Youtube comments of RhondaK (@Rhonda2580).
-
991
-
777
-
405
-
354
-
196
-
169
-
A Dem friend of mind watched Walz first rally speech, where Kamala introduced him, and she posted that she was on board with him. She said, basically, “Veteran. Teacher. Going to be good for our country.” My friend is a veteran also, so I started sharing with her how he had ditched out on his service, when he was going to have to face combat, and how he had lied since that about his service and his rank. She said “well, all politicians lie”. I told her about the terrible things that he has done in Minnesota, that shows what he really believes in. She wasn’t persuaded. Bottom line for her, I think, is she hates Trump, so she is going to accept ANYTHING that isn’t Trump. I don’t understand that kind of hatred. You are just hating yourself, if you vote for someone like Harris/Walz, because their policies would destroy our country further.
159
-
129
-
118
-
117
-
103
-
98
-
96
-
96
-
92
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
84
-
We live in the rural part of Riverside County, California. We have 20 acres of land, and live in a very nice manufactured home on the property. We also have a beautiful metal horse barn, and related metal equipment barns. We cannot get fire insurance from a traditional carrier, and haven’t been able to do so for a few years now. We are stuck with the California FAIR Plan (very funny name, since it certainly isn’t fair). Every year our premiums go up, and we have to try to fight those increases by “proving” how much work we do to clear brush and weeds, and maintain our property to mitigate fire risk. Sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose. We can’t get any theft insurance anymore, because no carriers in California will provide theft coverage to a rural property that includes a manufactured home and outbuildings, so we have to rely on Air Tags on our tractors and other heavy equipment. This is all as a result of the nonsense that California has done to the insurance industry in California.
81
-
80
-
79
-
76
-
75
-
73
-
73
-
63
-
63
-
61
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
45
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
Moynihan!! B.S.! You are saying that, in that moment when the Oval Office press conference with Zelenskyy broke down, it was because Zelenskyy was having a “language issue”?! If you watch the ENTIRE press conference again, from the beginning, or just watch Megyn’s show where she went through the whole thing, you will see repeatedly that Zelenskyy was pushing the whole time for “security guarantees” and that a resolution wasn’t possible without “security guarantees”. He had no problem communicating that in English. And Zelenskyy knew full well that Trump wasn’t going to commit to anything about “security guarantees” in the first stage, but Zelenskyy never intended to sign the mineral deal UNLESS he also got, now, security guarantees. That is precisely why Zelenskyy insisted on coming to personally see Trump, instead of just signing the minerals deals a week ago in Ukraine. This was not a language issue for Zelenskyy. He had a very specific agenda of what he wanted, and was trying to manipulate Trump into giving it to him.
38
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Female athletes that won’t speak out about the terrible injustice of men competing in women’s sports are just hoping that it won’t ever directly affect them in their competitive career. It makes me think of that message by the pastor in Germany - first they came for the unionists, and I wasn’t a unionist, so I didn’t speak up; then they came for the …, and I wasn’t …., so I didn’t speak up; then they came for the Jews, and I wasn’t a Jew, so I didn’t speak up; then they came for me, and there wasn’t anyone left to speak for me.” (Probably terrible paraphrasing, but you get the idea.). Female athletes, whether they are directly affected or not, HAVE to speak up and refuse to allow this.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here are two main problems with “fact checking” during a debate. First of all, it interrupts the flow of the debate and inserts the moderator into the process too much. You can end up with a moderator doing an alleged fact check, and then the candidate disagreeing with the alleged fact check, etc. Just wastes time - we want to hear from the candidates, not the moderator. Second, the alleged fact checks are not necessarily accurate. They can be biased and lean one direction or the other. Also, it is difficult to correctly fact check something that isn’t a truly factual statement (like with Trump saying “we had the best economy ever.”). That’s just hyperbole, but they still try to fact check it. And, again, it just inserts the moderator into the debate with too heavy a hand, and takes time away from the candidates.