Jump to content

Don

Moderators
  • Posts

    5433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Don last won the day on September 16

Don had the most liked content!

About Don

  • Birthday January 26

Recent Profile Visitors

8748 profile views

Don's Achievements

Experienced

Experienced (11/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

45

Reputation

  1. Valid point except the phrase "stolen valor" was a thing, a known phrase, long before the military Stolen Valor Act was signed into law in 2013... and I was using the former rather than the latter. A person attempting to claim accolades for a courageous or heroic act for something they didn't actually participate in, such as Hillary Clinton falsely claiming her life was in jeopardy because after her landing in Bosnia in 1966 she had to "run with her head down to get into a vehicle to avoid sniper fire"... But here is the most salient point as far as I'm concerned... And in all the previous discussions about Clinton's false claims, in every other instance of a candidate you supported or endorsed caught lying to the public have you ever posted a single word of condemnation about their false statements? No, but you've posted often about conservative or Republican candidates you've accused of making false statements or lying, but again I digress. Is it possible Hillary Clinton didn't lie about her arrival in Bosnia... not a chance since there is irrefutable video evidence to prove she was lying. Is it possible Majewski has a valid claim to being a Afghan combat veteran because he was deployed in Qatar during the Afghan War? Here's an excerpt from the original article you posted... "During the Persian Gulf War, then-President George H.W. Bush designated, for the first time, countries used as combat support areas as combat zones despite the low-risk of American service members ever facing hostilities. That helped veterans receive a favorable tax status. Qatar, which is now home to the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, was among the countries that received the designation under Bush's executive order — a status that remains in effect today." It seems by the broadest strokes of interpretation, an exaggeration if you will Majewski could be considered a veteran of the War in Afghanistan, given his presence in an area designated by the president as a combat support zone, he could be considered a combat veteran... not that I or I suspect many other veterans would but it is what it is. Did Majewski or anyone promoting him "lie" about his being an Afghan War veteran - about his designation as a combat veteran? It doesn't appear so according to the fact that former president Bush designated the region Majewski served in as a Afghan War combat zone... so to say he is a Afghan War combat veteran may be a bit of an exaggeration as far as you or I am concerned, but the reality of it is officially and according to the information we currently have his claims appear to be valid. There's an old adage: "A person is only responsible for what they say - not what other people think they meant" and that seems to apply here. In closing I will comment that personally and politically I do not find J.R. Majewski a candidate I would be willing to support despite former president Trump's endorsement, Trump's just another celebrity who's views and opinions are just as valid {or invalid} as any other celebrity activist... but then since I'm not a resident of Ohio, it's rather a moot point anyway.
  2. Oh so we're going to try to impose a double standard on liars who have been in the military vs liars who haven't been in the military now huh? Yeah, Hillary was never in the military, she just aspired to become the Commander-N-Chief over all American military forces... but hey why pick nits? The fact is there have been Republican and Democrat candidates who have exaggerated or outright lied about their alleged involvement in the military and combat areas. All I'm saying is for some reason you only seem to have a problem with it when the perpetrator is a Republican - never when they're a Democrat. Like how you repeatedly ridiculed former president Trump as a "draft dodger" for receiving medical deferments despite being active in school athletics calling him "Captain bone spurs" when his deferments kept him out of the military draft. But when it was revealed president Biden also received medical deferments for childhood asthma even though he was active in high school and college sports you suddenly turn mute... Yeah, it is what it is.
  3. So despite all the attempted misdirection, deflection, hyperbole the short of it is... Which is what I've been saying all along...
