Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok. so you’re saying it’s ok for cops to shoot anyone who “could be a suicide bomber.”

does that apply across the board? or only when the person shot is a republican? based on your logic, cops can kill any young muslim men they see.

idiot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You think they wouldn’t shoot a woman in a hijab crawling thru a smashed wall?
Idiot
Cops have no trouble justifying shooting people

If she’d been in another place maybe 9 would have shot her

https://www.thedailybeast.com/police...ille-tennessee
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You think they wouldn’t shoot a woman in a hijab crawling thru a smashed wall?
Idiot

https://www.thedailybeast.com/police...ille-tennessee
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think if they did, you’d be reacting differently.

because as with the others, your reaction to any scenario depends not on the facts, but on the politics

i think the officers involved in the george floyd case deserves what they received. i can put politics aside. you can not, not once, not ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

In polls a clear majority of Americans say they disapprove of Jan. 6, want Jan. 6 lawbreakers punished, support the Jan. 6 committee, and want to know the truth about Jan. 6.

Just wait for the ad showing video of Jan. 6 mayhem, with caption and voiceover: “The 2022 Republican Party: Riots, Lies, and Videotape.”

Then the ad featuring one of the terrific Capitol Police officers, and then showing scenes of the screaming mob: “We stand with him. They stand with them.”

It’s obvious where the White Wing stands
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In polls a clear majority of Americans say they disapprove of Jan. 6, want Jan. 6 lawbreakers punished, support the Jan. 6 committee, and want to know the truth about Jan. 6.

Just wait for the ad showing video of Jan. 6 mayhem, with caption and voiceover: “The 2022 Republican Party: Riots, Lies, and Videotape.”

Then the ad featuring one of the terrific Capitol Police officers, and then showing scenes of the screaming mob: “We stand with him. They stand with them.”

It’s obvious where the White Wing stands
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i also disapprove of january 6. but unlike you I’m not dong to
lie about what happened that day, for political gain.

TV ads? your side hasn’t stopped talking about january 6th for two seconds. yet polls show that people are turning away from dems. it’s entertaining for fanatics like you, but no one else cares. so go ahead and make the ad. people care about inflation and crime.

“where the white wing stands.”

More than 50% of hispanics in VA voted for Youngkin.

“White wing”, that’s a good one! Zing!

but you’re too cowardly to
answer a simple question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i also disapprove of january 6. but unlike you I’m not dong to
lie about what happened that day, for political gain.

TV ads? your side hasn’t stopped talking about january 6th for two seconds. yet polls show that people are turning away from dems. it’s entertaining for fanatics like you, but no one else cares. so go ahead and make the ad. people care about inflation and crime.

“where the white wing stands.”

More than 50% of hispanics in VA voted for Youngkin.

“White wing”, that’s a good one! Zing!

but you’re too cowardly to
answer a simple question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you have lied about what happened that day, claiming that Ashli Babbitt was not a criminal but a poor somewhat innocent tourist.

This was an invasion of the Capitol by a throng of people openly attempting to prevent the Electoral College from engaging in its lawful functions so that their preferred candidate would be declared the winner of a presidential election. That fits neatly within almost any dictionary’s definition of “insurrection.” Members of the insurrectionist mob had erected a gallows across from the Capitol building; chanted, “Hang Mike Pence”; and were equipped with flex-cuffs.

Keep in mind that just yesterday Trump said if he is re-elected, he will pardon the insurrectionists, but I thought it was BLM, Antifa, FBI and tourists who attacked the Capitol?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But you have lied about what happened that day, claiming that Ashli Babbitt was not a criminal but a poor somewhat innocent tourist.

This was an invasion of the Capitol by a throng of people openly attempting to prevent the Electoral College from engaging in its lawful functions so that their preferred candidate would be declared the winner of a presidential election. That fits neatly within almost any dictionary’s definition of “insurrection.” Members of the insurrectionist mob had erected a gallows across from the Capitol building; chanted, “Hang Mike Pence”; and were equipped with flex-cuffs.

