I was rooting for this woman after reading her credentials, then of course the truth comes out.

She claimed she can't define what a woman is, because she's not a biologist. Such a stupid, woke answer. At least she went on record as conceding that sex is a biological construct (which it obviously is), and not a social construct.

Then Ted Cruz asked her why she occasionally slashed sentences for those involved with child pornography, #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin wouldn't let her answer. When the democrats are afraid of america hearing her answer, we should ask why that is.

Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

If the Klan can hold peaceful but offensive rallies, if the Westboro Baptist Church can chant "thank god for dead soldiers" at military funerals, if BLM can moronically claim that cops are a bunch of racist assassins, then pro life groups can also exercise their rights to assembly and free speech.

But not according to this totalitarian jerk. There is no constitutional right to never be offended.

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-business-health-7bbb8ee0b46e29e08b9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-business-health-7bbb8ee0b46e29e08b9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

"she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together."

I know. That's one reason why I was excited.

But quantity doesn't necessarily mean quality.

It doesn't concern you that she'd ignore the constitution to rule in a way that aligns with her politics? Do you disagree that judges aren't supposed to root for one side or the other, but are only supposed to be guided by the constitution?

Why would any conservative ever feel like she'd give them a fair hearing?

"what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question"

Because as a society, we've never been so stupid as to not collectively agree on the answer. If you think that question is harsh or unfair, maybe you were asleep during the Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. This is nothing.

"Jim all you do is parrot what you have been feed"

Let's end with that comment. I have constantly bashed republicans here. And I have said a million times I was pro gay marriage when Obama and Hilary were adamantly opposed to it, I am opposed to the death penalty, I think every American has a right to good health coverage that covers pre existing conditions, and I think we need more effective gun control.

I have 2 questions for you, and I dare you to answer...

(1) who "fed" me my opinions on those issues?

(2) please share with us, some big issues on which you think democrats are 100% wrong.

Let's see which one of us can think for himself, and which one of us can only repeat what we have been fed? Show us all I'm wrong, list some big issues on which you agree with Republicans?

You're the thoughtless ideologue here, not me.

the Truth that's Funny Here a Truth she's done More Judging from the Bench then the last 3 appointments put together.


Ted cruz I think you’re the — the only Supreme Court nominee in history who’s been unable to answer the question, what is a woman.? Guess what no Justice has ever been asked that question

Jackson told Cruz: “So, senator, I know that I’m a woman. I know that Senator Blackburn is a woman and the woman who I admire most in the world is in the room today, my mother.”




Jim all you do is parrot what you have been fed ... here is a fact check link, I am sure you insist it's not factual because it is part of the Fake Media https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ketanji-brown-jackson-us-supreme-court-business-health-7bbb8ee0b46e29e08b9e3d1f8e644d25


Then, most importantly, we learn that she had ruled the pro life groups could not rally in front of abortion clinics. She ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to pro life Americans. She's on record as having ignored the constitution in favor of political outcomes she personally wants. That's the worst possible kind of judge. This is exactly why the statue of Lady Justice at every courthouse, has a blindfold. Judges have to be able to set aside their personal political agenda, and abide only by what the constitution says. This isn't a judge, she's a liberal activist.

everything thing you wrote is a Lie! She was Not a Judge she made no rulings she did not rule against the 1st amendment she did not ignore the constitution favor of political outcomes she personally wants.

Not sure why you never doing any research ?

Here is what actually happened


The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

you claim Truth then you post a lie... she did not rule on this as a judge Did she !


Jim dont forget Jackson used her “time and talent not to serve our nation’s veterans or other vulnerable groups, but to provide free legal services to help terrorists get out of Gitmo and go back to the fight.” this statement was from Blackburn

Funny she was ask something similar in 2021 when she was CONFIRMED U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit


Jackson, 2021 responses to Senate questions: Under the ethics rules that apply to lawyers, an attorney has a duty to represent her clients zealously, which includes refraining from contradicting her client’s legal arguments and/or undermining her client’s interests by publicly declaring the lawyer’s own personal disagreement with the legal position or alleged behavior of her client. Because these standards apply even after termination of the representation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether I disagreed with Khi Ali Gul, found his alleged crimes offensive, or considered resigning my position as an Assistant Federal Public Defender based on any such disagreement or offense.

she did what all Lawyers do formulated a case in their clients best interest and the law and order party is Outrage ... funny how that works.



Yet child pornography, And Transgender over and over that's the Truth that drives these hearing , it's a perversion that motivates the Republican Base and reinforces their Fantasy of Baby eating cabal " democrats" or Being raped by a Transgender person in the bathroom, dont forget the Mexican rapist or all the afghan rapist that the Biden flew into the country...

"The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

She wasn't a judge, you are right. She was arguing on behalf of a client as a lawyer. Not sure her "young-ness" matters, nit sure why you put that in there. Has she changed her mind on the issue Wayne?

Moth to flame

Moth to flame

You're exactly right. Republicans should go easy on SCOTUS nominees like the democrats did with Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

Have they accused her of being a serial rapist yet?

Bork is remembered for his role in the Saturday night massacre for firing Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox after his two more senior officials in the Justice Dept refused.
He should also be remembered for thinking the Civil Rights act was unconstitutional, that Americans have no right to privacy, that prosecution for homosexual activity was fine, and that poll taxes and literacy tests should be allowed.
The irony was him getting butthurt when his list of rented movies came out, despite his believe in no right to privacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The brief, which Jackson co-signed as a young attorney in a law firm, did not refer to all anti-abortion women as “hostile” and “noisy” but was making a legal argument on behalf of a client in regards to protesters outside abortion clinics.

She wasn't a judge, you are right. She was arguing on behalf of a client as a lawyer. Not sure her "young-ness" matters, nit sure why you put that in there. Has she changed her mind on the issue Wayne?

Jim I am glad your not my lawyer

Clearly you fail to understand a lawyer responsibilities to their clients

Or how you twist these briefs presented on the behalf of the client

As somehow become Her personal believes?

Do you condemn alan Dershowitz for his defense of oj simpson or helped sex offender Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal.

By defending them he suddenly believes in murder or is good with sex with under aged girls

Or do you skip over all that to champion him when he supports your position or joining Donald Trump’s impeachment legal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim I am glad your not my lawyer

Clearly you fail to understand a lawyer responsibilities to their clients

Or how you twist these briefs presented on the behalf of the client

As somehow become Her personal believes?

Do you condemn alan Dershowitz for his defense of oj simpson or helped sex offender Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal.

By defending them he suddenly believes in murder or is good with sex with under aged girls

Or do you skip over all that to champion him when he supports your position or joining Donald Trump’s impeachment legal ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

waiting for you to list the issues on which you think democrats are wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can’t believe Jim just got schooled by wdmso :jester:

I can’t believe Jim just got schooled by wdmso :jester:

if she writes something, is it fair to ask hernia she believes it? did she refute what she wrote spence? is there any reason to believe that brief doesnt’t reflect her beliefs?

so let’s pretend i got schooled, why is that unbelievable to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could just repeat what Charlie Kirk said Ketanji Brown Jackson "is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

“Your children and your grandchildren are going to have to take orders from people like her. And what's amazing is that she kind of has an attitude too.”

Surprised he didn’t throw in an “Uppity”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could just repeat what Charlie Kirk said Ketanji Brown Jackson "is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

“Your children and your grandchildren are going to have to take orders from people like her. And what's amazing is that she kind of has an attitude too.”

Surprised he didn’t throw in an “Uppity”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

Did I say racist?

Charlie Kirk is just another white supremacist, and like most of his ilk, he is poorly educated with few talents (other than demagoguery) or marketable skills or nothing in the way of intellect. He is indeed, superior to no one, hence why he is who he is.

Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say racist?

Charlie Kirk is just another white supremacist, and like most of his ilk, he is poorly educated with few talents (other than demagoguery) or marketable skills or nothing in the way of intellect. He is indeed, superior to no one, hence why he is who he is.

Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You deny saying racist (when you said "uppity" and could have used a hundred different words). Then in the next sentence you call him a white supremacist, which I'm fairly certain has a racist implication.