  4. And your point? We should give Biden a pass for his verbal missteps because Trump also made verbal blunders... after years of hearing complaints about Trump's gaffs and lies? This thread a perfect example... not a single condemnation for Biden, his gaffs and lies - but you try to attack Trump, nearly two years after he left office - after attacking him for four years while he was the president... And by the way, some of the comments you and the article attempt to point to, admit it or not are true and factual. I'll just respond to the first one as an example... How many skilled laborers, and highly educated individuals capable of providing for themselves without government subsistence do you figure are attempting to cross the border illegally -vs- those without jobs, without marketable skills, without much education and without sufficient means to provide for themselves? After news headlines broke about the stories about Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro releasing prisoners convicted of rape, murder and other crimes from state and federal prisons and sending them toward the U.S. Mexico border - with the number of people known who have been found guilty committing criminal offenses in their own countries, gang members previously deported from the U.S. for violent crimes here in America, persons confirmed to be on terrorist watch lists, being captured and detained by the CBP, how can anyone honestly claim Trump lied or exaggerated when he said... Of course the TDS afflicted will attempt to falsely claim Trump lied or he is guilty of some kind of racial/ethnic bias, but Trump's history of philanthropy, appreciation and support for people of color for decades prove those allegations to be false and the fact remains he was then and remains 100% correct when he stated... there are a lot of gang members crooks and criminals convicted of rape... murder... trafficking in drugs... Human trafficking and known or suspected terrorists attempting to enter the United States and as I already mentioned there are also some South and Central American countries who have attempted to send criminals to America.
  5. Interesting that you suddenly seem to be so concerned about 'stolen valor' people claiming participation in military engagements that they never really participated in - yet you fully endorsed Hillary Clinton during her 2016 run for President, when she repeatedly recounted a trip she took to Bosnia in March 1996 and claimed, upon landing, she her and entourage came “under sniper fire” and had to run for safety with “our heads down.” Well…Let’s roll the tape, shall we? Of course when confronted with her lie Hillary simply claims she "misspoke" and everyone seemed to be OK with that... This isn't simply a case of "A Democrat Did It Too", I am soundly opposed to attempts at stolen valor regardless of the source and despite your repeated false accusations I am not a dyed in the wool Trump supporter - nor do I agree with or support everyone he endorses, but I digress. As usual this seems to be just another case of the TDS afflicted attempting to condemn someone they disagree with and oppose while ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the same or similar transgressions committed by anyone they endorse or agree with.
  6. On August 3rd 2022 House Representative Jackie Walorski was tragically killed in a traffic accident on State Route 19 south of Wakarusa, Indiana. The White House Press Corps released a statement supposedly from president Biden himself following Walorski's death saying he and Jill Biden were "shocked and saddened" and that he appreciated the congresswoman's help on planning for the hunger conference. During September 28, 2022 public speech at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health president Biden named the bipartisan group who worked on plans to end hunger in the U.S. by 2030, including the deceased Indiana Representative Jackie Walorski asking: "Jackie, are you here? Where's Jackie? I don't think – she was going to be here,"... This is the man many consider the "Leader of the Free World", the figurehead of the most powerful country in the Western hemisphere... The President of the United States. This is the man responsible for enacting and enforcing the laws, rules and regulations passed by a representative legislation of Congresspersons and for all practical purposes supposedly the moral and intellectual compass that steers our country to a more secure and prosperous future. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was mercilessly hammered by members of the press to explain the latest verbal faux pas by president Biden and I have to give her major credit for not simply throwing up her hands and saying "I haven't a clue...". Now in all fairness I am pretty sure Biden's speech writer intentionally included Walorski's name with the rest of her committee in order to give recognition to their combined efforts and president Biden once again went off script and said something he shouldn't have - asking if the deceased Indiana Representative was present at the press conference... But is it any wonder there are those among president Biden's opposition, and even some among his own political support who seem to have concerns about our president's cognitive competence? Given all the press and social and political uproar questioning former president Trump's cognitive ability, where's the same public indignation and feigned outrage when something like what happened today, happens with our current president?
