armed man arrested for intending to kill Kavanaugh at home

[Jim in CT]

Chuck Schumer says publicly that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh won’t know what hit them,,and they would
reap the whirlwind.

Then with the Roe leak,,the hime addresses were published

Nothing to see.

Schumer called out Kavanaugh by name for gods sake, and explicitly threatened him.

[wdmso]

so to use conservatives talking points he had mental heath issues and ignore that he had a gun

But blame chuck
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

so to use conservatives talking points he had mental heath issues and ignore that he had a gun

But blame chuck
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re ignoring Schumer’s very, very explicit use of threatening language. and the fact that the left published their homes addresses.

and the white house refusing to enforce federal law which prohibits protesting at their homes for the purpose of swaying a decision.

very convenient for you that left out every single negligent thing your side did. as always. only republicans make egregious mistakes. Never your side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Hang Mike Pence......

Don't you know Schumer was kidding........

Two witnesses, the paper said, have confirmed to the House committee investigating the events of 6 January 2021 that Mark Meadows, then Trump’s chief of staff, described Trump “saying something to the effect of, maybe Mr Pence should be hung”.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hang Mike Pence......

Don't you know Schumer was kidding........

Two witnesses, the paper said, have confirmed to the House committee investigating the events of 6 January 2021 that Mark Meadows, then Trump’s chief of staff, described Trump “saying something to the effect of, maybe Mr Pence should be hung”.

"Hang Mike Pence"

I've said 1,000 times that Trump is a morally bankrupt reptile. So are you admitting that Schumer is the same thing?

I criticize both sides using that language. You criticize one side, give your side a pass.

Shocker.

[wdmso]

The man, Nicholas John Roske, had called emergency authorities saying he was having suicidal thoughts and had a firearm in his suitcase, leading to his arrest,

not a very committed perp

And Jim when he says he motivation was from what Chuck said then maybe you'll have a point but right now you got nothing

But we do know Then-President Donald Trump pressured the Secret Service for two weeks to come up with a plan for him to join his supporters on a march toward the Capitol ,“I wanted to go,” Trump told the Post in April in a wide-ranging interview in which he shared regrets about not joining his supporters at the march on January 6. urging them to head to the Capitol to demonstrate against Congress certifying President-elect Joe Biden's victory. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by a bold and radical left Democrats which is what they are doing and stolen by the fake news media. That is what they have done and what they are doing. We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved.


but he didn't incite violence or plan to overthrow an American election... LOL

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The man, Nicholas John Roske, had called emergency authorities saying he was having suicidal thoughts and had a firearm in his suitcase, leading to his arrest,

not a very committed perp

so therefore it’s ok that your side did the following:

told the world he’s a serial rapist ( believe all women, unless they accuse Joe Biden, is that the rule?)

Your leader in the senate called him by name and used explicitly threatening language against him ( i know Schumer wasn’t advocating for violence,,but it’s reckless language because of the looks like this guy)

your side published his hime address on the internet

your side violated federal
law by protesting at his house

your side refused to enforce that federal law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Jim ever think the whirlwind reference was a political whirlwind after the right stacked the courts, oh wait that won’t work for your narrative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so therefore it’s ok that your side did the following:

told the world he’s a serial rapist ( believe all women, unless they accuse Joe Biden, is that the rule?)

Your leader in the senate called him by name and used explicitly threatening language against him ( i know Schumer wasn’t advocating for violence,,but it’s reckless language because of the looks like this guy)

your side published his hime address on the internet

your side violated federal
law by protesting at his house

your side refused to enforce that federal law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your side published his home address on the internet


Jim you can get anyone's address on the internet


funny when The trucker’s convoy group targeted Democratic California state Rep. Buffy Wicks, apparently over two bills she has proposed, convening outside of her home and demanding she exit.

I bet you call that free speech.. can't have it both ways


and get back to me when my side trying to seal an American election I'll wait

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Jim ever think the whirlwind reference was a political whirlwind after the right stacked the courts, oh wait that won’t work for your narrative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) the right didn't stack the court. The right refused to confirm a liberal nominee to replace Scalia. The American people chose to give Senate control to Republicans during Obama's second term, and common sense suggests they didn't do that because they wanted Obama to replace Scalia with a radical liberal.

Elections have consequences.

It was Biden, when George H W Bush was POTUS, who famously (and regrettably, for him) said that if Bush tried to nominate someone late in his second term, the senate democrats should block it. It became known as the Biden Rule. All the GOP did, was invoke the Biden rule. Is there any reason why the Biden Rule is OK for democrats to use, but not republicans?

Not that long ago, it was assumed that both parties would confirm a president's nominee. That's why Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a ton of GOP votes. That changed when Joe Biden politicized the nomination of Robert Bork. So if you don't like how political it now is, blame Biden.

(2) as to the whirlwind being a political reference, Schumer also said that Kavanaugh wouldn't know what hit him. Was that also a political threat?

