NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[Not2BSubjugated]

Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.

However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.

So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?

Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.

It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?

Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.

If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.

How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.

Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?

If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.

Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context

So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?

I already have, scroll up.

sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.

If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights aren't being affected, you're over 21. Anyways, people under 21 already have all kinds of restrictions on them because we deem such people not mature enough (to drink, for example).

If certain products are be misused on a very deadly basis, society has an obligation to take said products out of circulation to protect the people, especially when children are involved.

Aahhh, the favored leftist argument of "If it doesn't affect you personally, you shouldn't care". I wonder if it's even possible to get a leftist to understand the concept of opposing something because it's WRONG, not just because it's personally inconvenient.

Show me evidence that all people under 21 in general are too dangerous to be trusted with firearms. I'm not even totally convinced that the drinking age or the age to gamble necessarily needs to be 21, as you assume everyone is, but either way, there is still the fact that drinking and gambling aren't Constitutional rights.

Society has an obligation to prevent misuse of dangerous objects as much as possible, but that does NOT necessarily follow to an obligation to ban possession of those objects for everyone. Quite a leap in logic there, and evoking emotional appeals of "for the children!" doesn't eliminate it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?

So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?

If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?

Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.

Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.

The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.

It’s insanity.

All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.

My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.

My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.

My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.

That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.

You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.

You spout such airy fairy notions that come down to this simple fact: the trade off between unfettered gun ownership and the numbers of Americans being terrorized by mass shootings in the US, has reached a tipping point. Those who just want to go about their daily lives without fear, are speaking up.

The NRA has stopped working on behalf of its members and are acting fomenting sedition and violent overthrow of the government. See NRA TV.

The NRA is currently under active investigation by the FBI for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions.

I love it. You tell me I'm spouting airy fairy notions about principle, and then IMMEDIATELY justify your position by pointing out that Americans are scared and want action.

Yes, the fear of people who watch sensational news stories and get all afraid without ever actually looking into the numbers is TOTALLY a more solid basis for reason than the actual principles involved. Holy SHIT!

And no, I'm not going to go search through NRATV to find proof for you. If you've got a clip to back up your accusations, post it, otherwise, don't expect me to take your word at face value when you just essentially told me that fear should trump principle.

There are lots of things these people are looking at:

1. The numbers of mass shootings in countries where access to certain weapons are restricted.

2. The numbers of gun deaths and gun crime in countries where gun access is restricted.

3. That every study shows that gun ownership increases your risk of dying by gun violence.

Are they looking at the grand total number of people killed in mass shootings and comparing it to people killed by other unnatural causes? I'm guessing not, otherwise, as I stated previously, they'd understand that protesting against children standing under trees during rainstorms would probably be more useful than protesting to stop school shooters.

The fact that we consider school shootings some massive epidemic while paying no mind to people being struck by lightning shows me, with little to no doubt, that the hysteria isn't based on the real life gravity of the situation, but simply on the amount of hype it gets in the media.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's funny is that she claims to be a lawyer and my obvious point just sailed over her head. I think she means she gives head to lawyers

She IS an attorney and has more brains in her little finger than u do in your skull...

So in other words, she agrees with you and you both take instructions from Nancy Pelosi what to think. Pure intelligence.

As for being a lawyer, not so much. But maybe she's a lawyer's rubber girlfriend for the night

I don't need to defend her. She...unlike u...is above name calling and insults....you are as low as you can go.

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
says uneducated trump troll who calls people names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

Well, speaking of irony, coming from the fake lawyer who said this:

"we're nauseated by bigoted pieces of garbage who are trying to run the country like a banana republic."

 

[kaz]

So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?

Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.

It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?

Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.

If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.

How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.

Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?

If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.

Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context

So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

 

[jc456]

Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.

It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?

Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.

If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.

How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.

Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?

If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.

Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context

So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

 

[kaz]

How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.

Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?

If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.

Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context

So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

 

[jc456]

So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

 

[kaz]

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

Those are against the board rules, so you'd have to ask a moderator

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You're stating it bizarrely, but yes. If it's the "speech" that is illegal, then yes, that means it's always illegal. Murder is always illegal. Self defense would mean it's not murder. Armed robbery is always illegal.

It's the threats, libel, slander and those ways of harming other citizens is illegal, not the speech

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

If the person being yelled at decides to press charges and can convince a judge and/or jury that it was reasonable to assume that the threat made was genuine, then legal and/or civil action is taken against the person who yelled it.

 

[kaz]

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

If the person being yelled at decides to press charges and can convince a judge and/or jury that it was reasonable to assume that the threat made was genuine, then legal and/or civil action is taken against the person who yelled it.

Correct. The person being threatened can attempt to press charges for the threat.

It's illegal to send a letter bomb. That doesn't make mail illegal

 

[Cecilie1200]

You find my wording of what you're saying bizarre, and I find it bizarre that you're trying to separate the act of expression from the legal concept of speech. They are not separate. Speech is as much about the meaning of what you're saying as it is about the particular wording, and a contextual restriction is STILL A RESTRICTION.

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

If the person being yelled at decides to press charges and can convince a judge and/or jury that it was reasonable to assume that the threat made was genuine, then legal and/or civil action is taken against the person who yelled it.

Or if they do it in front of a cop, the cop automatically assumes it's serious.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Correct. You cannot threaten or slander anyone. Those are restricted

well sure you can. why do you think you can't? I watch any follow through, but that isn't restricted. It most likely happens all the time. It verbally does in here almost weekly

Please, no one knows who anyone actually is? How can you harm the reputation of an anonymous person? Ridiculous

so if someone yells i.e., I'll kill you, or I'll bust your face, at someone what happens?

If the person being yelled at decides to press charges and can convince a judge and/or jury that it was reasonable to assume that the threat made was genuine, then legal and/or civil action is taken against the person who yelled it.

Correct. The person being threatened can attempt to press charges for the threat.

It's illegal to send a letter bomb. That doesn't make mail illegal

True, it doesn't make mail illegal, but it does negate any possibility of the right to mail objects being absolute

 

[hunarcy]

Since the NRA has never abetted a school shooting, it does not count at all.

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

Of course they are not. They were working to protect the rights of their members in Florida. Your irrational views aside, they are not a lobby for gun manufacturers. You just want to call the organization that to malign the NRA membership. I am a Progressive and would NEVER join a gun lobbying group.

 

[hunarcy]

the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.

I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.

"The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."

Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.

Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons.

^^^^^^^^^^

ding, ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner!

Trust a troll to support a moron.

 

[hunarcy]

So in other words, she agrees with you and you both take instructions from Nancy Pelosi what to think. Pure intelligence.

As for being a lawyer, not so much. But maybe she's a lawyer's rubber girlfriend for the night

I don't need to defend her. She...unlike u...is above name calling and insults....you are as low as you can go.

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

 

[JimH52]

I don't need to defend her. She...unlike u...is above name calling and insults....you are as low as you can go.

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

 

[kaz]

I don't need to defend her. She...unlike u...is above name calling and insults....you are as low as you can go.

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

Remember the blue wave came on election night. If a Democrat tells you a blue wave is coming, it's coming. Remember this?

 

[kaz]

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

Remember the last time you said a blue wave was coming?

 

[JimH52]

OMG, you're an idiot. She calls names constantly like you do. You her pimp or a John?

^^^^^^^^^^^
troll who calls names constantly.



I was feeling irony deficient today.

The trolls know November is coming...

ya I wonder how they feel about losing a House seat in a district where Donald won by 20 points.

What they SHOULD wonder is why the Democrat won by 627 votes in a district where there are more than 70,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans!!!!

AND, Lamb campaigned in a way that agreed with Trump more than opposed him.

It’s official: Democrat Conor Lamb wins Pennsylvania special election in major upset

Just DON'T see the wave coming yet.

Remember the blue wave came on election night. If a Democrat tells you a blue wave is coming, it's coming. Remember this?

Whatever helps you sleep at night..