  7. Interesting how you immediately mention ICE... and as usual completely ignore, or intentionally fail to mention the NGO's who also bused out foreign nationals according to Cuellar. Is still to be considered a felony when the Non Government Organizations bus foreign nationals from one city/state to the next or are you just singling out DeSantis and Abbot out of partisan bias? So you keep saying... but just saying something, no matter how many time it's repeated doesn't make it true does it? It appears the statement you've made multiple times is ...not quite accurate... as seems to conflict with official CBP data and other public records... https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters In 2020 during the peak of the pandemic and while Title 42 was still in effect the number of border encounters fell to a low of 646,822... Following Biden becoming president the number of border encounters have grown significantly even exceeding the previous high more than a decade ago of 1,615,081. According to PEW research... Southwest border encounters increased to their highest recorded level in fiscal 2021. The Border Patrol reported 1,659,206 encounters with migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border last fiscal year, narrowly exceeding the prior highs of 1,643,679 in 2000 and 1,615,844 in 1986. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/ft_21-11-01_mexicoborder_2/ Currently arrests along U.S.-Mexico border top 2 million a year for the first time ever... CBS: (SEPT 20, 2022)Annual U.S. border arrivals top 2 million, fueled by record migration from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annual-u-s-border-arrests-top-2-million-fueled-by-record-migration-from-venezuela-cuba-and-nicaragua/ Still want to try to claim... As to your PolitiFact reference... It's a little off topic... but let's go with it ~ The U.S. doesn’t have an “open border” policy. Physical barriers, surveillance technology and U.S. Border Patrol agents work to secure the border. Of course it doesn't, we all know the United States doesn't have an official "open border" policy... What the U.S. does have is a bunch of people, among them a lot of leftists, Democrats along with Biden and people in his administration, acting like the nation has an open border policy. Refusing to abide by the rules and restrictions specifically outlined in immigration laws and even offering none to subtle enticements to encourage foreign nationals to come to the U.S.. We all know regardless of what something is supposed to be, what it is in reality - what it is commonly perceived to be often outweighs actuality. Yeah, that was after Vice President Harris publicly stated "the border is secure"... secure - but open according to this foreign national. Who should we believe the VP who claims "the border is secure" or the man in the yellow shirt who claims "the border is open, no problem we're here, we walked in"? Most fentanyl being smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico is coming in through official ports of entry, not carried in by people crossing the border illegally. OK it's a little off topic since we started talking about people crossing the border illegally but here again we have an issue of perception -vs- reality... I'll freely admit the greatest volume of illegal drugs are being brought into the country through official ports of entry, but to try to claim drugs aren't also being brought across by foot traffic along the southern border is beyond disingenuous and plainly deceptive. What I will also admit is the more border agents tasked with securing the border and apprehending foreign nationals attempting to cross into the U.S. illegally, then properly process them - the fewer border agents available to conduct searches and investigations at ports of entry to look for drugs... that really should be a no brainer. What isn't mentioned is although ports of entry are responsible for the greatest volume of drugs, it still seems illegal border crossing is the preferred method for human and gun traffickers... but if we simply concentrate on the drug issue and no one mentions human and gun trafficking issues then are the drugs a distraction for the human trafficking or is the human and gun trafficking a distraction to reduce the discovery of the drugs being brought into the country? Either way the cartels win and the American people and national security loses. Flights transporting detained adult immigrants and unaccompanied children are not secret, and are a part of the federal government’s legal responsibilities. Of course they are the purview of the federal government... But why were the majority of them were conducted by private charter in the wee hours of the morning (3 AM) where charter employees were forced to sign NDA's and the federal government failed to notify state and local representatives when those foreign nationals were dropped off in their states/cities... Again a typical attempted - and failed misdirection ploy... No one is arguing it isn't the government's responsibility to transport foreign nationals... But to do so with such apparent attempts at secrecy, in the dead of night and frequently without proper vetting, no instructions on when and where to appear for hearings or even in some cases without proper medical clearances during the height of the COVID pandemic - not to mention the failure to notify local and state government officials in the states/towns were they were being sent? Yeah a lot of people seemed to have a problem with that.
  8. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX) disputed his own party’s recent claims that the U.S.-Mexico border is secure on The CNN... "The border is {obviously} not secure," says Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) . "With all due respect to the Vice President.... we get thousands of people along the border, from 6,000 to 8,000 people a day. They're releasing people." What I found additionally interesting is Representative Cuellar openly stating in the largely Democrat town of Laredo, TX, officials commonly "sent out, either by ICE or NGO's 26 buses {a day} to cities in the center of Texas or even outside the state of Texas" for years... In other words the Democrats in Laredo have been translocating people crossing the U.S.-Mexican border by bus, long before Florida Governor or Texas Governor Abbot began doing so, and not a peep from any on the left about "human trafficking" or "illegal"... how's that for another obvious double standard reveal? https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/17/smr-cuellar-on-border.cnn