Can you answer a question? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are appointed for life, they are not elected. So please tell me, specifically, what political price you think Schumer was suggesting they'd pay? How does someone appointed for life, face political consequences?

I'll wait for the answer. You have fun with that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny when The trucker’s convoy group targeted Democratic California state Rep. Buffy Wicks, apparently over two bills she has proposed, convening outside of her home and demanding she exit.

I bet you call that free speech.. can't have it both ways


and get back to me when my side trying to seal an American election I'll wait

"I bet you call that free speech.. "

As always, you're wrong, Stay away from homes. As always, you're the one who wants it both ways.

"get back to me when my side trying to seal an American election"

2016, as GS posted, congressional democrats tried (unsuccessfully) to do exactly that. Many wealthy liberals also took out ads in major papers asking electors not to formally cast their votes for Trump.

In 2016, democrats didn't like the outcome of the election. So a very small number of them, tried unsuccessfully to un-do the free election.

You can't make that all that different from January 6th,

But you're OK with it when democrats do it.

[spence]

Jim, there is no Biden Rule, Mitch made it up.

Democrats didn’t try to steal the 2016 election. There were a handful of protest challenges over Russian election meddling and a few states potentially not following the law. None of it was heard because there was no support in the Senate so by law Biden had to move forward. Trump on the other hand had a well coordinated effort to actually overturn the election that happened to fail.

Huge difference.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, there is no Biden Rule, Mitch made it up.

Democrats didn’t try to steal the 2016 election. There were a handful of protest challenges over Russian election meddling and a few states potentially not following the law. None of it was heard because there was no support in the Senate so by law Biden had to move forward. Trump on the other hand had a well coordinated effort to actually overturn the election that happened to fail.

Huge difference.

Not in Jim’s whataboutism world.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, there is no Biden Rule, Mitch made it up.

Democrats didn’t try to steal the 2016 election. There were a handful of protest challenges over Russian election meddling and a few states potentially not following the law. None of it was heard because there was no support in the Senate so by law Biden had to move forward. Trump on the other hand had a well coordinated effort to actually overturn the election that happened to fail.

Huge difference.

Biden didn’t say that senate democrats should prevent Bush 42 from nominating someone late in his term? you’re denying that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, there is no Biden Rule, Mitch made it up.

Democrats didn’t try to steal the 2016 election. There were a handful of protest challenges over Russian election meddling and a few states potentially not following the law. None of it was heard because there was no support in the Senate so by law Biden had to move forward. Trump on the other hand had a well coordinated effort to actually overturn the election that happened to fail.

Huge difference.

and the january 6th plot never stood a chance either.

a small number of jerks on both sides tried to retroactively cheat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Not in Jim’s whataboutism world.

from a guy who defended what democrats did, by saying they never wrote it down.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, there is no Biden Rule, Mitch made it up.

Democrats didn’t try to steal the 2016 election. There were a handful of protest challenges over Russian election meddling and a few states potentially not following the law. None of it was heard because there was no support in the Senate so by law Biden had to move forward. Trump on the other hand had a well coordinated effort to actually overturn the election that happened to fail.

Huge difference.

here’s the right wing nuts at the New York Times,,reporting on Bidens insistence that senate democrats prohibit Bush from nominating someone late in his term.

But it’s ok when democrats do it!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...s-in-1992.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Not in Jim’s whataboutism world.

what political whirlwind are you suggesting Schumer was referring to? What possible political or let’s. can one suffer when they’ve got a lifetime appointment?

Anything i can do, to get you to explain what you meant?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Biden didn’t say that senate democrats should prevent Bush 42 from nominating someone late in his term? you’re denying that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden was talking about late in an election, nothing about a nomination between an election and the end of the term which is exactly what Mitch did.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Biden was talking about late in an election, nothing about a nomination between an election and the end of the term which is exactly what Mitch did.

Biden said late in a term. Obama tried to nominate Garland
late in a term.

therefore, they did what biden insisted the democrats do

i’m talking about garland.

With Barrett, it was bad luck for your side, but again, the american people chose a republican president and a republican senate. as your man crush liked to say, elections have consequences.

after what your side did to Bork and Kavanaugh, it’s interesting that you’re clutching your pearls when republicans play hard ball too.

I’m all for a return to civility, but only if both sides agree to it. The GOP is done taking cheap shots and being asked to respond with velvet gloves. That ended with Mitt Romney. Get used to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A dude with a gun was arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s house today.

How do we know he wasn’t just a good guy with a gun?

So today is the day when Republicans show us they care way more about their Supreme Court pet than an 11-year-old in Texas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A dude with a gun was arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s house today.

How do we know he wasn’t just a good guy with a gun?

So today is the day when Republicans show us they care way more about their Supreme Court pet than an 11-year-old in Texas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not a syllable of that is correct.

republicans want 11 year olds to have the same protection that Kavanaugh enjoys.