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Dave Aronberg said that other countries have birthright citizenship, and gave the example of Canada and Mexico. I just did a quick search on Grok, and Grok says that Canada DOES NOT have birthright citizenship in the sense of granting citizenship automatically to anyone born within its borders. Instead, Canada follows a policy where citizenship by birth is granted if at least one parent is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth. So, there are conditions that apply. I’m not saying that Grok is a good source, without further research, but it makes me skeptical of Dave’s claim, and this would need further research to verify what he alleges. And, as far as Mexico, Grok says that Mexico does have birthright citizenship, but so what? They don’t have any social benefit programs anywhere close to what the U.S. offers, so I doubt that pregnant women are flooding to Mexico to have their babies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I haven’t been in the military, and I don’t really have any family members that were, but Walz stolen valor nonsense really pisses me off. He lied repeatedly about his military service, carrying weapons into war, and his retired rank. When he is called on it, he claims that he just misspoke because he isn’t very smart, and his school teacher wife told him so. So, even assuming that he is just an idiot (and that’s just what we want for a VP), and misspoke, he should have corrected the record IMMEDIATELY after he said it! He DID NOT do that! And, now that it has resurfaced yet again (as it did when he ran for Governor), he STILL refuses to make a clear statement of what the actual truth is, and refuses to apologize for lying!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To add to what VDH was saying about chemical use in growing food, you also have situations like the use of Round Up for weed control in farming. When that first started, people had to be careful how they used the Round Up, because it would kill everything, and they couldn’t have it kill their crops, But, then Monsanto develops a type of seed that is resistant to the affects of Round Up, so they the farmer doesn’t have to be so careful and can get the Round Up spray on their crops, and it won’t kill them, if they use the resistant seed. You end up with all of these chemicals being passed through into the crop, and then we eat it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Look, there are alot of people like Stephanie Rouhl that will vote for Kamala just because she isn’t Trump. And, I guess that’s fine for them, although I think it is a ridiculous way to make a decision. BUT, there are ALOT of people that need to know more , in order to choose Kamala. It is fair and reasonable to expect that any candidate will be candid and open with the information that those people need about the candidate’s policies and plans, so that those people can make a decision on that basis. ANY candidate that refuses to reveal that critical information should be looked at as a liar and a fraud, and not be trusted. And certainly not voted for. If a voter really can’t stand Trump, and won’t vote for him for reasons of personal bias, that voter should also feel comfortable not just randomly choosing Kamala instead. For heaven’s sake - vote for Jill Stein, if you agree with her plans and policies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
If Jim is upset about how people treat MSM, MSM only has to look in the mirror for why that is. It would be like the FBI being upset that the American people don’t trust them to conduct an above board investigation of the Trump assassination attempt, because the FBI says “well, we get it right most of the time.” When we know about the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco, and the FBI having Catholic churchgoers under surveillance, etc. When it is an institution that the American people need to be able to trust 100%, like the FBI and like the press, it doesn’t take many occasions of that trust being violated before the American people decide NOT to trust at all, until the institution proves to us that they are being truthful. And, when these institutions continue to make huge mistakes, which only seem to be tilted in one direction, and then they NEVER do a public mea culpa for those mistakes, you are going to have a very hard time getting our trust back.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Young people are confused to start with. They have a lot of uncertainty about themselves, and what kind of a person they are going to be, and how they get there. The people they look up to, including teachers, should be teaching and reinforcing NORMAL, not abnormal. If a young man turns out, in the long run, to be a more feminine sort of man, or even a gay man, that will sort itself in the long run. But, don’t lead them ALL down a path that just gives them things to grab onto that will cause them lifelong strife, at a time when they are not in any mindset to make logical or reasoned choices. It’s like taking a drug addict that is trying to kick his addiction and telling him “well, that was just because you were using heroin. If you try crack, you probably will be fine.” They are going to tend to grab for anything that they think will give them relief.