  9. Gasoline prices locally bouncing between $3 and $5 at the pumps ($4-$6 for diesel), fanning further the rising costs of goods and groceries and now economists are predicting the average cost to heat a home this winter will increase by 17.2% since last winter, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association... Press Release: Home Heating Costs Reach Highest Level in More than 10 Years Families will Pay 17.2% More for Home Heating this Winter Home Heating Costs Reach Highest Level in More than 10 Years Families will Pay 17.2% More for Home Heating this Winter Home heating costs are becoming increasingly unaffordable for millions of lower income families. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA) representing the state directors of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) today released its projections of home heating costs for the upcoming winter heating season. The average cost of home heating is estimated to increase by 17.2% since last winter heating season from $1,025 to $1,202. This would be the second year in a row of major prices increases. Between 2020-21 and 2021-23, the cost of home energy would increase by more than 35%, these are the highest prices in more than 10 years. https://neada.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/winter2022-23PR.pdf Oddly enough our nation still has massive petroleum reserves, the oil and gas industry, despite their difficulties procuring equipment and labor could do much to alleviate the rising costs but companies and investors are hesitant to invest money in an industry the president, his administration and climate alarmists are doing much to vilify and shut down the industry... Can you blame them?
  10. Is this the future, with inflation and the rising costs of goods continuing to plague average households? The Biden administration and Democrats keep claiming they are doing everything they can do to address the problems of rising prices of goods, groceries and gasoline with one voice then turn around and enact government restrictions and regulations that even a person with no training in economics can tell will effectively raise prices and decrease the pocketable income everyone has... California for instance has mandated a ban on fossil fuel combustion personal vehicles by 2035 and currently the state legislature is considering a measure to ban the sale of diesel fuel commercial transport in the state by 2040... next I suspect there will be a consideration to ban the ownership and use of fossil fuel vehicles in the state at sometime in the future. President Biden has bled the Nations Emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserves in an attempt to lower consumer fuel prices which although might have worked for a time still saw the rise of consumer fuel prices to historic levels, not to mention the way the law is written provided foreign energy companies cheap access to the American Emergency Petroleum Reserves. All the while banning and restricting domestic exploration and drilling for petroleum here in the U.S. as he attempts to encourage foreign nations, even some who have openly expressed their desire to see America destroyed, to increase their production and sell oil to the United States. Leftists claim the fault lays exclusively at the feet of the private business sector and the domestic petroleum industry for doing what businesses are supposed to do, attempt to make a profit by selling their goods at the price the market bears and although that has always been the soul and purpose of businesses - to make a profit, plus the problem isn't just limited to U.S. petroleum producers, it's world wide... still, few from the left seem to be willing to ask; 'is there something other than profit motivating the rising costs'? I'll admit there appears to be increased profit taking among businesses, but after the lean couple of years of the pandemic, can anyone really fault businesses - whether it be the petroleum industry or the agricultural industry - from attempting to recover the losses each of these industries suffered during the pandemic years? Of course there are several reasons why prices were higher, it is sadly most of those on the left seem to be entirely focused on the profit motive of businesses while attempting to deny other obvious causes like increased demand, decreased supply and the difficulties of finding workers willing to work for wages when the federal government has, for all practical purposes, incentivized people not returning to work by offering alternatives to working and earning a paycheck... and then there is the continuing demonizing of the oil and gas industry by Biden and the left. U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith (R-PA) said "It is impossible to generate confidence or invest in production today when future production is clearly being blocked by this administration," which has directly had an effect on present and future profit prospects for investments for the oil and gas industry. We've had statements from oil company executives and other private business owners detailing their reasons for increasing prices primary among those reasons is increased supply and demand, time consuming recovery from the recent effects of the global pandemic and increases regulations, decreased land permits and higher taxes being imposed by the federal government. Even most economists agree with these statements either from a lack of knowledge of our capitalistic free market economy or some other reason, some still attempt immediately discount any reason other than evil profiteering by private industries who I say again is in business primarily to make a profit.
