Who Next?

2lumpy said:
Another good one to keep an eye on. Thanks for sharing.

Any our Democrat friends like to offer as their choice for 2024? So far only Liz Cheney has been suggested but she’s not a Democrat….. yet. Course either was Bernie and he came really close the last two times.

Who Then!
Click to expand...
Sorry I misunderstood the question and didn't know you were referring to the Democratic nominee. I'll do my best to answer the question.

I honestly don't know who the Democrats will run next time. I really don't think Biden will make another go at it. The Dems are in a battle between the more centrist wing and the extremist wing... much like the Republicans.

I truly have no idea which ideology will win on either side. I believe the Republicans have a better chance of leaning to their more-extreme side (DeSantis appears most likely) than the Dems have of leaning to their extreme side (such as Elizabeth Warren).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dem nominee is somebody we don't currently think of as a frontrunner; for example, some Senator or Governor somewhere that hasn't really burst onto the national stage.

Cheney vs Warner would be a nice change of pace as two pro-gun, fiscal conservatives... but I doubt it will happen.
 
Last edited:
Cheney has all the charm of monkey pox & mayor pete. The only place I see her is in a DC think tank lobbying for the bomb makers. I think we get another badly needed Ron in the WH
 
I Think I'm Writing This Gal In!

NVB Won't Like It!

Too F'N Bad!

fiore.jpg
 
In the recent poll, Liz Cheney was a distant 2nd. I think she is finished this Nov, When she pops up again, it will probably be as a Democrat since she burned her bridges with the GOP.
RELH
 
grizzly said:
Sorry I misunderstood the question and didn't know you were referring to the Democratic nominee. I'll do my best to answer the question.

I honestly don't know who the Democrats will run next time. I really don't think Biden will make another go at it. The Dems are in a battle between the more centrist wing and the extremist wing... much like the Republicans.

I truly have no idea which ideology will win on either side. I believe the Republicans have a better chance of leaning to their more-extreme side (DeSantis appears most likely) than the Dems have of leaning to their extreme side (such as Elizabeth Warren).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dem nominee is somebody we don't currently think of as a frontrunner; for example, some Senator or Governor somewhere that hasn't really burst onto the national stage.

Cheney vs Warner would be a nice change of pace as two pro-gun, fiscal conservatives... but I doubt it will happen.
Click to expand...


"Fiscal conservatives"

Holy chit, that's freaking hilarious ????
 
RELH said:
In the recent poll, Liz Cheney was a distant 2nd. I think she is finished this Nov, When she pops up again, it will probably be as a Democrat since she burned her bridges with the GOP.
RELH
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right that she'll lose and the party thinks she's burned her bridges. That's why I think she's part of the battle between the factions of the GOP.
 
grizzly said:
I think you're probably right that she'll lose and the party thinks she's burned her bridges. That's why I think she's part of the battle between the factions of the GOP.
Click to expand...

She's part of the same crowd the left is battling. Global elitists.

She has no loyalty to the R, or Wyoming.

Ratheon, Halliburton, Lockhead Martin, maybe. But not voters or constituents.

Same as Lyndsey Graham, or Mitt Romney.
 
hossblur said:
She's part of the same crowd the left is battling. Global elitists.

She has no loyalty to the R, or Wyoming.

Ratheon, Halliburton, Lockhead Martin, maybe. But not voters or constituents.

Same as Lyndsey Graham, or Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
This.^^
Liz is not representing Wyoming, She is only interested in what the Washington DC elitist think. I probably spend more time in Wyoming than she does and I live 60 miles north of the boarder in Montana.
 
grizzly said:
To quote you, "Did I say that?"

I offered an analogy, I made no such inclination about whether I thought it was okay to squish bald eagle eggs.

You apparently struggle with not only writing, history, and civics, but also reading comprehension. Wise up
Click to expand...
And you struggle with self awareness. The analogy itself speaks volumes. The fact that you’re too dense to understand what it says about you is just pure entertainment
 
JPickett said:
And you struggle with self awareness. The analogy itself speaks volumes. The fact that you’re too dense to understand what it says about you is just pure entertainment
Click to expand...
The "pure entertainment" is that you should've realized the clear understanding of my analogy would be to say that because liberals would want to protect bald eagle eggs, though they're unborn, they should extend the same protection to an unborn human.