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think I probably made this same comment on the episode of the original Bill Maher interview - Bill Maher dismisses the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story as being relevant to the outcome of the election. He says, basically, “for F’s sake”, nobody really cared about that and it wouldn’t have made a difference in the election results. Megyn gives him the poll stats to the contrary, and he still denies it. My point is that, if the Dem’s didn’t think that the story would cause a detrimental affect to the chances of their success, WHY did they cause the story to be suppressed? If it wouldn’t have mattered, why didn’t they just let the press report on it, and let the public comment on it, and not try to control the story? Because, obviously, it DID make a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the supposed racist prior post by the DOGE guy: First, the guy didn’t personally insult anyway, so Ro’s example of “if I had insulted a teacher when I was growing up, I had to be accountable and apologize” doesn’t apply. Second, the guy wasn’t a government employee when he did it - what is the “accountability” he is supposed to have for being a young guy saying something ridiculous? Does that mean, years later, when he has worked himself up to the point where he is tagged by Elon Musk to help straighten out our screwed up government, he is required to do some sort of a national apology? That is ridiculous. And, by the way, he was probably held “accountable” at the time when he made the post, in the way that accountability is reasonably applied to those circumstances - people probably commented back to him in a negative way, he might have been shunned or called out, he might have lost friends, etc. This elevated level of moral outrage isn’t called for. And it makes me want to ask these people whether they think we should delve into their pasts and expose all of the ridiculous things that they have ever said, so that they can be held “accountable” for them. This is exactly how I remember Ro Khanna from the Megyn Kelly interview. He seems so juvenile and soft to me, while appearing that he just wants to be reasonable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that Trump was pissed that he had lost, and he couldn’t believe that it was true. I also think that the Dems changing all of the voting rules and local ballot harvesting, Zuckerberg ballot drop offs, etc., gave Dems an unfair, and possibly illegal, advantage. So, Trump was maybe thinking all of these people that came to the capital were also pissed off, and he identified with them. I’m sure he didn’t want them to hurt anyone, or to do anything extreme, but he also wanted them to be able to express their displeasure, so he really didn’t try very hard to stop them. I still don’t see any of what Trump did like an insurrection, and the Dems have totally exaggerated what happened, and the January 6 prosecutions are ridiculous and a huge miscarriage of justice. But, Trump definitely could have spoken sooner and more publicly and more strongly to shut it down. I think that is the basic argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Megyn, you did an amazing job with Bill Maher. He is a smart man, and there is absolutely no reason that he wouldn’t already know the facts that you had to correct him on. Everyone knows that Hillary repeatedly calling Trump an illegitimate President - I’ve seen those multiple clips myself hundreds of times. And certainly he has access to immigration data, which clearly shows that Trump’s border policies were far more effective than the open border that Biden has put in place. Also, he says that Trump is a criminal, and you bring up the Hur report, which clearly says that Biden also broke the law, but they are choosing not to prosecute him, and all Maher can say is “well, you have your story.” I am thinking now that either Maher is too entrenched in left wing ideology that he refuses to read or see anything that doesn’t support that, or maybe he really isn’t as smart as I thought he was. This seems like intentional ignorance to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am a woman, but I still just can’t understand why so many women and men think that the issue of abortion, and trying to have a nationwide right to abortion, is the issue that preempts all other issues. Regardless of where you stand on the right to life, it is such a tangential issue, that won’t even impact more than 90 percent of us, and we have so many more pressing issues, like the economy, the border, foreign wars, the transgender issues, DEI, etc., that effect EVERYONE’s lives every single day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don’t agree. A good chunk of the illegal aliens we have (I think like 1.5 million) have already had their immigration cases adjudicated and decided against them. They just need to be rounded up and returned to their country of origin. “Lawfare” won’t be effective to prevent that. And Trump knows how to make countries “willing” to take back their own citizens. Also, the effectiveness of any lawfare challenges to any other deportation attempts will depend upon the jurisdiction. Depending upon how Trump does it, the administration can choose what jurisdictions will be involved, to be mostly likely of not having interference from the courts. Keep in mind that we aren’t talking about new law - this is law that is already on the books, that Biden just chose not to enforce, or chose to interpret differently (through executive directive or regulation). And, if chosen cases have to go to SCOTUS, that’s fine, and those early cases will set precedent for all of the rest that will follow. That’s why they should get started right away, and with the strongest cases. Also, please keep in mind that the monetary costs of keeping illegal aliens in prison here are not the only costs - that legal of illegal immigration into our country is devastating for our economy and our safety in many ways. If Trump has to give foreign countries a stipend to persuade them, that is money well spent.
