Red Wave one month away?

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
How are the predictions from a few months ago about a Red Wave shaping up?
 
About what? He never said he was going to indict Trump for the violent insurrection.
It takes evidence, solid evidence to indict a former President, unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction. If he prosecutes, you know the case is solid. He still has time to do so. It’s not over, yet. His prosecution also has to be seen as being non political. Announcing something before the election would make it political.
 
It takes evidence, solid evidence to indict a former President, unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction. If he prosecutes, you know the case is solid. He still has time to do so. It’s not over, yet. His prosecution also has to be seen as being non political. Announcing something before the election would make it political.

AG Garland is incompetent. Biden should fire him.
 
It takes evidence, solid evidence to indict a former President, unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction. If he prosecutes, you know the case is solid. He still has time to do so. It’s not over, yet. His prosecution also has to be seen as being non political. Announcing something before the election would make it political.

I do not think we know of all the evidence, but we do know its against Justice Department policy to indict this close to an election.
 
AG Garland is incompetent. Biden should fire him.
You’re opinion is not base on fact being Garland is very successful at his job. 100% conviction rate isn’t a sign of incompetence.

Merrick Garland has a 100% conviction rate.


uDSDvIquHlnTLeKcjWkAPCBB0QkKTJAGEA3iE5kXEIaAMDKf5rkRAM1Gqy5uZpoqAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
https://mobile.twitter.com › status

[h=3]J. Spencer (he) on Twitter: "Merrick Garland has a 100% conviction rate." / Twitter[/h]





 
It takes evidence, solid evidence to indict a former President, unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction. If he prosecutes, you know the case is solid. He still has time to do so. It’s not over, yet. His prosecution also has to be seen as being non political. Announcing something before the election would make it political.

“... unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction...”

This has to qualify as one of the most ignorant statements in the history of JPP.

If you were charged with a crime, would you think it unfortunate that evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction?

For God’s sake, do you vote?

These dud threads by the ambulance chaser lead to ignorant posts by his side.



Post no. 9
“You’re opinion is not base on fact being Garland is very successful at his job”

Good grief.
 
Last edited:
The GOP blew it. They should have won this election going away.

But they installed a radical right-wing SCOTUS, got Roe overturned, and then let Trump go full Trump w/ conspiracy theories & racism (and they're SO afraid of him that they can't even comment on either), and here we are. Independents may not be happy with Democrats - but the GOP is no alternative for them right now.
 
The GOP blew it. They should have won this election going away.

But they installed a radical right-wing SCOTUS, got Roe overturned, and then let Trump go full Trump w/ conspiracy theories & racism (and they're SO afraid of him that they can't even comment on either), and here we are. Independents may not be happy with Democrats - but the GOP is no alternative for them right now.
There was never an enumerated Constitutional right to an abortion.

Trump is not a racist, you are.
 
There was never an enumerated Constitutional right to an abortion.

Trump is not a racist, you are.

Try arguing that 1st point to the over 70% of Americans who support a woman's right to choose. That ruling only appealed to the right-wing fringe. It alienated most independents.

As for the 2nd point - I'm actually not a racist. Trump, on the other hand, just made a blatantly racist comment about a leading Republican's wife. And Republican politicians - a group of cowards even on their best day - are afraid to say anything about it.
 
Last edited:
It takes evidence, solid evidence to indict a former President, unfortunately, the evidence has to be solid in order to get a conviction. If he prosecutes, you know the case is solid. He still has time to do so. It’s not over, yet. His prosecution also has to be seen as being non political. Announcing something before the election would make it political.

Yes, like Comey did with the alleged Clinton emails.

Thankfully Garland is not Comey. The Reichwingers should be grateful for that.
 
Try arguing that 1st point to the over 70% of Americans who support a woman's right to choose. That ruling only appealed to the right-wing fringe. It alienated most independents.

As for the 2nd point - I'm actually not a racist. Trump, on the other hand, just made a blatantly racist comment about a leading Republican's wife. And Republican politicians - a group of cowards even on their best day - are afraid to say anything about it.

Biden has made more than a few racist comments.

A majority of Americans favored segregation and slavery at one time.

You are a racist.
 
How are the predictions from a few months ago about a Red Wave shaping up?

One of the issues with the polling right now is who is being underrepresented?

Is it the Trump voters, who were largely underrepresented in 2020, or is it the new, young female voters, who have registered to vote at rates greater than 2018?

I think it's very likely the Democrats will retain their Senate majority because of how awful the GOP candidates are.

I think the House is a toss-up because of the young female vote; we will see just how important the issue of abortion access is.
 
Back
Top