Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "TheDC Shorts"
channel.
-
2000
-
1000
-
610
-
276
-
92
-
87
-
77
-
@1:33
"You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at ya"
Schumer is saying that we should all cower to the intelligence community.
Schumer is saying that even their boss, the President of the United States of America, should behave subservient to unelected bureaucrats.
Schumer is saying that they are accountable to no one, because they are all-powerful, without boundaries. There are no checks and balances on them. They are supreme and answer to no one.
Folks, Schumer is saying this because of 1 of 2 reasons (possibly a bit of both):
1) He is a coward, and unlike Trump, Schumer lacks a spine.
2) He is indirectly threatening Trump
More on #2:
Schumer knows that the chiefs at the intelligence agencies broke numerous laws and abused their power and ignored their oath to uphold our constitution.
Schumer knows that Trump knows this, and Schumer knows that Trump is going to bring them to justice.
Schumer knows that when those corrupt officials start getting prosecuted, and they start talking, that more and more Democrat corruption will be revealed.
Schumer knows that his party will be exposed like never before. He knows that even the corrupt media will not be able to hide Schumer's party's unbridled and unprecedented level of crime.
So Schumer is trying to make Trump think twice about going after the corrupt heads of those agencies. Schumer is trying to instill fear in Trump.
But Trump has no fear. It is Schumer that is sweating.
54
-
41
-
40
-
38
-
37
-
32
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
The people that broke the McCloskey's gate are not protesters.
The people that trespassed on the McCloskey's property are not protesters.
They are a mob.
They are rioters.
They are criminals.
Protesting is legal, and is protected by our constitution / Bill Of Rights.
Vandalizing, looting, and rioting are not rights.
Vandalizing, looting, and rioting are not legal.
If 1 person broke the McCloskey's gate, that would be illegal, and that person would get arrested.
If 2 people broke the McCloskey's gate, that would be illegal, and those people would get arrested.
If 100 people broke the McCloskey's gate, it remains illegal, and those people should get arrested.
Criminal acts do not become legal when X number of them form a mob.
Every time someone calls the above "protesting", they are giving the criminals a hint of justification.
Every time a video gets posted where they call these criminals "protesters", either in the title of the video, or in the content of the video, or in the text of a comment, etc, please correct the narrative.
We must be vigilant in correcting every misuse of of the verb "protesting".
Cheers!
23
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
@0:19
"54 percent"
The questioner said 56 percent, and you can hear Biden having a mental moment, because he cannot remember the number.
So he struggles to talk, and realizes that he has to guess at what he cannot remember from a simple question from 10 seconds earlier, resulting in a stuttering pronunciation of 54 percent.
This is a typical Biden gaffe, when his memory cannot keep up with reality.
@0:25
"Well their memory is not very good, quite frankly"
His mind is on his own memory lapse, so he blurts out the above about other people's memory, and adds "quite frankly".
Often, when people overcompensate, and over emphasize their point, it is because they are struggling with the varsity of their own statement. In this case, Biden used "quite frankly" to try and come across as being certain, when he is actually uncertain of the question he was asked.
And watch his eyes, @0:25. He closes them and struggles to concentrate. For a second, he knows he is in "gaffe mode", and he focuses all of his thoughts on trying to appear to be lucid.
15
-
15
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
All of their buzz words, and convoluted reasoning, for hiring pilots based on anything other than merit, will be come to bite them after one of their planes goes down, and hundreds of people are killed -- both in the cabin, and people on the ground where the plane crashes.
The law suits will be numerous, and the payouts will be huge.
It is sad that it will take the loss of many lives for this to make Scott Kirby culpable for his reckless actions.
I just hope that not only United Airlines gets sued, and loses, but also that Scott Kirby gets sued, personally, and loses -- enough to bankrupt him. Anything less, and he will not care one bit.
And when United Airlines; stock crashes, I hope that the stockholders sue United Airlines, and hope that the stockholders sue Scott Kirby, personally. It is the only language that mentally disturbed tyrants, like Scott Kirby, will understand.
11
-
@0:23
"...what we believe to be true"
Translation:
First understand that her use of "believe" is not defined in the dictionary.
When she says that she "believes" something, that does not mean that she believes it, because I "believe" that she is a liar.
And for the rest of the BS being spewed in the rest of the video:
It all adds up to people with Trump Derangement Syndrome, that have still not accepted that they lost in 2016, and are telling everyone that they are not accepting another win by President Trump.
This does have a silver lining:
They would not all be drumming the same "We do not believe that President Trump won, again" beat, if they thought that Biden could win.
They already know that President Trump is going to win. So they have already begun their resistance operation.
This time, however, President Trump is going to handle them more affirmatively. He will use every legal means at his disposal to drain the swamp (and, yes, the media personalities in this video are card-carrying members of the swamp -- they run the swamp).
Cheers!
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
To all of the talking heads that assert that there is no evidence of fraud:
1) The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rriD74r4l1s
2) It is utter nonsense to think that in such volatile, partisan, political times, that mail-in voting would not be compromised. That in a nation of 330,000,000 people, no one is going to find the cracks in the system, and no one is going to pay anyone off, and no one is going to lose ballots, etc.
Fraud exists in every walk of life.
Wherever there is money or power at stake, then there is 100% guaranteed under-the-table actions that will take place.
The difference between in-person voting and mail-in voting is that the former, albeit not perfect, is impossible to exploit at scale. Whereas the latter (mail-in) can be exploited on a large scale basis. And with such an attractive target, with such an attractive pay-off, there will be people that will exploit mail-in voting.
7
-
@1:26 "Let 'em speak."
Did you catch that disgusting action by that school board member?
Here is what she did:
She finds the speaker's words to be distasteful, but she has to let him speak. But when the audience cheers him on, she is boiling inside. She can't stand him being applauded. So she interrupts him, and tries to stop the applause.
And what is so deceitful is her choice of words.
It is like someone interrupting you by saying "I'm not interrupting you", when you try to speak.
She says "Let 'em speak", to stop the applause that infuriates her, and she tries to take the wind out of his sails; tries to make him lose his tempo.
She tried early on, @0:23, with "Address the board" interruption.
He was addressing the board. She knew where he was going (we all knew where he was going). None of us would have interrupted him with "Address the board". She knew he was laying down the foundation for his admonishment of the school board members. So she tries to interrupt him, implying that he was not addressing the school board members.
Of course he was addressing the school board members. Everything he said pertained to his country, his family, and how those school board members are trying to usurp his role as a father and the role of our constitutional republic. Everything he said was for the ears of the school board members (and she interrupts him with "Address the board").
Radical leftists do this all the time. They see you on a roll, and so they interrupt you, seemingly innocently. But there is nothing innocent about it. They do so to break your stride.
That school board member (that repeatedly tried to interrupt that father) is a radical leftist degenerate.
That father knew the score. He ignored her. He kept his pace. He drove home his points. That he ignored her, likely angered her all the more.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6