At no point have I ever said anything about my own personal views on abortion. You, nor anybody else on MM, knows what I think about that. I also clearly said nothing about justifying the destruction of bald eagle eggs.

You missed my analogy, and the proper application, completely.
 
Man you’re easy to bait. It’s really funny, you actually care what I think! I’m flattered :love:


Like I said. Pure entertainment
 
grizzly said:
Haha. Your reading of the situation is as adept as your analogy comprehension.
Click to expand...
And you’re comparing human babies to birds eggs then back peddling on it. Yeah… I’m the one who looks dumb :ROFLMAO:

Keep it coming man. There’s nothing on tv tonight
 
JPickett said:
And you’re comparing human babies to birds eggs then back peddling on it. Yeah… I’m the one who looks dumb :ROFLMAO:

Keep it coming man. There’s nothing on tv tonight
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Go watch the hearings from today. You'll see Trump's aids talking about Trump physically attacking a Secret Service agent in the presidential limousine and throwing plates of food against the wall in a temper tantrum because they wouldn't let him join the insurrectionists at the Capitol.

You'll also see videos of people with guns climbing trees around the Ellipse during Trump's speech and Trump telling Secret Service that it was okay because they were "his people" and wouldn't hurt him.

Trump also told Secret Service to take down the metal detectors so the people with weapons could get straight to the Capitol.

It's must-see TV!

PS. We both know you won't watch it, but thanks for the opportunity to get you to read what happened ?

I'm going to bed now. I'll watch you try and deflect out of this one tomorrow
 
JPickett said:
Did I say I did? I’ve actually stated many times on previously blown up threads that religion has nothing to do with recognizing a life’s worth. Frankly if religion is what you need to be a decent enough human being to understand crushing a baby’s skull is wrong your likely an imbecile to begin with.
Click to expand...
Crushing? Baby skulls are soft. It’s more like smashing.

Free coat hangers for all!!!!
 
grizzly said:
Sure there is. Go watch the hearings from today. You'll see Trump's aids talking about Trump physically attacking a Secret Service agent in the presidential limousine and throwing plates of food against the wall in a temper tantrum because they wouldn't let him join the insurrectionists at the Capitol.

You'll also see videos of people with guns climbing trees around the Ellipse during Trump's speech and Trump telling Secret Service that it was okay because they were "his people" and wouldn't hurt him.

Trump also told Secret Service to take down the metal detectors so the people with weapons could get straight to the Capitol.

It's must-see TV!

PS. We both know you won't watch it, but thanks for the opportunity to get you to read what happened ?

I'm going to bed now. I'll watch you try and deflect out of this one tomorrow
Click to expand...
Come on grizz if you are going to lecture all of us about the hearings at least get it right.
The aid you are specifically referring to was not Trumps aid she was Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mark Meadows. Her testimony is weak at best, there is several creditable sources the have spoken to Secret Service members and they are saying there's no truth to Trump assaulting a Secret Service that was on detail and trying to take over the limo. Her whole testimony was on what she over heard, that would never stand in a court of law.
Individuals that are close to Bobby Engel the lead Secret Service agent and the driver of the SUV limo are willing to testify to the fact Cassidy Hutchinson is not telling the truth. But we know the Dems will never allow a monkey be introduced into their dog and poney show it might make them look like clowns.
 
grizzly said:
Sure there is. Go watch the hearings from today. You'll see Trump's aids talking about Trump physically attacking a Secret Service agent in the presidential limousine and throwing plates of food against the wall in a temper tantrum because they wouldn't let him join the insurrectionists at the Capitol.

You'll also see videos of people with guns climbing trees around the Ellipse during Trump's speech and Trump telling Secret Service that it was okay because they were "his people" and wouldn't hurt him.

Trump also told Secret Service to take down the metal detectors so the people with weapons could get straight to the Capitol.