Keep in mind that just yesterday Trump said if he is re-elected, he will pardon the insurrectionists, but I thought it was BLM, Antifa, FBI and tourists who attacked the Capitol?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please post where i said she wasn’t a criminal? please please post that.

liar.

i said she didn’t pose an immediate, lethal threat to anybody. but she was trespassing, maybe guilty of vandalism. not normally considered capital offenses, but certainly crimes.

you just lie and make up whatever suits your demented narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

please post where i said she wasn’t a criminal? please please post that.

liar.

i said she didn’t pose an immediate, lethal threat to anybody. but she was trespassing, maybe guilty of vandalism. not normally considered capital offenses, but certainly crimes.

you just lie and make up whatever suits your demented narrative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And there is video evidence that she was trying to stop the vandal who smashed in the glass pane through which she jumped, possibly to escape any danger from the crowd that was being pinned in by the swat team. The video strongly indicates that she did not want to destroy government property or attack anybody except the vandal who was breaking the glass.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And there is video evidence that she was trying to stop the vandal who smashed in the glass pane through which she jumped, possibly to escape any danger from the crowd that was being pinned in by the swat team. The video strongly indicates that she did not want to destroy government property or attack anybody except the vandal who was breaking the glass.

but the left doesn’t like who she voted for, so she got what was coming to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but the left doesn’t like who she voted for, so she got what was coming to her.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You 2 Keep drinking the koolaid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You 2 Keep drinking the koolaid
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fine, in that case it should be easy for you, to tell us how any sane person would conclude she posed an immediate and lethal threat to anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Michigan state senate candidate Mike Detmer (@DetmerMike) tells a crowd that he wants citizens to bring guns to polling places: “…if we can’t change the tide, we need to be prepared to lock and load. So you ask, ‘What can we do?’ Show up armed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Michigan state senate candidate Mike Detmer (@DetmerMike) tells a crowd that he wants citizens to bring guns to polling places: “…if we can’t change the tide, we need to be prepared to lock and load. So you ask, ‘What can we do?’ Show up armed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As you like to say "be very afraid."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As you like to say "be very afraid."

Right now, under the rules as the leader of the Republican Party has defined them, Kamala Harris on January 6, 2025, has the right to name anyone she wants as president for the term that begins two weeks later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Right now, under the rules as the leader of the Republican Party has defined them, Kamala Harris on January 6, 2025, has the right to name anyone she wants as president for the term that begins two weeks later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very Progressive

[PaulS]

John Dean, who served as the White House counsel during Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, has condemned former President Donald Trump's claim that he'd consider pardoning the January 6 Capitol rioters if he were to win the presidency in 2024.

"If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly," Trump said at his Save America rally in Texas on Saturday. "And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly."

Dean, who was disbarred for obstruction of justice and held in government custody for four months during the Watergate scandal, tweeted his disagreement with Trump's promise of pardons.

"This is beyond being a demagogue to the stuff of dictators," Dean tweeted.

"He is defying the rule of law. Failure to confront a tyrant only encourages bad behavior," Dean added. "If thinking Americans don't understand what Trump is doing and what the criminal justice system must do, we are all in big trouble!"

[Pete F.]

Mr. Trump’s public confession last night, where he all but dared the Attorney General to seek a grand jury indictment against him for seditious conspiracy and for giving aid and comfort to an insurrection to “overturn the election,” is the last straw. The Government must call his bluff.

I suppose he was just “kidding”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I suppose he was just “kidding”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You do a lot of supposition.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

the last straw. The Government must call his bluff.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you could always write your congressperson...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

John Dean, who served as the White House counsel during Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, has condemned former President Donald Trump's claim that he'd consider pardoning the January 6 Capitol rioters if he were to win the presidency in 2024.

"If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly," Trump said at his Save America rally in Texas on Saturday. "And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly."

Dean, who was disbarred for obstruction of justice and held in government custody for four months during the Watergate scandal, tweeted his disagreement with Trump's promise of pardons.

"This is beyond being a demagogue to the stuff of dictators," Dean tweeted.

"He is defying the rule of law. Failure to confront a tyrant only encourages bad behavior," Dean added. "If thinking Americans don't understand what Trump is doing and what the criminal justice system must do, we are all in big trouble!"

Bill Clinton pardoned his brother (half brother?) Roger, who had been convicted of trafficking cocaine.

Clinton also pardoned Marc Rich, who had fled the country because he owed $50 million in unpaid federal taxes. The pardon came after Rich's wife donated more than $1 million to democrats.