John was right, you have precisely zero credibility, and you're going to be one unhappy camper in November.

"Meanwhile unemployment is the lowest since 1969"

Every data I've seen, says it was a tiny bit lower in 2019, pre-covid. When you-know-who was POTUS. But I give Biden good marks on employment, because unlike you, I can happily concede when democrats do a good job. Did you ever give Trump credit when he had unemployment this low? Nope. Because you aren't about truth. You're about spin.

And meanwhile, Bidens approval ratings are bad.

Hey speaking of Clarence Thomas, he has never -- not once -- recused from a case due to conflicts of interest with his wife's work as a Republican strategist. Not even when groups she works with submit amicus briefs in cases before the court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

Do liberal whites not get questioned by conservatives, about critical race theory?

Everything must be based on hate, there's no such thing as principled disagreement with liberals. Kamala Harris is awesome, Chicago mayor Lightfoot also walks on water, any and all criticism of blacks has to be racist.

Do liberal whites not get questioned by conservatives, about critical race theory?

Everything must be based on hate, there's no such thing as principled disagreement with liberals. Kamala Harris is awesome, Chicago mayor Lightfoot also walks on water, any and all criticism of blacks has to be racist.

Let me ask again since you didn't answer the question -

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

Let me ask again since you didn't answer the question -

What do you think he meant by

"is what your country looks like on critical race theory"

i dont underrated the question paul, you posted an incomplete sentence.

but bashing CRT isn’t racist. it’s actually the opposite of racist.

not sure why he said your country instead of our country, but again, you posted a fragment of a sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a transcript (just looked it up) of I think his radio show.

I'm just wondering what he meant.

"Well, KBJ - Ketanji Brown Jackson - is what your country looks like on critical race theory."

It was a transcript (just looked it up) of I think his radio show.

I'm just wondering what he meant.

"Well, KBJ - Ketanji Brown Jackson - is what your country looks like on critical race theory."

You left out a very significant part of his statement...

I looked up the transcript. He's saying she's not that bright and not that honest (she says only a biologist can define what a woman is, and in my opinion you have to be both stupid and cowardly to be able to say that out loud), and that someone like that could be about to spend decades on our supreme court, combined with the fact that Biden announced years ago that his nominee would be a black woman...and I get where he's coming from.

How can she, for example, ever hear a case about Title IX or gender discrimination, if she has no idea what a woman is?

I'd agree she's precisely what you get (so is Kamala Harris) when the current federal government insists on seeing everything through the prism of race, and insisting that everyone be a radical liberal. You're eliminating a of of truly qualified people, including truly qualified democrats. That's why I think it's a good idea to ignore gender and skin pigmentation, and rather focus on accomplishments and talent.

She's fairly unimpressive, and if you compare her responses to Amy Barrett, it's embarrassing.

She'll get confirmed, and spend decades on the bench. But she doesn't seem intellectually serious at all, she's no Ginsburg for sure.

Hard to come acroiss as serious when you say you can't define what a woman is. Cavemen knew how to define it.

You left out a very significant part of his statement...

I looked up the transcript. He's saying she's not that bright and not that honest (she says only a biologist can define what a woman is, and in my opinion you have to be both stupid and cowardly to be able to say that out loud), and that someone like that could be about to spend decades on our supreme court, combined with the fact that Biden announced years ago that his nominee would be a black woman...and I get where he's coming from.

How can she, for example, ever hear a case about Title IX or gender discrimination, if she has no idea what a woman is?

I'd agree she's precisely what you get (so is Kamala Harris) when the current federal government insists on seeing everything through the prism of race, and insisting that everyone be a radical liberal. You're eliminating a of of truly qualified people, including truly qualified democrats. That's why I think it's a good idea to ignore gender and skin pigmentation, and rather focus on accomplishments and talent.

She's fairly unimpressive, and if you compare her responses to Amy Barrett, it's embarrassing.

She'll get confirmed, and spend decades on the bench. But she doesn't seem intellectually serious at all, she's no Ginsburg for sure.

Hard to come acroiss as serious when you say you can't define what a woman is. Cavemen knew how to define it.



Amy Coney Barret has never successfully tried a case in court, and you were perfectly fine with that. Credible women rightfully accused Kavenaugh of sexually assault and he had a complete melt down and there were over 4,500 other uninvestigated complaints about him, and you were fine with that.
Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas urged Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election by any means necessary—while her husband was ruling on cases attempting to overturn the election. A truly extraordinary level of corruption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amy Coney Barret has never successfully tried a case in court, and you were perfectly fine with that. Credible women rightfully accused Kavenaugh of sexually assault and he had a complete melt down and there were over 4,500 other uninvestigated complaints about him, and you were fine with that.
Clarence Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas urged Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election by any means necessary—while her husband was ruling on cases attempting to overturn the election. A truly extraordinary level of corruption.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

most major league umpires never played professional baseball.

A judge and a lawyer play different roles. She had been a highly regarded judge.

Weak argument, even for you.

you don’t like clarence thomas’ wife? how about joe biden’s son, hunter? any dirt there we can sling at Joe? Or do you only hold republicans responsible for actions of their families?

there’s a more credible tape claim against biden. more credible in that the victim talked about the rape back when it happened. but we can’t investigate that.

you call it a credible rape claim when the victim can’t remember what year it took place, where it took place, or how she got home after. I feel very sorry for that woman, she’s a broken person. but her story is a joke

if it was a credible rape claim, PLEASE tell us why Dianne Feinstein sat on it until the very last day of Kavanaughs hearing with the judicial committee? the only possible reason to hold it for days, is for political effect. there’s no other conceivable explanation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say she was soft on crime. i said, correctly, that gets cruz asked her why she reduced some
specific sentences,,and senator durbin did everything he could
to prevent her from answering.

she’s going to get confirmed, i’m fine with that. i’m glad it’s a liberal
she’s replacing. and we’ll see if she is an activist judge or one who enforces the rules fairly.

i answered your question, so please answer mine. if the kavanaugh rape allegation was credible, why did senator feinstein hold
it until the last day if kavanaughs hearings with the senate judiciary committee? she had sai pre iously she had big news she was going to drop, she did everything she could
to build the suspense. it was a complete hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Judge Jackson was soft on crime, then why is she being supported by the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police?

The answer is simple—she’s not soft on crime. She’s also really, really qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i just read the statement of the FOP endorsing her, and it was complimentary in many areas. it also very specifically said part of the reason they endorsed her is to make the court look like america. it’s just such an absurd,, stupid thing to say.

People can’t control their skin color. Skin color says absolutely nothing about anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say she was soft on crime. i said, correctly, that gets cruz asked her why she reduced some
specific sentences,,and senator durbin did everything he could
to prevent her from answering.

she’s going to get confirmed, i’m fine with that. i’m glad it’s a liberal
she’s replacing. and we’ll see if she is an activist judge or one who enforces the rules fairly.

i answered your question, so please answer mine. if the kavanaugh rape allegation was credible, why did senator feinstein hold
it until the last day if kavanaughs hearings with the senate judiciary committee? she had sai pre iously she had big news she was going to drop, she did everything she could
to build the suspense. it was a complete hoax.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think she has already answered that question, you just don’t like the answer.

So you’re implying the WH is giving special treatment to Judge Jackson, is somehow like the fact there were 4500 tips to FBI about Brett Kavanaugh that the WH didn’t have DOJ investigate during his hearings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think she has already answered that question, you just don’t like the answer.

So you’re implying the WH is giving special treatment to Judge Jackson, is somehow like the fact there were 4500 tips to FBI about Brett Kavanaugh that the WH didn’t have DOJ investigate during his hearings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) i asked you why she waited. you refused to answer. we all know why.

(2) of course the white house is giving her special treatment. they’re giving her a job that they refused to consider the vast majority of the population for, based on things we can’t control.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Jim’s butthurt in this thread could set a record.

In a HUGE loss for Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, and Josh Hawley, officials from the American Bar Association testify at Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing that ALL of their accusations against her are false.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

American Bar Association rates Amy Coney Barrett as ‘well qualified’

the American Bar Association rates Ketanji Brown Jackson“Well Qualified,”

I guess this happens when people only look thru the lens of the Law


yet Thomas He received a unanimous qualified rating from the American Bar Association.

