By Grand Rapids Anonymous
thursday, october 13, 2022 at 1:00:00 a.m. edt
I posted this [tuesday] yesterday:
Today, Tulsi Gabbard referenced anti-White sentiment, as a reason for her leaving the democratic party. It's a hopeful sign, but is she attempting to fill a role--similar to Candace Owens, latching on to a pro-White philosophy--or is she sincere? AND will she receive coverage on media?
I scanned through today's "negro nightly news" on youtube, and saw no mention of her leaving the dems. Why? nbc did not want to publicly broadcast her very valid reasons which she says forced her to act: dems are anti-White, anti-law, and pro-war.
Can she start a groundswell, is the question. In this instance, a "groundswell" is what's needed to cure "the cancer" in our country.
--GRA
N.S.: Sorry about the oversight, GRA!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
No problem,N.S.
--GRA
She is about the only one I have even heard talking as a Democrat what is occurring for the worse USA. So she will be ignored. I guess she will be an Independent not aligned with the Republicans. But not voting lock-step with the Dems anymore.
The "Committee on Getting Trump Out of the 2024 Election" met this afternoon,during which time they repeated the phrase,"there was no evidence of widespread fraud."
Those words were plastered on the screen for minutes at a time.
"There's no evidence of widespread fraud."
I look at that statement in two ways:
What's considered "widespread fraud"?In the deciding five states,there were,I believe,less than 20,000 votes in each state,that constituted the difference in whether Biden or Trump carried the state.Is 20,000 considered "widespread"?I've never heard a number mentioned about how "widespread" is defined.I don't define that number(20,000) as widespread,but actually,quite limited.Still,a limited amount of election fraud would more than do the job in changing the election results--and the semantics of limited vs widespread,becomes meaningful.
Second,doesn't it make sense that "no evidence" of fraud would be the manner in which such tampering would be perpetrated by any software company? Would they leave clues of such an act?No--they would cover it up--and who would know?
So that phrase means very little to me,in the context of how the Democrat's want me to perceive it.
They wanted Trump out then--and then want him out in 2024.
--GRA
Also,to twist the political knife even further,the committee(lynchers)decided it would issue a subpoena to force Trump to testify.
This one may go through the court system,up to SCOTUS,who supposedly,has not ruled on the matter in the past,of its legality in these circumstances(ex-President testifying about an incident while President.)
--GRA
Post a Comment