And Clinton is an absolute hero on the left.

BUT TRUMP!

I have no problem pardoning anyone who was guilty of trespassing, yet is sentenced to years in prison. If they actually were holding hostages and making demands that the election be overturned, charge them with insurrection.

[PaulS]

Seems you like to start a thread a day or so. You can start one about Clinton Tues.

As much as I disagree on those 2 at least they didn't invade our capital and try to subvert the will of the American people who elected Biden by preventing the peaceful transfer of power

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Right now, under the rules as the leader of the Republican Party has defined them, Kamala Harris on January 6, 2025, has the right to name anyone she wants as president for the term that begins two weeks later.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Someone didn't think that through. KH names Biden again, in 4 years she names herself, in 8 years her VP names KH again and so on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Seems you like to start a thread a day or so. You can start one about Clinton Tues.

me?

since you didn’t tell pete he was starting to many anti trump
threads ( and he started way more than i ever have), then using your logic, doesn’t that mean you don’t have any principles?

If I did the search correctly, I started 11 in January. Your math is about as sound as your reading comprehension. But that's too many...


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

As much as I disagree on those 2 at least they didn't invade our capital and try to subvert the will of the American people who elected Biden by preventing the peaceful transfer of power

When Trump won in 2016, some congressional democrats challenged results in several states in an effort to get the electors "to subvert the will of the American people who elected Trump by preventing the peaceful transfer of power"

Was it wrong when the democrats tried to do so?

How were the rioters going to overturn the election, Paul?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

me?

since you didn’t tell pete he was starting to many anti trump
threads ( and he started way more than i ever have)I can't recall you starting any anti trump threads. Rarely do I read his threads. I know John censured him but you prob. have more posts (never mind the # of threads) in this forum., then using your logic, doesn’t that mean you don’t have any principles? It looks like he has only started 1 thread on the front page???? Looks like out of the about 25 threads 21 or so where started by the right here with the vast majority started by you. With some real winners such as Biden vs Doucey II and did they arrest the gun. Look at those and tell me you don't complain about anything and everything.

If I did the search correctly, I started 11 in January. Your math is about as sound as your reading comprehension. But that's too many...


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're really not an actuary. Just come clean, we could care less.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When Trump won in 2016, some how many again????congressional democrats challenged results in several states in an effort to get the electors "to subvert the will of the American people who elected TrumpTrump didn't win in 2016??? by preventing the peaceful transfer of power"What did Hillary say after the election? What D. state governors and Sec. of states tried to throw out the election results? What D states passed laws to change voting laws?

Was it wrong when the democrats tried to do so?As Wayne has pointed out hundreds of times, the magnitude is not nearly the same. That is what "false equivalence" means.

How were the rioters going to overturn the election, Paul?

Read the news or even read the posts you responded to here when you were told many times how they tried to do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're really not an actuary. Just come clean, we care less.

"Trump didn't win in 2016???"

And Biden won in 2020. Right?

"Was it wrong when the democrats tried to do so? As Wayne has pointed out hundreds of times, the magnitude is not nearly the same."

The congressional democrats didn't engage in any violence. But they protested the electoral results of more states than the GOP did in 2020.

It was a very small number of congressional democrats who did this in 2016. Some of them are still in Congress. Did they try to subvert the will of the people?

"You're really not an actuary. Just come clean, we care less"

Given my ability to yank your chain, you might think I'm a pshchiatrist. But I'm an FCAS. Why ask if you don't care?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Read the news or even read the posts you responded to here when you were told many times how they tried to do it.

I'm curious how you think they were planning to pull it off, exactly.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm curious how you think they were planning to pull it off, exactly.

Trump wanted Pence to ignore the certs. and look at the fraudulent alt. electors and throw it back to the R controlled states.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump wanted Pence to ignore the certs. and look at the fraudulent alt. electors and throw it back to the R controlled states.

i’m talking about the rioters. what was their plan?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

trumps Texas rally


The former president also dangled pardons for Jan. 6 rioters and urged his throngs of supporters to descend on New York, Washington or Atlanta for street protests if he is convicted of crimes in ongoing investigations, intimations of support for violence that within hours

But Biden’s the threat to America
Says Republicans Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device