So is it ALWAYS racist to criticize black people?

Everything, everything is racist.

Can't wait until November...no Trump on the ballot, just a straight-up referendum on the last 2 years of liberal control. .

https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1507456917878181890?s=21&t=U6W3ZgOP6MmN_QbQd5Z7ZA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1507456917878181890?s=21&t=U6W3ZgOP6MmN_QbQd5Z7ZA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some guy i never heard of, thinks it was racist. big, big whoop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some guy i never heard of, thinks it was racist. big, big whoop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
More importantly, YOU don’t think it was a racist comment?

More importantly, YOU don’t think it was a racist comment?

beats me., i don’t know the guy.
i think it's very easy to hate things like affirmative action. quotas, and CRT, without being a racist.

spence, is it racist when harvard decides there are too many asians there, and they raise acceptance standards for them?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it’s very easy to hate affirmative action, what is the group that reaped the largest benefit from it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it’s very easy to hate affirmative action, what is the group that reaped the largest benefit from it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t think it’s simple.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

some guy i never heard of, thinks it was racist. big, big whoop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That seems to be a theme for you .. you claim you don’t know the person or the topic..

And then walk away

Yet you claim Jackson can’t define what a woman even after saying she’s a woman her moms a women and Sen Blackburn’s a women , and because she didn’t take the Transgender bait. It upsets you.

Yet you lack the ability to say you think his comments was Or wasn’t racist ..

Odd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That seems to be a theme for you .. you claim you don’t know the person or the topic..

And then walk away

Yet you claim Jackson can’t define what a woman even after saying she’s a woman her moms a women and Sen Blackburn’s a women , and because she didn’t take the Transgender bait. It upsets you.

Yet you lack the ability to say you think his comments was Or wasn’t racist ..

Odd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m sorry, i don’t know that this person has any credibility. if i post someone saying it’s not racist, would that convince you? just because someone says something in the internet, doesn’t make it so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That seems to be a theme for you .. you claim you don’t know the person or the topic..

And then walk away

Yet you claim Jackson can’t define what a woman even after saying she’s a woman her moms a women and Sen Blackburn’s a women , and because she didn’t take the Transgender bait. It upsets you.

Yet you lack the ability to say you think his comments was Or wasn’t racist ..

Odd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not “my claim” that she can’t define what a woman is. those were her words. you think i made it up? if so, yiu need to brush up on the issue.

“my claim”, as opposed to exactly what she said. unbelievable, the denial.

and i said i don’t see it as racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“….but since I’m an originalist, I can’t possibly vote for a nominee that is only 3/5 of a Justice.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“….but since I’m an originalist, I can’t possibly vote for a nominee that is only 3/5 of a Justice.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



which party advocated for slavery? hint, it was the same party that advocated for segregation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The hardest part about renouncing the Republican Party was turning my back on the orgies and cocaine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The hardest part about renouncing the Republican Party was turning my back on the orgies and cocaine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because as we all know, there’s zero casual sex and drugs on the left. Zip.

do you ever read your rantings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because as we all know, there’s zero casual sex and drugs on the left. Zip.

do you ever read your rantings?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the Republican Party, you can openly support armed revolt against the government--just don't embarrass anyone with comments about orgies/drugs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the Republican Party, you can openly support armed revolt against the government--just don't embarrass anyone with comments about orgies/drugs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was an armed revolt now? keeps getting more and more sinister. did they have nukes?

A lot of the republicans i like (not all but a lot) spoke out very loudly against january 6. i dint think america wants to hear that all republicans were behind an armed coup. but that’s probably a better line for the left than talking about crime, immigration, inflation, etc…

when some congressional democrats in 2016 tried to take the win from trump, i’m guessing you weren’t outraged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was an armed revolt now? keeps getting more and more sinister. did they have nukes?

A lot of the republicans i like (not all but a lot) spoke out very loudly against january 6. i dint think america wants to hear that all republicans were behind an armed coup. but that’s probably a better line for the left than talking about crime, immigration, inflation, etc…

when some congressional democrats in 2016 tried to take the win from trump, i’m guessing you weren’t outraged.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No nukes, but a few pipe bombs.

I don't know that anyone, other than people playing the victim card, thinks that all republicans are behind an armed coup, but as is gradually coming to light the people in and associated with the former administration were engaged in a coup and actively sought the assistance of violent participants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sJDb02p0BE

Madison Cawthorn on Jan. 6 admitted he was armed and had carried 'multiple weapons' in his wheelchair

At least three people arrested in connection with the Capitol riot are facing gun charges, though the government has not alleged that those three were part of the actual breach of the building. Other defendants are suspected of possessing guns during the riot but, like the vast majority of the estimated 800 rioters, were not searched that day.

Federal prosecutors say that Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland was arrested on Capitol grounds on the evening of Jan. 6 while carrying a Taurus G2c 9 mm handgun with one round in the chamber and a full 12-round magazine. He also allegedly had an extra magazine in his pocket and was carrying a gas mask, pocket knife and first-aid kit.

Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama was also arrested that evening after law enforcement found two firearms on his person, as well as what a federal judge referred to as a "small armory" in his truck, which was parked near the Capitol. According to the court, the government found "a loaded handgun," "a loaded rifle," "a loaded shotgun," "a crossbow with bolts," "several machetes," "a stun gun" and "11 mason jars containing a flammable liquid, with a hole punched in the top of each jar." According to the government, surveillance footage showed him "in attendance at the events at the Capitol," though he has not been charged with breaching the building.

Cleveland Grover Meredith of North Carolina planned to arrive in D.C. for the Trump rallies on Jan. 6, according to federal prosecutors, but he was delayed because of car trouble. He was arrested the following day for allegedly assaulting a man in Washington, D.C., in a traffic-related incident and for making death threats against the D.C. mayor and Pelosi.

During a search, law enforcement said they found in his possession "a Glock 19, nine millimeter pistol, a Tavor X95 assault rifle and approximately hundreds of rounds of ammunition." Citing text messages sent by Meredith, a federal prosecutor argued in court that he "relished in the carnage of January 6th."

No nukes, but a few pipe bombs.

I don't know that anyone, other than people playing the victim card, thinks that all republicans are behind an armed coup, but as is gradually coming to light the people in and associated with the former administration were engaged in a coup and actively sought the assistance of violent participants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sJDb02p0BE

Madison Cawthorn on Jan. 6 admitted he was armed and had carried 'multiple weapons' in his wheelchair

At least three people arrested in connection with the Capitol riot are facing gun charges, though the government has not alleged that those three were part of the actual breach of the building. Other defendants are suspected of possessing guns during the riot but, like the vast majority of the estimated 800 rioters, were not searched that day.

Federal prosecutors say that Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland was arrested on Capitol grounds on the evening of Jan. 6 while carrying a Taurus G2c 9 mm handgun with one round in the chamber and a full 12-round magazine. He also allegedly had an extra magazine in his pocket and was carrying a gas mask, pocket knife and first-aid kit.

Lonnie Leroy Coffman of Alabama was also arrested that evening after law enforcement found two firearms on his person, as well as what a federal judge referred to as a "small armory" in his truck, which was parked near the Capitol. According to the court, the government found "a loaded handgun," "a loaded rifle," "a loaded shotgun," "a crossbow with bolts," "several machetes," "a stun gun" and "11 mason jars containing a flammable liquid, with a hole punched in the top of each jar." According to the government, surveillance footage showed him "in attendance at the events at the Capitol," though he has not been charged with breaching the building.

Cleveland Grover Meredith of North Carolina planned to arrive in D.C. for the Trump rallies on Jan. 6, according to federal prosecutors, but he was delayed because of car trouble. He was arrested the following day for allegedly assaulting a man in Washington, D.C., in a traffic-related incident and for making death threats against the D.C. mayor and Pelosi.

During a search, law enforcement said they found in his possession "a Glock 19, nine millimeter pistol, a Tavor X95 assault rifle and approximately hundreds of rounds of ammunition." Citing text messages sent by Meredith, a federal prosecutor argued in court that he "relished in the carnage of January 6th."

