EternalShinyAndChrome

I have no idea who that is.

Who is the "people" you're talking about? Because I did no such thing.

Yep, I do. My information was incomplete. Thanks for the update.

Once again, Crawford was backed by none other than SOROS himself. So it appears Soros' money won this time instead of Musks. You lefties really need to either admit you're okay with billionaires or your not okay with them. There is no in-between. Which is it?

Meh. The problem with this off presidential elections is that damn near nobody votes in them. They just aren't that exciting and the takeaways from these are minimal at best. Conservatives flaw in, in general, is that they don't flock to these off elections while liberals tend to more. It's like this all the time. Unless the race is "exciting", conservatives don't vote in these - to their detriment. So, basically, what we have like 10 people voting in these things, the liberal candidate wins and then liberals proclaiming that "the tide is turning!".

That is incorrect. Crawford's campaint spent 22 million while Schimmels had HALF that. It's even in your own link: For all the complaining the left does about billionaires, Crawford was backed by none other than Soros himself. So the one takeaway we can get from this is that liberals are very okay with billionaires and the oligarchy as long it is THEIR billionaires and oligarchy.

The Democrat Party has an antisemite problem. Oof. This already on top of a racist problem.

As usual, jon is spot on! These m'fers didn't give two sh#ts about Democracy and Free Speech when Biden and Obama were running running roughshod all over them, but only now do we get the fake outrage tears. You can guarantee that if a liberal/democrat is accusing you of something, they are already doing it.

Damn. RIP.

That was just a referendum. You actually think the liberal Governor and liberal supreme Court in Wisconsin are actually going to allow voter ID Even though the voters overwhelmingly voted for it? Not a chance in hell.

Anyone else find it ironic that the op said nothing during the Biden administration when they were shutting down Free speech left and right? Said nothing when the president that he supposedly voted for was not making the decisions but a unelected cabal behind the scenes was? But here he is complaining about free speech and democracy. I would almost swear that he has no idea what free speech or democracy is.

Ahhh...no. You're trying to read into something that isn't there. A win is a win. Nobody cares by how much they won or lost by. There are no moral victories.

Another TDS thread!!!

So is your contention that special elections and judicial elections should draw the same amount of people as presidential elections? I think you're reaching very hard for something that isn't there.

Link?

Snow White set to lose $300+ million dollars alone. Another $150+ for Captain Falcon. Zealots and acolytes in the media trying to run cover and make it sound like it won't lose that much. It's losing WAY more than $115 million. Disney "accounting" is including $130 million dollars in revenue on this film when Disney+ buys it from Disney for $130 million. That's like having $40 in your left hand and giving it to your right hand and saying, "I made a $40 profit". Valiant Renegade breaks it down like a boss:

Good thing WaPo is on the case! I love how when it's a Democrat they don't report anything, but then get holier-than-though when it's Trump.

The funny thing is that this guy isn't even from the US - he's from England. They don't even have the same history regarding slavery as we do. In fact, it was the British Empire that ENDED slavery in the world (other than the US). Jesus, England is damn near all Muslim now so WTF is he talking about? And, to be clear, you aren't "trailblazing" if all your doing is replacing the skin color of "their heroes". "Trailblazing" would mean you're starting/playing your own, unique superhero. What a dumb-a$$.

Who is Racheal Deavers?

I'm sure he will when he gets to Venezuela!

There is NOTHING for me to disprove. You're the one that linked a propaganda site, not me. By definition, the "info" they provide is already incorrect.

I don't use Signal, but I would think you are right about that.

Snopes doesn't do that. HTH. Not only is Snopes known for NOT providing unbiased and researched answers, but they also are known for leaving information and context out that would otherwise disprove their narrative. It's not only about the "facts" you're getting, but also about the "facts" you're NOT getting. You're just focused on the former and completely ignorant of the latter.

Is it true Rachel Maddow gives the forward?