It's must-see TV!

PS. We both know you won't watch it, but thanks for the opportunity to get you to read what happened ?

I'm going to bed now. I'll watch you try and deflect out of this one tomorrow
Click to expand...


Seems Ms. Hutchinson has a credibility issue.


www.cbsnews.com

Secret Service plans to respond to Jan. 6 committee regarding Trump's actions, after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony

The Secret Service wants to respond "regarding the new allegations surfaced in today's testimony," said Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

abcnews.go.com

Trump White House attorney disputes Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about handwritten note

A former Trump White House lawyer is disputing ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that she penned a handwritten note regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


Sure be unlike any of these fine upstanding political hacks to use false testimony or BS to paint a political picture, I mean Adam Schiff is there?
 
Then there's this little gem.

Now REMEMBER, this is a Congressional committee, not a panel on MSNBC(although I'm sure Cheney will be there real soon).

abcnews.go.com

Charges for Trump or others not a 'principal interest,' Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin says

The House Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin said criminal charges against Donald Trump or others were not his “principal interest" compared to understanding the violence
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

So, millions of TAXPAYER dollars. A ABC tv director, primetime viewing, and for what exactly? Other than trying to damage a 2024 campaign. But not really Trump, anyone in his orbit, is now having to lawyer up, WHICH is the point to begin with.

The PROCESS is the punishment. The Libs know they don't have charges to file or any that will stick. But they also know lawyers cost a boat load so they can hit whoever they want and hurt them without them having done anything illegal.
 
The Jan 6th thing is still a thing? Huh? Me and like 98% of the country totally forgot about that. Like I said, nothing on TV
 
HuntinAddict said:
A ticket with Cheney/ Kinzinger could be possible. This would appeal to the more moderate old school republicans and also independents and moderate Dems :unsure:
Click to expand...
As they leave the starting gate, we have Cheney for President, up by three……..

……. at this stage we have yet to see if she’s running against Warren, or DeSantis or a unnamed Independent.

Which Party selects their Presidential Candidate first? Because, Cheney could run for the first Party to name their Candidate, and if she looses, switch Parties (real quick like) and run again for the second Party, to pick their Candidate.

Crafty gal ( birthing person) that Cheney person.
 
I was in the back seat of a crew cab ford this morning.

Now I'm 6'5, fairly long arms.

I'm not a fighter, but at 48 I'm nearly 30 years younger than Trump, and I guarantee much more manly. I could probably get a hold of a steering wheel.

Now, the Presidential limo, from the rear of the limo where the President sits, to the steering wheel?

Is he plastic man? Is he now a ninja?

The same people that tell you he is a pasty, fat, old, orange guy, called a "special" hearing to tell you he is beating down secret service dudes and taking over "the beast".

It's the same issue they've always had.

"Trump is an idiot, and an evil genius"

"Trump is a slug, and a ninja"

Etc, etc, etc
 
RELH said:
In the recent poll, Liz Cheney was a distant 2nd. I think she is finished this Nov, When she pops up again, it will probably be as a Democrat since she burned her bridges with the GOP.
RELH
Click to expand...

There is no single GOP any longer. Millions of Republicans want accountability in government and so will not support Trump as a matter of principle, and will not support Dems as a matter of policy. This leaves the GOP split, with the potential for a splinter group or even an independent party ready to elect representatives wherever they can. In a closely divided Congress, these moderates will prevent lopsided legislation by either side.
 
JPickett said:
The Jan 6th thing is still a thing? Huh? Me and like 98% of the country totally forgot about that. Like I said, nothing on TV
Click to expand...

These hearings are rapidly closing the door on Trump's political aspirations. Few will watch multiple, two-hour sessions, but all of America with the exception of MAGA world is paying attention to the testimony.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
These hearings are rapidly closing the door on Trump's political aspirations. Few will watch multiple, two-hour sessions, but all of America with the exception of MAGA world is paying attention to the most critical testimony.
Click to expand...
no there not. and who cares if it ends Trumps political career. doesn't matter at all. you think it will detract from his influence? just another nothing burger the left is a year behind on. votes will be cast on the price of gas and the balance in peoples bank account. its actually kind of nice to see them wasting their time here. November will be a blood bath
 
hossblur said:
Then there's this little gem.

