so now trump wants to invite j6 rioters to white house.
i wish he would invite all the people that have tried to shoot his b___lls off too
-
40
-
king999 wrote:
Not debateable.
*debatable. If you don't know how to spell it, you might not know what it truly means. Regardless, your constant fawning upon the Felon-in-Chief is far from objective.
Why did he pardon the convicts who violently attacked police during the January 6th insurrection? Rather convenient how none of the "Trumpies" have addressed that point each time that I have said it.62 -
king999 wrote:
Nancy F. wrote:
If you were interviewing someone for one of the most important jobs at your company or workplace, and that person promised not to get drunk if they get the job...wouldn't you wonder if maybe, just maybe, you could find someone better?
To put it another way, if Vlad decides to roll an armored division into the Baltics, would you want Pete Hegseth to be calling the shots?
You know what you folks continue to do, even when clearly defeated, on ANY issue, you just drivel on and on and on. That one is over too, take the L and move to your next losing gripe.
Well, we want what's best for the country.
Lots of us are old enough to remember some really incompetent people who were not even remotely qualified for their jobs. Michael Brown (Brownie), the head of FEMA during Katrina, comes to mind. People died because of his incompetence....and as an Arabian show horse judge, he wasn't qualified for the job to begin with.
So the SecDef is a very important job, and Hegseth has very little experience other than being a soldier. He has run two charities into the ground. He has never managed anything large. He apparently drinks heavily. He's simply not qualified. If he was qualified but I didn't like him, that would be different.
61 -
He is a sanctimonious idiot wrote:
king999 wrote:
Not debateable.
*debatable. If you don't know how to spell it, you might not know what it truly means. Regardless, your constant fawning upon the Felon-in-Chief is far from objective.
Why did he pardon the convicts who violently attacked police during the January 6th insurrection? Rather convenient how none of the "Trumpies" have addressed that point each time that I have said it.
I will address it, and oh dear a typo, again focusing on that big picture, LOL. I do not think he should have pardoned anyone who "attacked a Poiice Officer" ..defending yourself, in a bizarre situation? Different. Look at George Floyd outright wildly more destructive riots, burning down a Federal Building, Molitav Cocktails thrown at Police, or did you miss that stuff?$2.6B in Property damage? How many people were prosecuted, and your Presidential Candisate led the jailed folks bail fund. How many did actual jail time?
People trespassing? On Federal Property. no destruction of anything? If they did time, pardoning those to me is not a big deal. All others needed to be more examined ,thoroughly. That's my view.
05 -
Schumer said he has some doubts about Ratcliffe, he is a joke, vote at last count was 74-25.
02 -
Do you really think a feeble , covered, for Biden was best for this country? Wow. Not even your own sketchy team thought so. And you think Harris was the answer for that? You didn't care what was best for the country at all.
By the way, I voted Clinton once and Obama first term. Don't tell me I am some hickish nut job conservative, I am not. I can read a scorecard and watch video highlights though.
26 -
king999 wrote:
I will address it... People trespassing? On Federal Property. no destruction of anything? If they did time, pardoning those to me is not a big deal. All others needed to be more examined, thoroughly.
Agreed on all counts, but that is not what your Felon-in-Chief did. His very first day in office, also.
What type of President decides that pardoning people who violently attack our police should be near the very top of his priority list? That speaks volumes about your demigod.62 -
king999 wrote:
He is a sanctimonious idiot wrote:
*debatable. If you don't know how to spell it, you might not know what it truly means. Regardless, your constant fawning upon the Felon-in-Chief is far from objective.
Why did he pardon the convicts who violently attacked police during the January 6th insurrection? Rather convenient how none of the "Trumpies" have addressed that point each time that I have said it.
I will address it, and oh dear a typo, again focusing on that big picture, LOL. I do not think he should have pardoned anyone who "attacked a Poiice Officer" ..defending yourself, in a bizarre situation? Different. Look at George Floyd outright wildly more destructive riots, burning down a Federal Building, Molitav Cocktails thrown at Police, or did you miss that stuff?$2.6B in Property damage? How many people were prosecuted, and your Presidential Candisate led the jailed folks bail fund. How many did actual jail time?
People trespassing? On Federal Property. no destruction of anything? If they did time, pardoning those to me is not a big deal. All others needed to be more examined ,thoroughly. That's my view.
The question is "Should people who beat police officers whom they attacked to break into the Capital building be pardoned?"
Your answer is yes. These are people who forced their way through a line of police, beat them, tased them, chemical sprayed them, so that they could break into the Capital to stop a government proceeding. Your answer is yes, they should be pardoned.
Floyd, BLM Protests were on State jurisdictions. Take it up with the individual states. You believe in state's rights don't you? The Federal Justice Department has been consistent in prosecuting Federal crimes including democrats.
41 -
CriticalThoughts wrote:
The question is "Should people who beat police officers whom they attacked to break into the Capital building be pardoned?"
Your answer is yes. These are people who forced their way through a line of police, beat them, tased them, chemical sprayed them, so that they could break into the Capital to stop a government proceeding. Your answer is yes, they should be pardoned.
Floyd, BLM Protests were on State jurisdictions. Take it up with the individual states. You believe in state's rights don't you? The Federal Justice Department has been consistent in prosecuting Federal crimes including democrats.
They targeted Eric Adams for speaking the truth about what migrants were doing to NYC…
13 -
king999 wrote:
By the way, I voted Clinton once and Obama first term. Don't tell me I am some hickish nut job conservative, I am not. I can read a scorecard and watch video highlights though.