And what's your proof that those who were armed, were part of an organized plot to overturn the election? As opposed to being armed while also just being a trespasser? You're clearly assuming that those who had guns, were also involved in the conspiracy. Are you making that assumption because there's evidence to support it? Or are you making that assumption because it helps democrats?

There's zero evidence that most people there were involved in the same conspiracy. Z-E-R-O.

Let's be clear, I hope that one of the 85 investigations into Trump turns up enough that he cannot run again. Because I really don't want him to run again.

But a Harvard poll has Trump beating Pudding Brain by 7. Last I checked, Harvard isn't a right-wing institution. Fascinating.

Its fascinating. America liked Obama, but didn't like his agenda, to the point that when Obama left, Democrats held fewer elected offices that at any time since the end of the Civil War. That's fact. Funny how the left never, ever talks bout that. But that's what happened.

America hated Trump, but liked his agenda, that resulted in his getting creamed in a landslide.

I'm not sure what America thinks of Biden personally, but polls suggest they can't stand his performance.

America can't seem to decide the balance it wants in its POTUS, between personal integrity and the ability to improve life for Americans.

it was an armed revolt now? keeps getting more and more sinister. did they have nukes?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You must have missed that pic of that armed terrorist running through the Capitol wielding an Assault Podium.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You must have missed that pic of that armed terrorist running through the Capitol wielding an Assault Podium.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the Chewbacca guy had those horns on his hat, don’t forget that.

chicken is slated to go up 70% year over year, and all
he wants to talk about us january 6.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what's your proof that those who were armed, were part of an organized plot to overturn the election? As opposed to being armed while also just being a trespasser? You're clearly assuming that those who had guns, were also involved in the conspiracy. Are you making that assumption because there's evidence to support it? Or are you making that assumption because it helps democrats?

There's zero evidence that most people there were involved in the same conspiracy. Z-E-R-O.

We are 14 months into the largest investigation in DOJ history in which there currently are more than 800 people charged and with a lot more than trespassing.
You are making assumptions that are being disproven daily.
At least eleven people have been charged with seditious conspiracy and to date one has plead guilty, far more than zero.
It is just getting started.
Don't forget that Watergate took three years before it was complete and 41 people were criminally convicted. That was for a break-in that initially involved 5 people, not an entire administration.



Let's be clear, I hope that one of the 85 investigations into Trump turns up enough that he cannot run again. Because I really don't want him to run again.

But a Harvard poll has Trump beating Pudding Brain by 7. Last I checked, Harvard isn't a right-wing institution. Fascinating.

Its fascinating. America liked Obama, but didn't like his agenda, to the point that when Obama left, Democrats held fewer elected offices that at any time since the end of the Civil War. That's fact. Funny how the left never, ever talks bout that. But that's what happened.

America hated Trump, but liked his agenda, that resulted in his getting creamed in a landslide.

I'm not sure what America thinks of Biden personally, but polls suggest they can't stand his performance.

America can't seem to decide the balance it wants in its POTUS, between personal integrity and the ability to improve life for Americans.

You keep harping about Bidens poll results, but a short while ago you claimed that polls were baloney, Biden would never beat Trump from his basement, etc.
I can imagine exactly what would have happened if Trump had been reelected. His genius buddy Putin would have walked into Ukraine and have been applauded by the people he financed and supported.

You keep harping about Bidens poll results, but a short while ago you claimed that polls were baloney, Biden would never beat Trump from his basement, etc.
I can imagine exactly what would have happened if Trump had been reelected. His genius buddy Putin would have walked into Ukraine and have been applauded by the people he financed and supported.

you posted the names of people with guns, implying that they were involved in a plot.

what’s your proof of that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep harping about Bidens poll results, but a short while ago you claimed that polls were baloney, Biden would never beat Trump from his basement, etc.
I can imagine exactly what would have happened if Trump had been reelected. His genius buddy Putin would have walked into Ukraine and have been applauded by the people he financed and supported.

i also agree i’ve been laughably wrong when relying on polls.

But with Biden’s polling, MANY democrats and those in the media are clearly reacting to a belief that a shellacking is coming. only the real zealots are in denial at this point.

the polling in this case is what an honest person would
expect given what’s going on. once in 40 year inflation. no president can oversee that and not take a hit, whether it’s his fault or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you posted the names of people with guns, implying that they were involved in a plot.

what’s your proof of that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oath Keepers planning to violently subvert the 2020 election stockpiled 30 days of supplies and a cache of rifles and ammunition just outside of Washington, D.C., prosecutors alleged in a late-night court filing.

In a memo seeking the pretrial detention of Oath Keeper Ed Vallejo — one of 11 members of the group charged last week with seditious conspiracy to violently prevent Joe Biden from taking office — prosecutors provided new details about the weapons stockpile Oath Keepers had assembled at a Comfort Inn in nearby Arlington, Va.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oath Keepers planning to violently subvert the 2020 election stockpiled 30 days of supplies and a cache of rifles and ammunition just outside of Washington, D.C., prosecutors alleged in a late-night court filing.

In a memo seeking the pretrial detention of Oath Keeper Ed Vallejo — one of 11 members of the group charged last week with seditious conspiracy to violently prevent Joe Biden from taking office — prosecutors provided new details about the weapons stockpile Oath Keepers had assembled at a Comfort Inn in nearby Arlington, Va.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i asked twice, you dodged twice.

so, you have zero way to connect those who had guns on january 6th, with any conspiracy.

in other words, you made up that connection, to paint conservatives in a negative light.

with all the stupid things conservatives do, there is t enough actual truth you can point to, to make them look bad? you have to never more stuff?

time to ask yourself some questions Pete. like, why are conservatives slightly more charitable
and generous than liberals? if we’re all pure evil, why is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

time to ask yourself some questions Pete. like, why are conservatives slightly more charitable
and generous than liberals? if we’re all pure evil, why is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

same answer as the other 100 times you asked that question.

BC they give to their private schools and churches that most people don't have access to.

same answer as the other 100 times you asked that question.

BC they give to their private schools and churches that most people don't have access to.

and that answer is as stupid as it has always been. 99% of charities have expenses to provide for their infastructure. churches aren’t unique in this regard.

the catholic church has big expenses, church buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. They are also one of the worlds largest providers of charitable services. Food banks, homeless shelters, medical clinics, adoption services, etc.

the united way also has buildings and employees. as does the Red Cross. as does the clinton foundation.

yet you only single out church donations as not really charity. because you’re desperate to disprove the fact that you happen to find inconvenient.

conservatives make less many than liberals, yet they aren’t stingy. pete’s brain can’t handle that .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and that answer is as stupid as it has always been. 99% of charities have expenses to provide for their infastructure. churches aren’t unique in this regard.

the catholic church has big expenses, church buildings, schools, hospitals, etc. They are also one of the worlds largest providers of charitable services. Food banks, homeless shelters, medical clinics, adoption services, etc.

the united way also has buildings and employees. as does the Red Cross. as does the clinton foundation.

yet you only single out church donations Did you not see I said "private schools and churches"? Did you miss that or did you just figure you would lie?as not really charityPls, point out where I said it is not really charity? Either point it out or apologize for lying. . because you’re desperate to disprove the fact that you happen to find inconvenient.

conservatives make less many than liberals, yet they aren’t stingy. pete’s brain can’t handle that .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Churches/private schools use prob. 3-5% of the donations they receive to provide help to others. Many other charities like save the children prob. give 84-95% of the donations they receive to help others.

If anyone wants to give $ to churches and schools bc they attend, it is somewhat self serving. You fail to acknowledge that in your constant rants that conserv. give "slightly" more $.

Churches/private schools use prob. 3-5% of the donations they receive to provide help to others. Many other charities like save the children prob. give 84-95% of the donations they receive to help others.

If anyone wants to give $ to churches and schools bc they attend, it is somewhat self serving. You fail to acknowledge that in your constant rants that conserv. give "slightly" more $.