Now REMEMBER, this is a Congressional committee, not a panel on MSNBC(although I'm sure Cheney will be there real soon).

abcnews.go.com

Charges for Trump or others not a 'principal interest,' Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin says

The House Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin said criminal charges against Donald Trump or others were not his “principal interest" compared to understanding the violence
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

So, millions of TAXPAYER dollars. A ABC tv director, primetime viewing, and for what exactly? Other than trying to damage a 2024 campaign. But not really Trump, anyone in his orbit, is now having to lawyer up, WHICH is the point to begin with.

The PROCESS is the punishment. The Libs know they don't have charges to file or any that will stick. But they also know lawyers cost a boat load so they can hit whoever they want and hurt them without them having done anything illegal.
Click to expand...

The point is to demonstrate the Big Lie; to demonstrate that the election was not stolen. Americans need to understand that the electoral process did not fail in a significant manner, and that those who claim that it did were, themselves, dishonest. One would think that it is worth the effort simply to restore the reputations of those (like Pence) besmirched by our ex-president.
 
JPickett said:
no there not. and who cares if it ends Trumps political career. doesn't matter at all. you think it will detract from his influence? just another nothing burger the left is a year behind on. votes will be cast on the price of gas and the balance in peoples bank account. its actually kind of nice to see them wasting their time here. November will be a blood bath
Click to expand...

November will be a blood bath for Dems. But that does not mean that Trump's influence will be enhanced as moderates within the Republican party regain their independence.
 
bullskin said:
November will be a blood bath for Dems. But that does not mean tha Trump's influence will be enhanced as moderates within the party regain their independence.
Click to expand...
and still no one will care bout these "hearings" on prime time TV. such a joke. how much you think they cost anyway?
 
you guys remember all the bang for our buck we got out of the Mueller "investigation"? yeah, this will be about the same thing
 
Hearsay & perjured testimony from a low level staffer doesn't lend credibility to their effort, it destroys it. Pfizer, Moderna and J&J should have created a TDS vaccine. Brandon is driving us right off a cliff and making zero effort to alter course. This means they are taking the country exactly where they want it... in the toilet. I think most people realize this
 
hossblur said:
Then there's this little gem.

Now REMEMBER, this is a Congressional committee, not a panel on MSNBC(although I'm sure Cheney will be there real soon).

abcnews.go.com

Charges for Trump or others not a 'principal interest,' Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin says

The House Jan. 6 committee's Jamie Raskin said criminal charges against Donald Trump or others were not his “principal interest" compared to understanding the violence
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

So, millions of TAXPAYER dollars. A ABC tv director, primetime viewing, and for what exactly? Other than trying to damage a 2024 campaign. But not really Trump, anyone in his orbit, is now having to lawyer up, WHICH is the point to begin with.

The PROCESS is the punishment. The Libs know they don't have charges to file or any that will stick. But they also know lawyers cost a boat load so they can hit whoever they want and hurt them without them having done anything illegal.
Click to expand...

It will be enough in the minds of many to excuse the entire proceeding as a political weapon of the Democratic Party if even one item of testimony is proven inaccurate. Of course, some have been making that same claim for weeks--even in the face of
testimony corroborated by Republican witnesses. Until this point, the only ones denying testimony are those in the Trump campaign--coincidentally, the same people who refused to testify in defense of themselves and who have requested Presidential pardons.

Those who deny ten hours of testimony on the grounds that one sentence (that was specifically identified as second-hand knowledge) may prove inaccurate, are grasping at any excuse to support their guy.

The American people deserve to know the facts about this election--whether that plays in the favor of Democrats, or Republicans. To dishonestly deny the legitimacy of the electoral process is to deny the legitimacy of democracy (wait for it...), and unpatriotic in the extreme. It is in the interest of both parties to know the truth, even though it may not be in the interest of the ex-president.

