Ben Sasse

[RIROCKHOUND]

He seems like a pretty reasonable conservative. Someone I disagree with but respect as being principled.

Do we think he and his contacts inside the white house are lying? Was Trump actually happy about Wed? Walking around confused why no one else was happy about this.


Sad days. I’d say invoke the 25th but I don’t want then POTUS Pence to be able to pardon him....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He seems like a pretty reasonable conservative. Someone I disagree with but respect as being principled.

Do we think he and his contacts inside the white house are lying? Was Trump actually happy about Wed? Walking around confused why no one else was happy about this.


Sad days. I’d say invoke the 25th but I don’t want then POTUS Pence to be able to pardon him....

I like Sasse...

unnamed sources speaking on conditions of anonymity are great...it's been a cottage industry the last 4 years

Sasse "did not name which officials said Trump was delighted."

it would be good to hear from first hand witnesses...rather than through the grapevine...maybe at the impeachment hearing


ps...was Sasse a "reasonable conservative" prior to this? just curious if he's only "reasonable" because he's adopted a position that might favor democrats in this instance?

The New Republic
October 16, 2020
Ben Sasse Is a Fraud
The hard-line Republican senator wants us to believe he’s a Never Trumper again, after making peace with the president last year.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Do we think he and his contacts inside the white house are lying? Was Trump actually happy about Wed? Walking around confused why no one else was happy about this.

Hasn't everyone who isn't a Trumpster stated repeatedly that Trump is only out for himself and puts his own self interests ahead of the country?

I also don't think the Dems. will vote on Impeaching the sprayed tanned super spreader but are using the threat to shackle him until the end of his term. They would go ahead w/the 25th. (que the snarky one).

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hasn't everyone who has isn't a Trumpster stated repeatedly

Wait a minute, what?

[Pete F.]

I think Sasse’s revelation is the part of the iceberg that shows.

Do you think there has been enough attention on Christopher Miller and the Pentagon's repeated refusal to allow the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Congress?

The more that becomes known about the federal refusal to engage the National Guard, the more Trump's replacement of top DOD officials with his minions last month -- and what he told them to do -- may be the smoking gun of not just his incitement of a riot, but his planning of a coup.

Gov. Hogans interview sheds some light on this.

My guess is that the WH Counsel, Cippilone, pointed this out to Trump on Thursday - that there is a clear paper trail of his meddling in DOD. And that’s why Trump agreed to hastily film the hostage “let’s all get along” video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Wait a minute, what?

"everyone" who doesn't speak, think and act like those that paul s disagress with must naturally speak, think and act like paul s...it's pretty simple

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think Sasse’s revelation is the part of the iceberg that shows.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly...or maybe a volcano

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My guess is....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

exactly....

[Pete F.]

Apparently the sassy ones have been triggered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Wait a minute, what?

The typo that was being fixed bothers you that much? You should go back to lurking.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The typo that was being fixed bothers you that much? You should go back to lurking.

It didn’t bother me much but I wasn’t sure what you were attempting to say.Next time I will attempt to ignore your illiteracy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hasn't everyone who isn't a Trumpster stated repeatedly that Trump is only out for himself

if that’s true, why implement tax changes like doubling the standard deduction and increase child tax credits? he doesn’t utilize those things. why increase funding for black colleges? is he black? why advocate for school choice? do his grandkids attend crappy public schools?

he’s a terrible person. he’s not quite what you’re portraying him to be.

Two things. think about the little kid who had a lawn cutting business, he asked to cut the white house lawn, trump brought him in and walked with him as he cut the lawn. that was my favorite moment of his presidency, and not something that Darth Vader would have done.

Second, watch the video of him walking to his plane at night, when reporters told him that Ginsberg died. his reaction wasn’t what you d expect if he was as one dimensional as you’re suggesting he is.

he’s also done real generous charitable things. why would
someone who only cares about himself donate his private jet to fly a sick little boy across the country, who needed so much medical equipment that commercial flights couldn’t accommodate him?

he is a horribly flawed person who has implemented some popular policies which have helped huge numbers of americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if that’s true, why implement tax changes like doubling the standard deduction and increase child tax credits? he doesn’t utilize those things. why increase funding for black colleges? is he black? why advocate for school choice? do his grandkids attend crappy public schools?

he’s a terrible person. he’s not quite what you’re portraying him to be.

Two things. think about the little kid who had a lawn cutting business, he asked to cut the white house lawn, trump brought him in and walked with him as he cut the lawn. that was my favorite moment of his presidency, and not something that Darth Vader would have done.