When you said private school, I assumed you meant religious school, as many of them are.

"Pls, point out where I said it is not really charity?"

You said this, Paul, in the same post for Gods sake..."If anyone wants to give $ to churches and schools bc they attend, it is somewhat self serving." Self-serving, isn't charity.

I can only speak to the Catholic Church. Every Sunday, my church has 2 collections, one for charity, one to go towards regular expenses associated with the church. The church has to pay utilities and buy food for the priests and pay maintenance on the buildings, and my church runs a school which is unbelievably expensive yet they only charge tuition of $5,000 for a school with 10 kids to a class which blows away public schools (which can spend 4x more per kid) on standardized tests. And anyone can enjoy the church, not just those who donate. Anyone can go to a mass and enjoy any spiritual benefits they derive, and that probably doesn't mean much to liberals these days, but it's meaningful to catholics.

Maybe the church you go to, uses all its donations for self-serving reasons, but that doesn't mean all churches do.

When you said private school, I assumed you meant religious school, as many of them are.

"Pls, point out where I said it is not really charity?"

You said this, Paul, in the same post for Gods sake..."If anyone wants to give $ to churches and schools bc they attend, it is somewhat self serving." Self-serving, isn't charity.

I can only speak to the Catholic Church. Every Sunday, my church has 2 collections, one for charity, one to go towards regular expenses associated with the church. The church has to pay utilities and buy food for the priests and pay maintenance on the buildings. And anyone can enjoy the church, not just those who donate.

I never claimed it wasn't charity. I've always said people personally benefit from it. I feel better giving to save the children then I do for giving $ to my churches men club which is remodeling our meeting room.

I never claimed it wasn't charity. I've always said people personally benefit from it. I feel better giving to save the children then I do for giving $ to my churches men club which is remodeling our meeting room.

You said it's self serving. Giving that's self-serving, isn't really compatible with the spirit of charitable giving.

Paul, for the purposes of disproving everything Pete believes, we can exclude all religious-based giving from this conversation. If you exclude all that, it would still show that conservatives aren't the greedy, heartless nazis that Pete believes we all are.

"I feel better giving to save the children then I do for giving $ to my churches men club which is remodeling our meeting room."

So would I. But every charity has expenses it has to cover.

i asked twice, you dodged twice.

so, you have zero way to connect those who had guns on january 6th, with any conspiracy.

in other words, you made up that connection, to paint conservatives in a negative light.

with all the stupid things conservatives do, there is t enough actual truth you can point to, to make them look bad? you have to never more stuff?

time to ask yourself some questions Pete. like, why are conservatives slightly more charitable
and generous than liberals? if we’re all pure evil, why is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s see my dodge
11 charged with seditious conspiracy
They had a weapons cache in a hotel and people ready to move them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said it's self serving. Giving that's self-serving, isn't really compatible with the spirit of charitable giving.
.

So isn't it self serving when someone gives $ for a new gym in a private school that no one other than the students who go there are going to be able to use it? or to a fundraiser to pay for the salary of a new music teacher?

So isn't it self serving when someone gives $ for a new gym in a private school that no one other than the students who go there are going to be able to use it? or to a fundraiser to pay for the salary of a new music teacher?

it’s not purely self serving, no, because other students ( including those on full scholarships) can use it.

paul, liberals also make donations to ivy league schools which have endowments in the tens of billions. so if you’re going to ding conservatives because not every cent of tax deductible charity is feeding the poor, at least make the same adjustment to liberal donations which are equally frivolous.

again, my point isn’t that conservatives are superior. just that we aren’t anywhere near what that idiot lunatic thinks we are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s see my dodge
11 charged with seditious conspiracy
They had a weapons cache in a hotel and people ready to move them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

post a link please, no one believes anything you type.

11. 11 outbid how many who were there, tens of thousands?

again, you never made a peep
about the armed BLM rioters, who unlike the January 6 rioters, actually killed people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

post a link please, no one believes anything you type.

11. 11 outbid how many who were there, tens of thousands?

again, you never made a peep
about the armed BLM rioters, who unlike the January 6 rioters, actually killed people. There were millions of people protesting BLM
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411.7.0.pdf

There were millions of people protesting BLM

In the same place on the same day?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411.7.0.pdf

Is this in coordination with all the other rioters on Jan6 or with the tens of thousands of protesters or with the alleged "coup" by Trump?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411/gov.uscourts.azd.1285411.7.0.pdf

how many people were murdered by the january 6 trespassers, rioters, and seditionist?

ZERO. exactly, precisely zero.

How many were murdered during the BLM protests? 10 or so?

you have not, nor will ever, criticize the much more destructive BLM riots. because you don’t care about riots or property damage ior
murder.

you care about painting democrats in a favorable light. That’s it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In November 2020, days after the election, Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers,
began disseminating messages to other Oath Keepers members and affiliates
delegitimizing the results of the election and encouraging them to forcibly oppose the
lawful transfer of presidential power. See Indictment at ¶ 18(a) (telling those on the
“Leadership intel sharing secured” chat (hereafter “Leadership Intel Chat”), on November
5, that they “MUST refuse to accept Biden as a legitimate winner” and warning, “We aren’t
getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body,
spirit.”). Rhodes circulated and highlighted an eight-step plan, allegedly from a Serbian
contact to overthrow the government, which included: (i) peaceful protest, (ii) complete
civil disobedience, (iii) connecting with the police and organizing neighborhoods,
(iv) swarming the streets and confronting opponents, (v) gathering in the capitol and
discarding barricades, (vi) police joining with the protestors after initial violence,
(vii) storming parliament, and (viii) destroying the state media. Id.
Rhodes followed this plan in the months after the presidential election. At his
direction, certain members of his organization began preparing for operations inside of
Washington, D.C. Indictment at ¶ 21. He further organized deadly weapons to aid in the
conspiracy. Heavily armed QRF teams would be minutes away, just outside the Capitol,
ready to support those on the ground. Id. at ¶¶ 42-45. All contingency plans were
considered. The conspirators even sought to ferry lethal weapons from Virginia by boat
into the Capitol, if the bridges were closed. Id. at ¶ 52
In December 2020, Rhodes focused his co-conspirators on the Certification
proceeding of January 6, 2021. During a December 22 interview with a regional Oath
Keepers leader, Rhodes described January 6 as “a hard constitutional deadline” for
stopping the transfer of presidential power and warned that if President-Elect Biden were
to assume the presidency, “We will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution
against them.” Indictment at ¶ 30. On December 23, Rhodes published an open letter on the Oath Keepers website in which he noted that, on January 6, “tens of thousands of patriot
Americans, both veterans and non-veterans, will already be in Washington D.C., and many
of us will have our mission-critical gear stowed nearby just outside D.C.” Id. at ¶ 31.
Rhodes warned in the open letter that he and others may have to “take to arms in defense
of our God given liberty.” Id.
Rhodes and his co-conspirators created and administered Signal chats with titles
like “DC OP: Jan 6 21” and “OKFL Hangout” for coordinating their plans for January 6.
Indictment at ¶¶ 38-40. They utilized encrypted messaging applications for these planning
chats and stressed the need for operational security. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 27. The coconspirators discussed being prepared to use violence to stop the “usurpers” from taking
control and what weapons they would bring and plans for the QRF. Id. at ¶ 41-56, 58-60.
On December 25, Rhodes wrote to the OKFL Hangout Chat, “I think Congress will screw
him [President Trump] over. The only chance we/he has is if we scare the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of them
and convince them it will be torches and pitchforks time is they don’t do the right thing.
But I don’t think they will listen.” Id. at ¶ 34. Rhodes went on to say, “And he [President
Trump] needs to know that if he fails to act, then we will. He needs to understand that we
will have no choice.” On December 31, one week before the Capitol attack, Rhodes wrote
to the Leadership Intel Chat, “There is no standard political or legal way out of this.”
B. Vallejo and His Co-Conspirators Prepared an Armed QRF To Support the
Plot to Stop the Transfer of Power
Vallejo and his co-conspirators coordinated at least three regional QRF teams
stationed at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Virginia, to support the co-conspirators’ plot and
the January 6 Capitol attack. Indictment at ¶¶ 45-49. The QRF teams guarded an arsenal
of firearms and related equipment and were prepared to speed those weapons into the hands
of co-conspirators on the ground in Washington, D.C., when directed by Rhodes or other
conspiracy leaders. Id. Vallejo served on one of those QRF teams.
On December 31, 2020, Vallejo’s Arizona QRF team member messaged Rhodes on
Signal that Vallejo and others were coming to Washington, D.C., and that “everyone has their own technical equipment and knows how to use it,” adding a “winky face” emoji.
Indictment at ¶ 44. Rhodes responded, “awesome!” Id. The Arizona QRF team member
also said that Vallejo and the group would have “rifles” and “man power.” Id.
On January 3, 2021, Rhodes informed a co-conspirator on Signal, “We WILL have
a QRF. this situation calls for it.” Indictment at ¶ 50. In the following days, coconspirators communicated and implemented plans to bring weapons to the Comfort Inn.
Id. at ¶¶ 58-59, 63-65, 68-69. Vallejo messaged co-conspirator and Florida team lead Kelly
Meggs, “Sir, Ed Vallejo of Arizona in Tenn. With cadre requesting coordinates to Allied
encampment outside DC boundaries to rendezvous. Please respond ASAP. For the
Republic.” On January 5, Vallejo messaged Meggs again, “Please text location so we will
know where to begin in the morning.” Meggs responded with the address of the Comfort
Inn Ballston, where the co-conspirators staged their multiple QRF teams.
The day before the attack on the Capitol, on January 5, Meggs and his Florida team
dropped off at least three luggage carts’ worth of gun boxes, rifle cases, and suitcases filled
with ammunition with their QRF team. A second QRF team from North Carolina consisted
of four men who kept their rifles ready to go in a vehicle parked in the hotel lot. Later,
Vallejo and other members of the Arizona QRF team wheeled in bags and large bins of
weapons, ammunition, and essential supplies to last 30 days—as seen in the QRF hotel
surveillance stills below, showing Vallejo on the left and his Arizona QRF team member
on the right:

