suh_fan93 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 23 minutes ago, teachercd said: Wow, seems like an odd choice, sort of going "all in" with her as VP. That doesn't bring in any new votes, does it? This is Trump we're talking about here. The union makes perfect sense if you really think about it. Running on the platform of horrible undoubtedly. Talk about a giant L waiting to happen. Link to comment
teachercd Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said: This is Trump we're talking about here. The union makes perfect sense if you really think about it. Running on the platform of horrible undoubtedly. Talk about a giant L waiting to happen. No kidding, from a. strategical standpoint it makes no sense. If anything, I could see it costing him support. 2 1 1 Link to comment
suh_fan93 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Yes and he's struggling mightily for support as it is. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 38 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said: Dumb and Dumber Part 2 - take your pick on which one is which Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, suh_fan93 said: I'm told she's not a leader of the party. 1 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 17 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Oh, come on. With this team, surely they can win. https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-may-run-new-rnc-election-committee-if-he-loses-chair-vote-1776663?amp=1 Lindell told Newsweek on Wednesday that a Twitter rumor claiming that he was teaming up with fellow RNC chair candidate Harmeet Dhillon to form a unified ticket against Ronna McDaniel, the incumbent chair, was "not true at all." The three candidates at the moment are attending the RNC Winter Meeting in California, where committee members are set to elect a new chair on Friday. 2 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were the ones that wanted to allow companies to make decisions without gubment interference. Link to comment
commando Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were the ones that wanted to allow companies to make decisions without gubment interference. actually it's a product of capitalism. newsmax didn''t want to pay directtv to carry their programming. they wanted to be welfare queens and get directtv coverage for free 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 minutes ago, commando said: actually it's a product of capitalism. newsmax didn''t want to pay directtv to carry their programming. they wanted to be welfare queens and get directtv coverage for free Exactly. Their viewership was lowe enough that it didn't warrant DirectTV to keep them. Which, that's what they should be able to do. But, these snowflakes are freaking out about it and want congressional hearings...bla bla bla..... I'm just thankful that there's so few people watching their crap that they got dropped. Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 6 hours ago, suh_fan93 said: Even the left wingers like Abrams make fun fun of this non-story. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/dan-abrams-rips-nbc-over-report-touting-marjorie-taylor-greene-as-legit-vp-prospect-for-trump-not-gonna-happen/ 1 Link to comment
Lorewarn Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: I'm old enough to remember when Republicans were the ones that wanted to allow companies to make decisions without gubment interference. Link to comment
Recommended Posts