  11. Previously you suggested I "actually read the law", might I suggest you follow your own advice... Although you claim the exceptions list is vague, I find it sufficiently explanatory to determine being invited as a guest speaker to talk about political party platforms not among the list of exceptions... If you can point out differently from the quoted exceptions list below, please feel free to do so ~ Exceptions The Legislature created exceptions in AB 1887 that allow travel to banned states in certain circumstances. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (c).) These exceptions only apply if travel to a subject state is "required." (Ibid.) Specifically, AB 1887 does not apply to state travel that is required for any of the following purposes: Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection. Litigation. To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017. To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees. To participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding. To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards required for holding a position, in the event that comparable training cannot be obtained in California or a different state not subject to the travel prohibition. For the protection of public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the affected agency, department, board, authority, or commission, or by the affected legislative office. (Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (c).) https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887 Yeah, nice try with the attempted deflection/misdirection of the topic to immigration and DeSantis from a discussion of the hypocrisy the California Governor signing into law a travel ban to specific states - then repeated violating his own state's law for personal and political convenience... Unfortunately it is also another obvious fail...
  12. ABC News: Little evidence of political argument before teen's death There is little indication that an 18-year-old who died after being struck by an SUV in North Dakota was a political extremist like the driver claimed BISMARCK, N.D. -- There is little indication that an 18-year-old who died after being struck by an SUV in North Dakota was a political extremist like the driver claimed. Investigators say none of the witnesses they have interviewed support the idea that there was a political argument before authorities say Shannon Brandt struck Cayler Ellingson with his vehicle on Sept. 18 in McHenry, and a family friend who knew the teen said he wasn't active in politics. Court documents said Brandt told a 911 dispatcher that he felt threatened after having a political argument with Ellingson, and that he believed the teen was part of a “Republican extremist group.” abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/evidence-political-argument-teens-death So it appears we come to the bones of truth. WOKE lowlife intentionally commits vehicular homicide then in attempt to shift blame from himself tries for the standard 'Blame Trump and his supporters' , without a lick of reality or fact to support those allegations... If the assailant feared violence or personal injury from a "far right Trump supporter", someone had to put that notion, that fear into his mind... or we might conclude the killer is lying in order to gain sympathy or as pathetic as it may sound, attempt to justify his actions saying he feared for his life because he thought the person he killed was a Trump supporter... By the last presidential election count there are approximately 75 million "Trump supporters"... to claim or even suggest every Trump supporter or even every ardent Trump supporter may be prone to violence against others is not only disingenuous, but an outright construct of {TDS} deranged fiction... Kind of like the fearmongering rhetoric president Biden was quoted as saying, in my post yesterday.
  13. Yeah I "actually read the law", including the specific list of exceptions, restrictions and allowances... I also wanted to allow everyone who wanted to, to read it for themselves... which is why I included the link. But doesn't anyone else think it a little off when Newsom etal. declares a state so bad, they are put on a banned list for any type of government/official travel {excluding the exceptions} and also discourages private citizens from visiting/doing business in those states, but Newsom apparently thinks a couple of them are so great he repeatedly vacations in one of the banned states - whether or not he pays his own way - and goes to a festival in another banned state, to talk party politics? Seems a bit like the attitude of a progressive elitist to me... thinking rules {laws} should apply to everyone - except himself and his inner circle. But then I suppose that's nothing new for the Governor of California...