Is this in coordination with all the other rioters on Jan6 or with the tens of thousands of protesters or with the alleged "coup" by Trump?

You could ask Roger Stone

how many people were murdered by the january 6 trespassers, rioters, and seditionist?

ZERO. exactly, precisely zero.

How many were murdered during the BLM protests? 10 or so?

you have not, nor will ever, criticize the much more destructive BLM riots. because you don’t care about riots or property damage ior
murder.

you care about painting democrats in a favorable light. That’s it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last I knew, the BLM protests did not try and change the outcome of an election, millions protested in locations all across the country.

Jan 6 was a coordinated attack on the Capitol, planned months in advance and with the knowledge of people inside the administration.

it’s not purely self serving, no, because other students ( including those on full scholarships) can use it.

paul, liberals also make donations to ivy league schools which have endowments in the tens of billions. so if you’re going to ding conservatives because not every cent of tax deductible charity is feeding the poor, at least make the same adjustment to liberal donations which are equally frivolous. I agree those donations are the same.

again, my point isn’t that conservatives are superior.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but that is what you constantly post

"why are conservatives slightly more charitable
and generous than liberals"

but that is what you constantly post

"why are conservatives slightly more charitable
and generous than liberals"

i only post it in response to a liberal stating that all conservatives are bad uncaring, refusing to help the needy, etc.

there’s no way to make a case that conservatives are meaningfully less caring about the poor, than liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives are happier than liberals - but only because they lack empathy
Conservatives are happier than liberals - but only because they lack empathy
Conservatives are happier than liberals - but only because they lack empathy
https://www.thejournal.ie/conservative-liberal-happiness-social-welfare-1671962-Sep2014/

Conservatives don't like yucky stuff

https://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-and-conservatives-process-disgust-and-empathy-differently-2018-1

Empathy and the Liberal-Conservative Political Divide in the U.S.

https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/5209
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could ask Roger Stone

I asked you and you could not say that it was in planned coordination with the other rioters or the tens of thousands of protesters. You could not say it was because their is no evidence or accusation that it was.

But you sure can insinuate that Jan6 was a coup or an insurrection. It's what you do--a constant flow of propaganda.

I asked you and you could not say that it was in planned coordination with the other rioters or the tens of thousands of protesters. You could not say it was because their is no evidence or accusation that it was.

But you sure can insinuate that Jan6 was a coup or an insurrection. It's what you do--a constant flow of propaganda.

Patience
It takes time to build a conspiracy case.
And your obfuscation of the facts that continue to emerge in court filings is wishful thinking.
On the anniversary of January 6, Merrick Garland explained that all of the arrests from the first year had laid the foundation for more complex cases.
This is the kind of thing he was talking about: working your way up through Mark Grods to Joshua James to Stewart Rhodes to Roger Stone, taking the time to crack and exploit Tarrio’s phone, exploiting early access to Straka’s comms to get to the organizers. The investigation “aperture” hasn’t changed; what has changed is DOJ has acquired information it needed before it could take the next step.

As I said before, patience
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Patience
It takes time to build a conspiracy case.
And your obfuscation of the facts that continue to emerge in court filings is wishful thinking.
On the anniversary of January 6, Merrick Garland explained that all of the arrests from the first year had laid the foundation for more complex cases.
This is the kind of thing he was talking about: working your way up through Mark Grods to Joshua James to Stewart Rhodes to Roger Stone, taking the time to crack and exploit Tarrio’s phone, exploiting early access to Straka’s comms to get to the organizers. The investigation “aperture” hasn’t changed; what has changed is DOJ has acquired information it needed before it could take the next step.

As I said before, patience
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're the one lacking patience. At this point in time, what you want to label Jan6 has not been proven. But you just can't wait for the final results. Just like the Mueller investigation or the Trump impeachments, or the Stormy what's her name, and the Cohen, and the NY AG investigation, etc., etc. You had and have pronounced Trump guilty before the verdicts were. or are, in.

As for Jan6, at this point, there seems to be different actors in different groups, or solo, doing different things with different motives. Some may actually, EVENTUALLY, be convicted of various things you hope for. But to frame the whole rally as a singular coordinated conspiracy for some singularly desired result, is premature, or just politically driven narrative.

PATIENCE.

You're the one lacking patience. At this point in time, what you want to label Jan6 has not been proven. But you just can't wait for the final results. Just like the Mueller investigation or the Trump impeachments, or the Stormy what's her name, and the Cohen, and the NY AG investigation, etc., etc. You had and have pronounced Trump guilty before the verdicts were. or are, in.

As for Jan6, at this point, there seems to be different actors in different groups, or solo, doing different things with different motives. Some may actually, EVENTUALLY, be convicted of various things you hope for. But to frame the whole rally as a singular coordinated conspiracy for some singularly desired result, is premature, or just politically driven narrative.

PATIENCE.

january 6th was an organized, heavily armed, right wing coup. and when congressional
democrats tried to steal trump win i. 2016 bu challenging state results with zero evidence, that was ok, because shut up.

and the BLM riots were a benign event, also because shut up.

And Biden will end up on Mt Rushmore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're the one lacking patience. At this point in time, what you want to label Jan6 has not been proven. But you just can't wait for the final results. Just like the Mueller investigation or the Trump impeachments, or the Stormy what's her name, and the Cohen, and the NY AG investigation, etc., etc. You had and have pronounced Trump guilty before the verdicts were. or are, in.

As for Jan6, at this point, there seems to be different actors in different groups, or solo, doing different things with different motives. Some may actually, EVENTUALLY, be convicted of various things you hope for. But to frame the whole rally as a singular coordinated conspiracy for some singularly desired result, is premature, or just politically driven narrative.

PATIENCE.

I don’t know of any source that claims that everyone on January 6th coordinated their actions.
There are many people charged with crimes at the capital on January 6th.
Some have ALREADY been convicted of conspiring to overturn the election.
Just keep denying
You’ve been doing it for years
I think you forget that Mueller prosecuted Trump's coffee boy, Campaign Manager and his Deputy, personal lawyer, National Security Advisor and rat-#^&#^&#^&#^&er, plus referring a case against his top donor, Tom Barrack, who is currently being prosecuted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t know of any source that claims that everyone on January 6th coordinated their actions.