1
-
1
-
David, the Dems have been working this playbook for probably more than 20 years at this point. They have been slowly tearing down the country. It is ridiculous that the Republicans haven’t taken stronger action against it before now, I agree with you - but that is because the Republican Party has been mostly the rule-followers and not boat rockers. That is just our nature. We want individual liberty and small government, because we think that is best for America and its citizens. It would never occur to Republicans to USE governmental institutions to try to crank down a nationalist agenda on people. But, that is entirely the Dem’s approach - they LOVE big government, and have done everything they can to make it bigger and stronger, which results in government having more control over the American people. Also, working through the government structure like the Dem’s have is a very efficient way to deprive the American people of their rights, and to make wholesale changes which are not good for our country. You talk like, because the Republicans haven’t won elections recently, they should just shut up and let the Dem’s be in charge. The more you talk, the more you sound like a Socialist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Geraghty is right - Kamala could explain her flip flop, if she could actually articulate a logical thought process. And could disavow her prior positions, based on how much she has learned while VP (although she didn’t do anything, and I think it is rumored that she mostly played solitaire in her office). However, when she expressed these policy positions in 2019 and previously, she was so absolute about almost all of them. When asked “do you support decriminalizing sex work” she said something to the affect of “yes, I definitely think we should do that.” When she was asked previously about getting rid of private insurance and putting everyone on Medicare, she was so casual about it, like “yes, let’s just do away with it, and move on”. (Paraphrased - not an actual quote, but you get the idea). She was so high-handed and absolute with her prior positions that it would make it very hard to completely change her vote only five years later without sounding like her initial positions were not well thought out to start with. You can’t just completely change these substantial kinds of positions over a five year period unless your initial position was arrived upon out of ignorance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This issue of men pretending to be women, and going into a women’s spaces, doesn’t go the other way. Women are, by their nature, uniquely vulnerable to physical assault. And, we KNOW we are. We live a completely different personal safety life than men do. If we come out of a grocery store after dark, we have to be on constant alert for possible threats or risks in the parking lot, even in a usually safe neighborhood. Things that the typical man NEVER thinks of. There is absolutely NO reason that a man who has been living his whole life as a man, but is now pretending to be a woman, can’t either use the bathroom that he has been using his entire life to date, or use a gender neutral single stall bathroom.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m not a prude by any means, but I wish that Maher would have stopped using the “F” word in this interview. It doesn’t make your point automatically more true or stronger, and, frankly, it’s rude. You are talking to a woman. Also, for a man that is supposed to be intelligent, you would think he has access to other, non-curse words, that could express that he is trying to say. Also, I didn’t like how he tried to just dismiss Megyn’s opinion on multiple occasions - “that’s silly”, “that’s just the Republican talking point”, etc. Again, if you disagree, state so and explain why. It’s not an acceptable alternative just to insult the person. Although that does seem to be a typical leftist approach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don’t really think that its really that the pharmaceutical industry is evil - like they are intentionally or recklessly creating drugs that they know will likely hurt us more than they will help us. After all, those same Big Pharma executives use the same vaccines and other drugs that they develop for us. But, I do think that our medical culture has gone way too far toward the idea that there is always a pill to solve whatever is wrong with you. Big Pharma is a part of that culture, but also our medical professionals spur it on. Medical doctors will tell you that they had very little, if any, training on healthy eating and lifestyle as a part of their medical training. But, they get ALOT of training on what test to do and what drug to prescribe. After all, if doctors didn’t prescribe these drugs, including vaccines, then Big Pharma wouldn’t develop them, because there would be no market for them. I am so hopeful that RFKJ and HHS are going to help at least drag us back toward rationality on these issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I love Megyn, but I am not thrilled with this new sponsor, Kettle and Fire Bone Broth. I am a vegan, so that makes sense, but I also understand that everyone else isn’t. My main objection, apart from the issues that come from being a vegan, is that, in the ad copy, Megyn says that the broth comes from “free range bones”, as though someone is just growing bones in an orchard somewhere. The bones come from animals, living beings that we don’t need to use at all just to maintain our health. Calling them “free range bones” reminds me of things like calling meat in the store “pork” and “beef” instead of “pigs” and “cows”. An even better example is calling the meat “veal”, since some people might actually have a problem with eating a baby cow. It just distances people from the fact that these were animals, not just cellophane packages
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait a minute - did Steve Bannon just say that the Obamas didn’t take a penny and have been entirely above-board with their finances? I find that hard to believe. You don’t acquire the level of assets that they came into on a government salary, and a book deal doesn’t make up that difference. Also, I think that it is very unlikely that Michelle Obama would consider being the candidate. She likes being on the outside and looking down her nose at people. As President, she would be blamed for the mess that Biden has made of the country, which she wouldn’t be able to fix. Also, I think there is a lot of unflattering stuff that would be brought forward about what Barack knew about what Biden was doing, and what Hillary was doing. And, of course, she is clearly not qualified. She has never even run a successful business, let alone served in public office. Also, by the way, how would they imagine they could just walk over Kamala? She wouldn’t tolerate that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That British representative did such a great job in that interview! The interviewer was so focused on trying to get the representative to “label” certain ethnic groups because that’s what the left always focuses on. Everyone has to be fit into a