  14. NY Times: Why California Bans State-Funded Travel to Nearly Half of States A 2016 law banning travel to states with anti-L.G.B.T.Q. policies is in the spotlight. In 2016, amid national outcry over a North Carolina law preventing transgender people from using restrooms that aligned with their gender identity, California countered with its own legislation. California lawmakers banned state-funded travel to any state that enacted anti-L.G.B.T.Q. laws. The boycott was a way to “fight back against the discriminatory policies passed in states like North Carolina,” its author, Assemblyman Evan Low, said at the time. The law, which applied to four states when enacted, seemed mostly symbolic. It wasn’t expected to deal a major financial blow to the banned states, and California doesn’t track how much money has been withheld as a result of the law. At least partly to blame is a summer vacation that Gov. Gavin Newsom took to Montana, which is on the list of banned states. Personal travel isn’t off-limits and Newsom’s office says his state-funded security detail doesn’t violate the law. But the optics were attention-grabbing, coming right after he railed against Republican-led states for embracing conservative policies. The trip also drew attention to just how much the ban has widened since its early days. The law was written so that states would be added to the list if they passed discriminatory legislation in the future. And amid a wave of anti-transgender laws in statehouses nationwide, the number of banned states has grown to 22 from four. The latest list was announced last month by Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is required to update the list and who voted for the bill when he was a Democratic assemblyman. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/us/california-state-funded-travel-bans.html Nor does Governor Newsom's trip to Texas to be guest speaker at a Democrat political rally appear to be on the list of "exceptions" (*Gov. Code, § 11139.8, subd. (c).) that would allow individuals to travel to banned states... The original four states were: Arizona Indiana Louisiana Utah https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-california-will-restrict-state-funded-travel-arizona Presently there are 22 states listed on California's Travel Ban list including... Montana where California Governor Newsome frequently visits for "vacations" and Texas where California Gov. Newsom visited this week appearing to flout his own state’s Travel Ban laws as he was invited to be a guest speaker at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, where Newsom called for an overhaul of Democrats' political strategy suggesting his party should try to become more aggressive saying presently he believes Democrats are too timid, often forced to play defense to Republicans. https://festival-platform.texastribune.org/agenda/speakers/1709076 States Subject to AB 1887’s Travel Prohibition The following states are currently subject to California’s ban on state-funded and state-sponsored travel: Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee West Virginia *https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887
  15. Let's see... President Biden recently told the American people: "the United States is in a battle for the soul of the nation", suggesting Trump and anyone associated with him are akin to terrorists telling people “MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic,” going to far as to further state: "These Trump Republicans thrive on chaos” and “don’t respect the constitution” or the rule of law. They “promote authoritarian leaders and they fan the flames of political violence”. President Biden's speech was part of a newly aggressive line of attack Biden has unleashed on Republicans ahead of the midterm elections, as Democrats attempt to win favor of the voting public by attempting to portray Republicans as violent, lawless tyrants, who are attempting to destroy this nation telling everyone... “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards,” he said. “Backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.” And encouraged people to become actively engaged by urging Americans not to be: "bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy. For a long time, we’ve reassured ourselves that American democracy is guaranteed. But it is not,” Biden said. “We have to defend it. Protect it. Stand up for it. Each and every one of us.” Then someone climbs into their vehicle and intentionally mows down someone they disagree with politically claiming they thought the person they killed was a "far right extremists"... but not a hint from the press, social media or most Washington politicians about president Biden's anti-Trump, anti-MAGA and possibly anti-Republican rhetoric being anyway "inciteful", "promoting violence", etc... because president Biden also condemned violence and those who commit violence in the cause of their political ideology... not that former president Trump when he admonished people to "peacefully and patriotically" march on the Capitol building on January 6th got a pass for also calling for non violence in the mist of his more aggressive political rhetoric. Oh and although then former VP Biden was quick to condemn the right wing extremist and comment on Trump's rhetoric after the vehicular homocide in Charlottesville in August 2017, has there been any Biden condemnation of the guy who said he "thought" the teen he killed when he intentionally ran over him with his vehicle?
×
×
  • Create New...