When you and the Dems were calling Jan6 an insurrection, y'all weren't singling out a tiny minority of the 30 thousand attending the rally or of the 700 hundred arrested at the time, you were characterizing the entire event and the entire riot as an insurrection.

There are many people charged with crimes at the capital on January 6th.

Yes and most are not charged with insurrection or of perpetrating a coup.

Some have ALREADY been convicted of conspiring to overturn the election.

"Some"!! And how many and for exactly what?


Just keep denying

Denying what?

You’ve been doing it for years

Denying what?

I think you forget that Mueller prosecuted Trump's coffee boy, Campaign Manager and his Deputy, personal lawyer, National Security Advisor and rat-#^&#^&#^&#^&er, plus referring a case against his top donor, Tom Barrack, who is currently being prosecuted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You were saying that TRUMP was guilty, before Mueller finished his investigation, as well in the other ongoing investigations before they were finished, and in which none convicted Trump of the crimes which you claimed he was guilty of. You consistently were not, as you claim I must be, PATIENT. And were proved wrong.

You're the one who keeps denying.

Reminder: There's not "a" grand jury investigating Trump's flunkies.

DOJ has used at least six grand juries to investigate January 6.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reminder: There's not "a" grand jury investigating Trump's flunkies.

DOJ has used at least six grand juries to investigate January 6.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know you're chompin at the bit. Patience.

Oh, as you can see I am patient
However I see Trumplicans are confused again
Donald Trump did not kill Bin Laden. He did invite the Taliban to Camp David on 9/11 though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, as you can see I am patient
However I see Trumplicans are confused again

No, I can't see that you are patient. You've alreadly decided that Trump is guilty before that's been legally decided.

Donald Trump did not kill Bin Laden. He did invite the Taliban to Camp David on 9/11 though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Donald Trump released 5000 Taliban and leaders.

“The signing of the Doha agreement had a really pernicious effect on the government of Afghanistan and on its military – psychological more than anything else, but we set a date – certain for when we were going to leave and when they could expect all assistance to end,” McKenzie said.

He was referring to a February 29, 2020, agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, in which the US promised to fully withdraw its troops by May 2021 and the Taliban committed to several conditions, including stopping attacks on US and coalition forces.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald Trump released 5000 Taliban and leaders.

“The signing of the Doha agreement had a really pernicious effect on the government of Afghanistan and on its military – psychological more than anything else, but we set a date – certain for when we were going to leave and when they could expect all assistance to end,” McKenzie said.

He was referring to a February 29, 2020, agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, in which the US promised to fully withdraw its troops by May 2021 and the Taliban committed to several conditions, including stopping attacks on US and coalition forces.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Trump entered into an agreement with the Taliban excluding the Afghan government. It was signed February 2020. And it said that the United States will pull out all of its forces by May 1. And what was remarkable about it is that after February 2020 no American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by the Taliban. So the Taliban held to their word of not killing Americans, but started killing all the educated classes of Afghans and destroying the government.
So Biden was left with a choice, start the war over by increasing boots on the ground or get out.
He made the correct choice after years of horrendous decisions by our government in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was invaded because of 9/11, the majority involved in that attack were Saudi, no Afghans were there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald
So Biden was left with a choice, start the war over by increasing boots on the ground or get out.
He made the correct choice

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Trump already kneecapped the Afghan government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump already kneecapped the Afghan government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Biden invited the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan.. get your facts right..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan.. get your facts right..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got my facts right. Leaving Afghanistan was an open invitation to the Taliban. You changed the verbs--inserted "let" in place of "invited."

I got my facts right. Leaving Afghanistan was an open invitation to the Taliban. You changed the verbs--inserted "let" in place of "invited."

So how long did you expect us to stay? What time frame would make you feel better

And how I am I wrong

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan

Last time I checked they had no Stars and Stripes on their flag

Same with the Ukraine flag

But some how conservatives thinks it’s Biden’s fault lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Detbuch thinks that nation building was the solution to Afghanistan.
Never mind that we tried for a couple of decades.
In his mind Afghanistan was worth more lives, never mind wealth.
Ukraine meh…..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how long did you expect us to stay? What time frame would make you feel better

I didn't expect us to stay. I didn't want us to stay.
Some think that the withdrawal could have been done better.

and how I am I wrong

I don't know. I didn't say you were wrong.

Afghans let the Taliban take over Afghanistan

I didn't say they didn't.

Last time I checked they had no Stars and Stripes on their flag

Did you actually have to check?

Same with the Ukraine flag

And you had to check that to? I suppose you could say that the Ukrainians or the Europeans or NATO let Russia invade Ukraine.

But some how conservatives thinks it’s Biden’s fault lol


Some anti-Trumpers think it's Trump's fault. As for Biden, I stand by what I said. I didn't try to cast "fault." I responded, sarcastically, to Pete F. who was insinuating Trump was at fault for something or other when he said that Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David on 9/11.

Detbuch thinks that nation building was the solution to Afghanistan.
Never mind that we tried for a couple of decades.
In his mind Afghanistan was worth more lives, never mind wealth.
Ukraine meh…..


Another one of your lies. I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said, on this forum back in August of 2021:

"We should not have occupied Afghanistan to begin with. If they had Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us, we should have just carpet bombed that country and left a message on top of the rubble for the survivors and leaders that we would be back with more if they messed with us. I said that here on the forum way back then.

"Having not done that, but intruding ourselves into their wonderful Islamic nation, we should only have done it after totally defeating the Taliban, totally wiped it out, then peacefully cleaning up the mess we made, and offer them assistance in rebuilding and occupying for a while.

"We needed to leave. Maybe there was a better way. No opinion on that. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned. Islam is not peaceful. Nor is it compatible with our culture nor with democracy. Reforming it so that it would be compatible with Western values would be making it something totally different than it actually is."

You know that since I went back and forth with you in that thread with your insinuation that I wanted to commit genacide.

So, as you are wont to do, you lied about me here. As I have often said, you're a liar. It's one of the key elements in your consistent propaganda.

Another one of your lies. I didn't say that. I said the opposite. I said, on this forum back in August of 2021:

"We should not have occupied Afghanistan to begin with. If they had Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us, we should have just carpet bombed that country and left a message on top of the rubble for the survivors and leaders that we would be back with more if they messed with us. I said that here on the forum way back then.

"Having not done that, but intruding ourselves into their wonderful Islamic nation, we should only have done it after totally defeating the Taliban, totally wiped it out, then peacefully cleaning up the mess we made, and offer them assistance in rebuilding and occupying for a while.

"We needed to leave. Maybe there was a better way. No opinion on that. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned. Islam is not peaceful. Nor is it compatible with our culture nor with democracy. Reforming it so that it would be compatible with Western values would be making it something totally different than it actually is."

You know that since I went back and forth with you in that thread with your insinuation that I wanted to commit genacide.

So, as you are wont to do, you lied about me here. As I have often said, you're a liar. It's one of the key elements in your consistent propaganda.

So we should have destroyed the Taliban before we built them a new nation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So we should have destroyed the Taliban before we built them a new nation?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Taliban having been destroyed, wiped out, it would not be their nation. And we would not build that nation, but help clean up the destruction we caused, and then leave.

You lied saying I wanted to nation build. I said we should not have occupied Afghanistan in the first place.

BUT WE DID. We intruded ourselves into that nation, which I said we shouldn't have done. So, HAVING DONE THAT, we should have totally wiped out the Taliban, helped clean up the mess we made, occupying only for a while and assisting their rebuild, then leave.

I said we needed to leave.

You lied. Not unusual for you.

The Taliban having been destroyed, wiped out, it would not be their nation. And we would not build that nation, but help clean up the destruction we caused, and then leave.

You lied saying I wanted to nation build. I said we should not have occupied Afghanistan in the first place.