I am political party agnostic, also. I really don't have any problems with the Republicans as a whole and agree with the vast majority of their policies.
However, I definitely do have a problem with who they put forth as their candidate for President. He is a deplorable human being and a pathological liar. I have voted in every election since 1980, and he is easily the worst candidate for President I have ever seen.
You chose unwisely.52 -
Lolz! cough cough. Lolz
Republicans can't subpoena Cassidy Hutchinson about Liz Cheney talking to her because so many of them sent her lewd and sexually explicit texts
13 -
Border invasion - martial law needed wrote:
CriticalThoughts wrote:
The question is "Should people who beat police officers whom they attacked to break into the Capital building be pardoned?"
Your answer is yes. These are people who forced their way through a line of police, beat them, tased them, chemical sprayed them, so that they could break into the Capital to stop a government proceeding. Your answer is yes, they should be pardoned.
Floyd, BLM Protests were on State jurisdictions. Take it up with the individual states. You believe in state's rights don't you? The Federal Justice Department has been consistent in prosecuting Federal crimes including democrats.
They targeted Eric Adams for speaking the truth about what migrants were doing to NYC…
So he is innocent? They just made up wire fraud and bribery? I guess because the Justice Dept. is so corrupt, no one ever prosecuted by them is guilty? This seems to be your logic.
This is a standard Trump supporter argument: One thing is not consistent or accurate, therefore the entire argument is void. In your case, the "One thing" is a made up statement about a conspiracy theory which coincidentally makes it look like you support Adams.
Step away from the right wing conspiracy theory firehose you are drinking from.
51 -
king999 wrote:
Do you really think a feeble , covered, for Biden was best for this country? Wow. Not even your own sketchy team thought so. And you think Harris was the answer for that? You didn't care what was best for the country at all.
By the way, I voted Clinton once and Obama first term. Don't tell me I am some hickish nut job conservative, I am not. I can read a scorecard and watch video highlights though.
Being elected is different than appointed. So no matter my opinion on Biden, I don't see that as a valid comparison.
Look, yesterday Trump removed all the DEI hiring stuff from the federal government, and in doing so, promised we were moving to a merit-based society and those federal jobs would be filled based on merit, not gender, race, etc.
So what's the merit-based argument for Hegseth? He has no experience running large organizations. The small organizations he did run were not well run. He has a history of making poor decisions, plus a history of drinking.
There must be hundreds of people out there who served in the military, and have gone on to have successful careers managing large organizations, probably starting small and moving up as they showed competence. In a merit-based system, why were they not considered and Hegseth was?
30 -
Oldrunningguy wrote:
Lolz! cough cough. Lolz
Republicans can't subpoena Cassidy Hutchinson about Liz Cheney talking to her because so many of them sent her lewd and sexually explicit texts
Liz Cheney destroyed evidence that would have proved Trumps innocence, it’s that simple. There is no other reason. She is scum. and now she can drift away
23 -
Noyankee wrote:
Oldrunningguy wrote:
Lolz! cough cough. Lolz
Republicans can't subpoena Cassidy Hutchinson about Liz Cheney talking to her because so many of them sent her lewd and sexually explicit texts
Liz Cheney destroyed evidence that would have proved Trumps innocence, it’s that simple. There is no other reason. She is scum. and now she can drift away
This was a made up claim by Loudermilk, grossly distorted by Trump, but has no basis in reality. Note that Loudermilk is also the author of the recent "report" about the Jan 6 committee alleging misconduct.
70 -
whoaaa, that is not what I said at all, and this is the problem, even when it is spelled out for you , you still twist it.
I do not think he should have pardoned anyone who "attacked a Police Officer"
A question for you folks,, do you think Biden should have pardoned his whole family, with "no convicted crime" yet to be pardoned for, and he lied about that too and slipped it in in last 15 minutes.
Do you think Summer of Geirge Floyd Metros Burning was under prosecuted and okay for Harris to lead the "bail fund" efforts
Come on now, no Dem I know and I am older than most and know way more than most, I said most..think any of that was okay, None.
22 -
Yet voted in easily. not really close, so most on here broad brush everyone who voted that way and there were/are clearly enough, to at least stop saying how stupid and evil we all are. The policies of Biden and his bumbling stumbling and clearly crooked, hence the pardons, was not a viable choice for your own party, Harris? Come on now a clown show.
00 -
CriticalThoughts wrote:
Noyankee wrote:
Liz Cheney destroyed evidence that would have proved Trumps innocence, it’s that simple. There is no other reason. She is scum. and now she can drift away
This was a made up claim by Loudermilk, grossly distorted by Trump, but has no basis in reality. Note that Loudermilk is also the author of the recent "report" about the Jan 6 committee alleging misconduct.
exactly
debunked many times.
Trump has every piece evidence that exists and it is available publicly too.
this is the same Bs Trump used in his federal cases.Trump: “Your honor, we believe the prosecution is withholding evidence.
Judge: What evidence are you supposing?
Trump: We don’t know unless they tell us what they are withholding. We want all government communications from every government agency so we can find some exonerating stuff.
Judge: that’s not how it works.
Trump: Rigged!
60 -
king999 wrote:
I do not think he should have pardoned anyone who "attacked a Police Officer"
Agreed, and therein lies the problem.
Personally, I don't anyone who does think that they should have been pardoned, but Trump did this on his very first day in office. To say that this was a bad sign indicative of his future behavior as President is a huge understatement.
But hey, as long as the price of a gallon of gas goes down, the "Trumpies" don't mind if a few violent felons are pardoned and given a VIP tour of the White House.
Stay class, MAGA.41
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.