Second, watch the video of him walking to his plane at night, when reporters told him that Ginsberg died. his reaction wasn’t what you d expect if he was as one dimensional as you’re suggesting he is.

he’s also done real generous charitable things. why would
someone who only cares about himself donate his private jet to fly a sick little boy across the country, who needed so much medical equipment that commercial flights couldn’t accommodate him?

he is a horribly flawed person who has implemented some popular policies which have helped huge numbers of americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot of the tax cuts benefit RE investors of which he is one. He has not done a lot of charitable things for someone that rich. He had no real charitable presence in NY or elsewhere. I'm sure you do remember how he used his charity for his personal use and had it closed down

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if that’s true, why implement tax changes like doubling the standard deduction and increase child tax credits? he doesn’t utilize those things. why increase funding for black colleges? is he black? why advocate for school choice? do his grandkids attend crappy public schools?

he’s a terrible person. he’s not quite what you’re portraying him to be.

Two things. think about the little kid who had a lawn cutting business, he asked to cut the white house lawn, trump brought him in and walked with him as he cut the lawn. that was my favorite moment of his presidency, and not something that Darth Vader would have done.

Second, watch the video of him walking to his plane at night, when reporters told him that Ginsberg died. his reaction wasn’t what you d expect if he was as one dimensional as you’re suggesting he is.

he’s also done real generous charitable things. why would
someone who only cares about himself donate his private jet to fly a sick little boy across the country, who needed so much medical equipment that commercial flights couldn’t accommodate him?

he is a horribly flawed person who has implemented some popular policies which have helped huge numbers of americans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

you’re exactly right, i can agree he’s a horrible person, they can’t concede he’s done some
good things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Great guy

I’m sorry, I’m sick of being told that I need to cater to the delicate feelings of Trump’s snowflake supporters.

They don’t need to be understood; they need to be deprogrammed.

Imagine if the Capitol had been sacked not by Trump supporters but by BLM activists egged on by the leftist “Squad”.

Republicans would not be preaching unity and resisting attempts to hold the instigators accountable. They would be baying for blood.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You know, by now, even if you give up a mile, they won't budge an inch. It's obvious that their narrative must keep focusing strictly on Trump. It is all about Trump, Trump, Trump. Any quote by him must be framed and interpreted to make him bad in every way . . . or if that's not possible, just ignored. Every action, no matter how good, must be made to look bad, or selfish, or attributed to someone else--he can get no credit. He must be totally destroyed--scorched earth and dispose of the ashes.

But let us not cast a suspicious eye on what Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple just did. After all, as the narrative goes, Trump and anyone who supports him over their preferred, paid off, politicians, are a threat to our "democracy." The narrative has no room for exception or actual diversity from the party line.

But what about Sasse!!? Remember Tulsi Gabbard? She is "pretty reasonable" as RIROCKHOUND might say. She called for legislation to prevent voter fraud. She called for legislation to prevent high tech monopoly and control of speech--none of which happened.

She was a bright and shining star. She was one that "Conservatives" might be comfortable with. I would have voted for her over Trump if it was only about personality, but I knew that it wasn't, for me, about Trump or Gabbard, but party policies that would more closely protect the Constitution.

Tulsi was canceled.

Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Apple--they is real, effective, and immediate power. Almost before the "ink was dried" that it was the Democrats who would have all the political control, the control that Silicon Valley and its cohorts paid for, those giants colluded, conspired, to shut down any competition to that control. Any threat had to be canceled. Was that a coincidence?

There are not many politicians, apparently, willing to actually fight against that real, effective, and immediate power. They make speeches and promises. They pretend to guard our freedoms. They make a show of "fighting" for us--of course, we must understand that they don't mean any sort of actual violence in the use of such language--only if Trump speaks such words would it lead to rioting and "insurrection" and coups.

Democrats used to fight against monopolies and against threats to free speech. Monopolies used to be a threat to Democrat power. Not so much anymore. Monopolies, especially extremely wealthy and socially powerful ones, like the Democrats now. They give Democrats enough money and potential social influence to make Democrats happy and comfortable with such monopolies who can so easily cancel the opposition.

Let us see what beloved Biden and Co., and Sasse and Romney do about the speech monopolies. Other than make speeches.

It is not Trump that is a threat to the American experiment.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

They've closed the Washington Monument due to threats from right-wing American extremists.

Not al-Qaeda. Not the Taliban. Not ISIS. Not BLM. Not Antifa.

American right-wing extremists.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Great guy

I’m sorry, I’m sick of being told that I need to cater to the delicate feelings of Trump’s snowflake supporters.

pretty sure no one ever told you this....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They don’t need to be understood; they need to be deprogrammed.

get some help pete.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty sure no one ever told you this....

right? i’d live to see evidence that someone said that to him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

pretty sure no one ever told you this....

Originally Posted by scottw

get some help pete.....