group, with a label, and then the left says “well, if you have that label, you automatically have the characteristics that we have assigned to that group”. So, oppressed or oppressor, bad or good, smart or dumb, honest or duplicitous, etc. I honestly don’t understand them. Has the left always been so dumb? Or have they just been struggling to keep up with the conversation thus far, and they are trying to make it easier on themselves by just trying to make it all so simplistic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, now that I have seen the X post from one of the journalists/influencers that got the Epstein binder, where they specifically say that they were told by Bondi that this is just the first part, and that thousands more documents are being held by the New York FBI office and those documents will be in Bondi’s hands within days, I don’t get why Megyn is worked up about this. It sounds like Bondi TOLD those journalists/influencers that it WASN’T all of the Epstein documents and that more were coming. And, that’s what those journalists/influencers posted to X. Bond wasn’t trying to trick them. If those people then all posted the same thing on X, that’s on THEM, not on the White House. Although, I do wonder why Bondi reached out to these particular journalists/influencers only, since they seem like they are more minor players in the news arena? Why not include someone with a more substantial presence, like Megyn Kelly or the Daily Wire?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that Maher sees all of the things that are wrong with where the Left is now, and he can’t tolerate a lot of it anymore, so he has started to speak out about it. BUT, he just can’t see himself, or call himself, a conservative, and he definitely CAN’T give up his hatred of Trump. It’s more like he is in conflict with himself, and he doesn’t know how to deal with it. And, I can’t believe that he didn’t know that Hillary has said those specific words, “illegitimate President” multiple times, before January 6. Good for Megyn, to push back at him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with Mike. I don’t think that the American people, for the most part, care about January 6 anymore. Again, this is the Dems own fault. They went down a partisan path, and it is obvious to the American people. No proper organization of the January 6 committee. Selective release to the public of the evidence, including video evidence, that the January 6 committee had gathered. Destruction or at least partial destruction of the evidence that the January 6 committee had gathered, etc. And, most recently, the video of Pelosi admitting that SHE was responsible for not having proper law enforcement support at the Capitol. They want us to be all worked up about January 6, but it wasn’t actually what they depicted to us, so they had to lie and stretch it, and then they got caught. Same old story with the Dems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The left will say it’s not really a problem - it’s just one competition here or there, so we are over reacting. But, here’s the thing - it’s not just that a man takes a first place trophy away from a woman. It’s that EVERY woman on down the line, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., is now one position lower than they should have been. That loss of ranking can make a difference on a scholarship, a higher level competition, Olympic qualification, a corporate sponsorship, etc. For EVERY woman on down the line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But, Megyn, you are making an unreliable assumption. You are maybe assuming that, if the White House picks the reporters that will be in the “pool”, they will all be partisan and just spin everything in favor of Trump. But, in the alternative, you are also assuming that, if the Press Association picks the reporters who will be in the “pool” they WON’T be partisan? That hasn’t been born out in what we have experienced in the past. It seems like this is in the category of things that the left broke, so they now have to live with the backlash. Maybe they will learn something and maybe not act so irresponsibly in the future. And, I actually agree with you, that I would prefer pool reporters that aren’t partisan, but I don’t think we are going to get back to that any time soon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Megyn, I totally know how you feel about giving back to the Dem’s what they have been inflicting on Trump and his supporters. BUT, tit-for-tat is NEVER like against like. If your sister pokes you, you pinch her, so she slaps you, and then you pull her hair. Before you know it, you are in an outright brawl. If it was just you and your sister, that’s fine. But, an outright brawl in this situation would involve and impact the entire country. I think that the true difficulty is that the Dem’s have had control for too long, and they really don’t know how to handle it. It’s like, when the Dem’s are in control for too long, they destroy everything, and then the Republications have to come back in and clean up the mess and get things on the right track again. And the Republicans need to be smarter about realizing that the system is bigger than “we pass a law to fix things”. The system includes the culture and social issues, which the Republicans seem to mostly ignore. And the system includes the administrative agencies that need to be cleaned out and downsized. The Republicans have their work cut out for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eni says that she has to work harder and be better prepared than the white commentators, just to be fairly considered or thought to be equal. I would be curious to know what evidence she has to back up that claim, since it is SO subjective. And, by the way, even if that is true, I don’t see that as a racist thing at all. It could be because she is younger, it could be because she is a woman, it could be because of her lack of broadcasting background, it could be because she isn’t related to the owner of the broadcast network. What she is talking about is the fact that the world is full of biases, because the world is full of people, and people have biases. You can’t change that with a DEI policy, and trying to do so just shifts the alleged unfairness to some other group of people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think I probably made this same comment on the episode of the original Bill Maher interview - Bill Maher dismisses the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story as being relevant to the outcome of the election. He says, basically, “for F’s sake”, nobody really cared about that and it wouldn’t have made a difference in the election results. Megyn gives him the poll stats to the contrary, and he still denies it. My point is that, if the Dem’s didn’t think that the story would cause a detrimental affect to the chances of their success, WHY did they cause the story to be suppressed? If it wouldn’t have mattered, why didn’t they just let the press report on it, and let the public comment on it, and not try to control the story? Because, obviously, it DID make a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1