BUT WE DID. We intruded ourselves into that nation, which I said we shouldn't have done. So, HAVING DONE THAT, we should have totally wiped out the Taliban, helped clean up the mess we made, occupying only for a while and assisting their rebuild, then leave.

I said we needed to leave.

You lied. Not unusual for you.

Umm, that’s the classic definition of nation building.

But here you go, the beginners guide to nation building

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG557.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm, that’s the classic definition of nation building.

But here you go, the beginners guide to nation building

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG557.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Umm, what I said is nowhere near what your beginners guide requires. To begin with, I didn't say it was to be a liberation. I said it was to totally eradicate the Taliban. The purpose was to annihilate an enemy who refused to turn over another avowed enemy. The help to rebuild was merely to "help" refurbish the infrastructure we destroyed. The short time required to do that would also include sticking around long enough to assure that the Taliban in Afghanistan was inoperative or even to allow it to give up Bin Ladin, as much as that could be done. But I did not say to stay there for years. I mentioned nothing about all the other things listed in chapters 1-9 in your beginners guide. Perhaps you didn't read it.

BTW, I'm not against some of the things done in your guide's version of nation building. It would depend on circumstances. One circumstance that would make it perhaps too difficult, is trying to build an Islamic nation into a democratic Western style nation founded on individual freedom and secular rule of law. Islam is totally incompatible with such a nation.

Perhaps we could have done a Hiroshima/Nagasaki type operation. Utterly destroy one large Afghan city, and if that didn't cough up Bin Ladin, do it to another large city, and keep doing it until either we got Bin Ladin or the Taliban and Afghanistan was totally destroyed. Kinda like what Putin is doing to Ukraine, whatever his motive is.

Umm, what I said is nowhere near what your beginners guide requires. To begin with, I didn't say it was to be a liberation. I said it was to totally eradicate the Taliban. The purpose was to annihilate an enemy who refused to turn over another avowed enemy. The help to rebuild was merely to "help" refurbish the infrastructure we destroyed. The short time required to do that would also include sticking around long enough to assure that the Taliban in Afghanistan was inoperative or even to allow it to give up Bin Ladin, as much as that could be done. But I did not say to stay there for years. I mentioned nothing about all the other things listed in chapters 1-9 in your beginners guide. Perhaps you didn't read it.

BTW, I'm not against some of the things done in your guide's version of nation building. It would depend on circumstances. One circumstance that would make it perhaps too difficult, is trying to build an Islamic nation into a democratic Western style nation founded on individual freedom and secular rule of law. Islam is totally incompatible with such a nation.

Perhaps we could have done a Hiroshima/Nagasaki type operation. Utterly destroy one large Afghan city, and if that didn't cough up Bin Ladin, do it to another large city, and keep doing it until either we got Bin Ladin or the Taliban and Afghanistan was totally destroyed. Kinda like what Putin is doing to Ukraine, whatever his motive is.

So, you’re proposing that we should have committed war crimes, because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?

So then, just how are you rationalizing Putin’s tactics or motives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, you’re proposing that we should have committed war crimes, because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?

No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.

Pacifists think war is a crime. It's certainly a moral crime against the innocents who want no part of it. If there were a legitimate reason to start a war, then the defenders against it would ipso facto be criminals. If there were no legitimate reason to start a war, then the attackers would thus be criminals. The idea that you can come to some gentleman's agreement about what is allowed in war and what is not allowed and calling what is supposedly not allowed a crime supposes that there is actually an agreeable world community in which everybody operates under the same law. We do not have such a community. Telling the losers that they committed crimes and condemning them in some world court (or the winner's court) is a kind of ridiculous grim humor.

Hey! . . . the winner can do what ever it wishes to the loser. If the winners hate what their adversaries did, they can deal out whatever "just" vengeance they want. Hiding behind some righteous sounding trial by a supposedly impartial Court is some kind of dark humor. I would have no compunction against executing Putin without much of a trial over his invading Ukraine, killing thousands, uprooting millions, destroying the country. There was great rejoicing when Ceaușescu and his wife were shot after a very brief phony predetermined "trial."


because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?

I don't perceive it that way, but if you believe that secular rule of law is a state religion, then, yes, you could put it that way. Islam is not compatible with the "religion" called secular rule of law. Islam firmly, unbendingly, functions under its religious laws. Islam is, indeed, a state religion. It is an absolute theocracy.

So then, just how are you rationalizing Putin’s tactics or motives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not. I made a comparison (no comparison is perfect). Putin is asking for something that is not being given and he is responding in a manner that he thinks is legitimate on his stage of what is ethical in war. Perhaps he is telling NATO and Ukraine that their romance is reneging on the agreement that Ukraine would not be welcomed into joining NATO. Perhaps he is broadcasting how he will react if the romance spreads to other countries that were not allowed to join NATO.

Or, perhaps, he's a bloodthirsty criminal.

What “agreement”, the Budapest memorandum?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What “agreement”, the Budapest memorandum?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin and the Russians saw it as an "agreement." In spite of the fact that there was no formal "agreement," Russia saw the discussions with Western leaders re NATO as assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. It is Putin's point of view that needs to be considered in an analysis of why he is destroying Ukraine.

For instance, exerpts from Politifact:

Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

Jack Matlock, the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, and Robert Gates, the deputy national security adviser at the time. Gates said the Soviets "were led to believe" NATO would not expand eastward.

Gorbachev insisted that he was promised NATO would not "move 1 centimeter further east."

you have the very adamant Russian position: ‘We were totally betrayed, there’s no doubt about it.’

The [German Foreign Ministry] reported that Yeltsin’s complaint was formally wrong, but it said it could understand "why Yeltsin thought that NATO had committed itself not to extend beyond its 1990 limits,"

Shifrinson, an associate professor of international relations at Boston University, wrote that while no formal agreement restricted NATO’s expansion, Baker and other diplomats had offered the Soviets verbal assurances that NATO would not enlarge to the east.

The record, from 1991, quotes a German official as telling British and American policymakers, "We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe (a river in Germany). We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others."

Shifrinson said "There is a legitimate point to say that the U.S. offered assurances to the Soviets that NATO would do something, but that is not the same thing as saying NATO offered an agreement,"

Marc Trachtenberg, a professor emeritus from the University of California, Los Angeles, has summarized the research on the NATO-enlargement-promise debate. His writing also argued that U.S. officials made assurances to the Soviets that they ultimately reneged on.

Trachtenberg said that the term ‘tacit understanding’ [rather than formal agreement] is a better way to put it."

Given all that info as related by Politifact, it is not difficult to see why Putin, given his self-serving view of the world, would understand that NATO was reneging.

So how’s that working out for him
Finland, Sweden and more joining NATO.
Putin’s armed forces destroyed.
Russians committing and supporting war crimes.
Typical Authoritarian
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how’s that working out for him
Finland, Sweden and more joining NATO.
Putin’s armed forces destroyed.
Russians committing and supporting war crimes.
Typical Authoritarian
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Authoritarian Pete self-importantly states the obvious when he doesn't need to spread a lie.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

The Budapest Memorandum \
The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine,

Gee, maybe Biden didn't know about the Memorandum when he economically coerced Ukraine by threatening to withhold money promised to them.

Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence

And maybe poor pootie sees the destruction of Ukraine as, overall, a defensive move against the encroachment of NATO.

or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

Bad move . . .

Bad move . . .

Not that the disgraced former president of the USA ever withheld aid, prestige or anything from Ukraine while hosting Lavrov in the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not that the disgraced former president of the USA ever withheld aid, prestige or anything from Ukraine while hosting Lavrov in the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden admitted that he coerced Ukraine. Zelensky said that Trump didn't coerce him. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't have some higher moral ground in that respect of the Budapest Memorandum than Russia. And that Putin may well believe his action is a desperate defensive measure against NATO encroachment.

I'm trying to see it through Putin's eyes, not mine. I despise what he is doing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order another campaign to interfere in American politics, U.S. intelligence officials have assessed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine as a pretext to order another campaign to interfere in American politics, U.S. intelligence officials have assessed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There you go.

For the first time in American history, white men are a minority on the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the first time in American history, white men are a minority on the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hurray--I guess. Are they the only minority?