Best course imho--ignore it like the first night of the RNC convention and talk to how "we" move forward.
P
After FJB’s interview with Holt, the puppet masters realized they didn’t have anything else to run on . . .
I heard somewhere that Joe Pedo’s favorite flavor ice cream is called Kill Shot.
Joe is so far gone that he doesn’t know the difference between a mirror and window anymore when he put his “thinking cap” on.
No, given it's really his handlers that are saying this.
Once a demagogue, always a demagogue
Mr. Biden defended his descriptions of his rival on Friday, and Democrats have balked at the criticism from allies of a former president who warned there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost the election in November.
How long will they utter that foul canard? He said NOTHING of the kind! So tired of the lies! Biden told Lester Holt that Trump spoke 28 lies in the debate. LIAR! EVERYTHING Biden and his sycophants speak are lies.
It's shocking that they can find time to do anything else.
My wife and I are practicing to perform in front of Libtard family members. They actually spout “He is a threat to our democracy”. When one of us wants to laugh around them, we start with “Trump is” then the other parrots what they say “a threat to democracy” In unison. Sounds just like the split screen newscast.
Trump is a threat to Biden’s agenda, which has nothing to do with democracy.
That was quick. Back to stirring up the crazies.
We don’t ask simple questions nor point out the left’s lies because the Republican Party is, indeed, The Stupid Party.
So cooling down the rhetoric lasted exactly one day?
What else do they have? They can’t run on his record.
1. Speech: A public figure or group disseminates violent, inflammatory rhetoric via mass-media, directed at people or groups of people, sometimes suggesting or legitimizing the use of violence. This speech tends to be protected due to the use of ambiguous coded language, dog whistles, jokes, hints, and other subtext in statements that fall short of a criminal threshold for causation. Other themes identified include black and white good vs. evil narratives as well as painting an enemy as a mortal threat, which have been compared to the radicalization techniques used by terrorist groups. These attacks are often repeated and amplified inside a media echo chamber.
2. Speaker(s): Typically the speaker is an influential political or media figure, who is referred to as the "stochastic terrorist" for his or her alleged indirect culpability for the attack. The instigator(s) or "stochastic terrorist(s)" may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies, nonetheless, the effect remains the same. The public figure can plausibly disclaim any subsequent attack, as their words were not an explicit call for violence, and because of the lack of a direct organizational link between the instigator and perpetrator of the attack. The public figure cannot be prosecuted for his or her statements so long as they do not meet the legal definition of incitement. This is the key distinction between stochastic terrorism and other forms of terrorism. In the U.S., the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio held that violent, inflammatory speech cannot be criminalized unless it is intended to, and likely to, result in imminent lawless action. However, speech can be quite dangerous even if legal.
3. Inspiration: An individual or group, without any ties to known terrorist groups, hears the speech and becomes motivated to commit violence against the target of the speech, believing it will further a political or ideological goal.
4. Attack: An attacker commits an act of terrorism that could include physical violence, threats, or other acts meant to harm, instill fear, intimidate. The victims may receive or fear physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats. This can have a chilling effect, as many victims do not have the resources for adequate security.
5. Probability: While difficult to predict each individual act of violence due to the disconnected chain of causality, the speech makes threats and terror attacks more likely. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random (stochastic) to predict precisely.
I keep reading the word "grazed" or "nicked". I've also read Trump lost 25% of his ear. That is not grazed. Wonder which it was?
He says it like that's a bad thing...
Claiming Trump is a threat to democracy is enough to get a brainwashed kid to take Trump out , as he would think he’s saving the country. This crap has to stop , but we know the RATS are cornered and will do anything to stop Trump.