, and destroy those who disagree with you.

When power, opportunity and education are available to anyone willing to work for it, and incredible synergy is unleashed, and everyone prospers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The mayor doesn't see a need to do any of the things you suggest, and it's her city, not yours.

And, the rest of us get a preview or what Democrat-ran America looks like.

.

 

[Dragonlady]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

The mayor doesn't see a need to do any of the things you suggest, and it's her city, not yours. The citizens have told her it's time for the police to shape up and change the way they're doing things, and unlike you and Donald Trump, the mayor is listening to her citizens and THEIR concerns, not denying there is a problem.

She has denied it being a problem since they took it over, you twit.....

The CHAZ is the symptom of the problem, but it is not the problem. No it can't continue, but the CHAZ will continue until the actual problem is addressed in a meaningful way.

THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR CHANGE TWICE AND NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KEEPS RE-ARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC WHILE THE SHIP IS STILL SINKING.