The left wants to deny them that. Not the right. You’re the one who wants Nancy Pelosi to have armed security that you’d deny to our kids.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

if 18 year olds aren’t mature enough to own an AR-15 ( which i’m warming up quickly to that idea based on data) how are 6 year-olds mature enough to change their gender by having a doctor carve them up?

I’ll wait for the reasoning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and the january 6th plot never stood a chance either.

a small number of jerks on both sides tried to retroactively cheat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your in denial

A) because they didn’t succeed there’s no problem

B). Yet Conservatives like yourself and others and many elected officials want to only focus on the day Jan 6th and those
You so casually refer to as a small number of jerks .

Yet you and those other refuse to see the elephants in the The Oval Office , to include the POTUS who showed great willingness to attempt to overturn a legal and fair American election

And have refused to testify about their attempt and ideas

That’s why newsmax won’t air the hearings But they air every Trump rally and run every TDS story they can find !

Fox News, the nation’s top cable news channel,
the supposed fair and balanced news station won’t air the hearings

Funny how that works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Your in denial

A) because they didn’t succeed there’s no problem

B). Yet Conservatives like yourself and others and many elected officials want to only focus on the day Jan 6th and those
You so casually refer to as a small number of jerks .

Yet you and those other refuse to see the elephants in the The Oval Office , to include the POTUS who showed great willingness to attempt to overturn a legal and fair American election

And have refused to testify about their attempt and ideas

That’s why newsmax won’t air the hearings But they air every Trump rally and run every TDS story they can find !

Fox News, the nation’s top cable news channel,
the supposed fair and balanced news station won’t air the hearings

Funny how that works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not saying there no problem. i’m saying it’s a problem when anyone cheats

you only care when republicans do it.

i have nonissue with talking honestly about january 6. none of you will admit what a small number of democrat jerks did i. 2016.

democrats in congress questioned state results that went for trump. even biden admitted they had zero basis to question the returns in those states, but they tried to do it anyway

in 2016 a small number on jerks tried to steal the election. In 2020, a smal number of jerks tried to steal the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if 18 year olds aren’t mature enough to own an AR-15 ( which i’m warming up quickly to that idea based on data) how are 6 year-olds mature enough to change their gender by having a doctor carve them up?

I’ll wait for the reasoning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim one news max that came right from the old Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo

Actor Kevin Sorbo Uses Gun Control Argument to Slam Child Gender Change

Sorbo tweeted, "If an 18-year-old isn’t 'mature enough' to own a firearm, then maybe 5-year-olds aren't mature enough to change their gender."

Classic false equivalence shocking and confused logic

YEP JIM THATS HOW IT WORKS

5 year old American are not consciously telling mommy and daddy
Their a boy or a girl and they want surgery.

Then going out killing people with their new penis or vagina

But I get it Trans children are an easier target then kids in a class room for some

But still conservatives are refusing simple raising of the age limit to own Ar 15 still weapons , to the age of Hand gun ownership or buying Booze.

It all comes back to they are cowards,and aren’t interested in helping to reduce gun violence

They are more concerned if they did agree to raise the age they some how gave Democratic’s a win… and their expected to own the Libs not agree with them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not saying there no problem. i’m saying it’s a problem when anyone cheats

you only care when republicans do it.

i have nonissue with talking honestly about january 6. none of yyou will admit what a small number of democrat jerks did i. 2016.

democrats in congress questioned state results that went for trump. even biden admitted they had zero basis to question the returns in those states, but they tried to do it anyway

in 2016 a small number on jerks tried to steal the election. In 2020, a smal number of jerks tried to steal the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You still refuse to admit Trump and certain GOP officials trying to steal the election was wrong

You support seditious attempts against American democracy!

And your Defense is not a defense at all , it’s just more false equivalence and excuse

It’s like comparing what happened in
Uvaled

To a gang banger shooting another gang banger

Their not the same or even in the same category but keep trying to re define the truth with your revisionist history
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Jim is the king of whataboutism and deflection, he is on a mission now, can't wait for the next what if.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You still refuse to admit Trump and certain GOP officials trying to steal the election was wrong

You support seditious attempts against American democracy!

And your Defense is not a defense at all , it’s just more false equivalence and excuse

It’s like comparing what happened in
Uvaled

To a gang banger shooting another gang banger

Their not the same or even in the same category but keep trying to re define the truth with your revisionist history
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You still refuse to admit Trump and certain GOP officials trying to steal the election was wrong "

Are you unvbelievably stupid? or unbelievably dishonest?

What Trump did was awful. I hope he gies away and never rund for anything again. Ever.

Is that going too fast for you? Do you need me to simplify that?

You're the hypocrite who constantly refuses to hold your own side to the standards you hold the GOP to. You don't care that elected congressional democrats also tried to reverse the outcome of a free and fair election. You refuse to condemn that.

You are the one defending it when your side does what you say you're opposed to.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Jim is the king of whataboutism and deflection, he is on a mission now, can't wait for the next what if.

For the third time now...

What political price, do you assume Schumer was saying that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (who are appointed for life) were going to pay?