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

right? i’d live to see evidence that someone said that to him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Said the snowflake supporters

[Jim in CT]

Pete, your side ran the table at the federal table, and you’re still foaming at the mouth. What will it take for the seething hate to subside? does every single person have to agree with every single thing you say?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, your side ran the table at the federal table, and you’re still foaming at the mouth.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

seems to be a permanent condition

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by scottw

seems to be a permanent condition

Bitchslappedboy itis
🙀🤡🍔

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Bitchslappedboy itis
🙀🤡🍔

What’s your problem, Chubby Gigilo?
Playing circle jerk with the Troll and the Misogynist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

On Sunday, former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney tried to suggest that Trump had somehow changed, that he was a different person than he was just months ago when he was his loyal yes man.

This is nonsense on stilts. It is also absurd revisionism.

Mulvaney and Toomey both tried to claim on MeetthePress that what Trump did this week was a dramatic change from his behavior for previous five years. Toomey scoffingly says it wasn’t his job to be Trump’s "Twitter editor.” No American should fall for this BS.
Mulvaney also claimed that he was surprised that Trump’s words had consequences. "People took him literally. I never thought I'd see that.” Really?

To his credit, Chris Wallace pressed Mulvaney:
“ You were a top member of the administration when the president defended the white supremacists in Charlottesville. You were a top member of the administration, not the chief of staff, when the Trump administration separated parents coming across the border from their children. Why not resign over those?” Wallace asked.
The answer, of course, is that Mulvaney thought he could ride the whirlwind. Undoubtedly, he liked the access, the power, and he made the same Faustian Bargain as the rest of the GOP.

And he was astonished to find out the price was his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

On Sunday, former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney tried to suggest that Trump had somehow changed, that he was a different person than he was just months ago when he was his loyal yes man.

This is nonsense on stilts. It is also absurd revisionism.

Mulvaney and Toomey both tried to claim on MeetthePress that what Trump did this week was a dramatic change from his behavior for previous five years. Toomey scoffingly says it wasn’t his job to be Trump’s "Twitter editor.” No American should fall for this BS.
Mulvaney also claimed that he was surprised that Trump’s words had consequences. "People took him literally. I never thought I'd see that.” Really?

To his credit, Chris Wallace pressed Mulvaney:
“ You were a top member of the administration when the president defended the white supremacists in Charlottesville. You were a top member of the administration, not the chief of staff, when the Trump administration separated parents coming across the border from their children. Why not resign over those?” Wallace asked.
The answer, of course, is that Mulvaney thought he could ride the whirlwind. Undoubtedly, he liked the access, the power, and he made the same Faustian Bargain as the rest of the GOP.

And he was astonished to find out the price was his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow. That's some deep chit, Pete--Faustian bargain . . . the price of his soul.

And, have'nt been paying much attention to the transformation of Chris Wallace. Last I remember of him is when in the debate he asked Trump if he would disavow white Supremacists. As a real journalist, he would have known that Trump had done so many times already.

And he is saying that Trump defended the white supremacists in Charlottesville? There was no actual statement in that Press briefing in which Trump defended white supremacists. In that very same dialog he specifically said that his very fine people comment did not refer to the Neo-Nazis there. It takes some unnecessary verbal juggling and interpretation to come up with the notion that he defended white supremacists. The swamp is way deeper than I thought. Wallace never did like Trump. But journalistic integrity in television seems to have gone the way of talk radio bias. Except talk radio pundits are honest enough to say they are not journalists--and admit their bias.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wow. That's some deep chit, Pete--Faustian bargain . . . the price of his soul.

And, having been paying much attention to the transformation of Chris Wallace. Last I remember of him is when in the debate he asked Trump if he would disavow white Supremacists. As a real journalist, he would have known that Trump had done so many times already.

And he is saying that Trump defended the white supremacists in Charlottesville? There was no actual statement in that Press briefing in which Trump defended white supremacists. In that very same dialog he specifically said that his very fine people comment did not refer to the Neo-Nazis there. It takes some unnecessary verbal juggling and interpretation to come up with the notion that he defended white supremacists. The swamp is way deeper than I thought. Wallace never did like Trump. But journalistic integrity in television seems to have gone the way of talk radio bias. Except talk radio pundits are honest enough to say they are not journalists--and admit their bias.

Obviously another journalist who’s mind has been taken over by the deep state or is it the Dems or Socialists or “Wallace never did like Trump?

But Tucker Carlson is the current arbiter of the truth or is he?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wow. That's some deep chit, Pete--Faustian bargain . . . the price of his soul.

right, pete and got traitors can determine through the internets who is a trumplican and damn their souls to hell for all eternity...it's a superpower!