The shame of it is that Republicans had the chance to field an independent comission, but refused, gambling that it would be easier to discredit the opposition than it would be to defend their own actions.
 
Last edited:
wetmule said:
Hearsay & perjured testimony from a low level staffer doesn't lend credibility to their effort,
Click to expand...

Very true. And I am not surprised that you would mention this in light of Ms. Hutchinson's testimony.

Quick question. Where do you stand on the hours of corroborated, first-hand testimony by Republican witnesses?
 
Last edited:
JPickett said:
and still no one will care bout these "hearings" on prime time TV. such a joke. how much you think they cost anyway?
Click to expand...

When it comes to integrity, money is no object. I would rather put money into oversight than almost any other item of spending. In any event, I do not remember hearing you complain about the time and money spent on Benghazi hearings, so I question the very principle upon which you claim to care.

Complaints about the cost of oversight are like complaints about the cost of five-dollar fuel coming from someone driving a $85,000 pickup--if you can afford the truck/government, you can afford the fuel/maintenance--or perhaps you chose your vehicle unwisely.
 
Last edited:
JPickett said:
you guys remember all the bang for our buck we got out of the Mueller "investigation"? yeah, this will be about the same thing
Click to expand...

We learned a lot about Russian interference with US elections. Every law Federal law enforcement and intelligence agency agreed that our election security was inadequate, and the Mueller report helped bring this to the attention the American people. It needed to be known.

The only one to deny this was, not surprisingly, DJT. I wonder what else we might have discovered about election security had he not concealed evidence? He pitted his own interests against those of the American people, and now he has the gall to whine about poor security? Incredible.
 
bullskin said:
We learned a lot about Russian interference with US elections. Every law Federal law enforcement and intelligence agency agreed that our election security was inadequate, and the Mueller report helped bring this to the attention the American people. It needed to be known.

The only one to deny this was, not surprisingly, DJT. I wonder what else we might have discovered about election security had he not concealed evidence? He pitted his own interests against those of the American people, and now he has the gall to whine about poor security? Incredible.
Click to expand...
Dude, just stop already. No one gives a chit. Trump won't be president again. Dems will get their azz kicked this November and we'll have a republican president in 2024.

"It's the economy, stupid!"
 
RookieWYhntr said:
Dude, just stop already. No one gives a chit. Trump won't be president again. Dems will get their azz kicked this November and we'll have a republican president in 2024.

"It's the economy, stupid!"
Click to expand...
again, i stand by my comment as well. no one cares. they really, really don't. the small, small, small portion that does. like shut ins who DVR these hearings already have their minds made up. it makes zero difference and nothing will come of it.
 
RookieWYhntr said:
Dude, just stop already. No one gives a chit.
Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. YOU don't give a chit. If NO ONE gave a chit, Trump would still be president today and Republicans would still hold the House and Senate. Point is, neither of us speaks for everyone. There are plenty of people who want integrity in government. Others care more about money. In the end, I believe you are right when you describe Dem losses, but it is not too much to expect integrity along with Republican gains. It is possible to walk and chew gum. Try it some time.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
We learned a lot about Russian interference with US elections. Every law Federal law enforcement and intelligence agency agreed that our election security was inadequate, and the Mueller report helped bring this to the attention the American people. It needed to be known.

The only one to deny this was, not surprisingly, DJT. I wonder what else we might have discovered about election security had he not concealed evidence? He pitted his own interests against those of the American people, and now he has the gall to whine about poor security? Incredible.
Click to expand...
give me a minute, im going to walk out on my job site and ask one of my concrete carpenters what they learned from the Mueller investigation and how it will affect who he votes for. then when he tells me how he just paid 200 bucks to put gas in his truck to get here ill let him know that's not what matters and he needs to DVR the jan 6th hearings...
 
JPickett said:
Since when did integrity have anything to do with the United States government?!? :ROFLMAO:

Your a real comedian
Click to expand...

Since before people like you wrote off integrity in favor of policy. You won't get it if you do not demand it. You won't have it if you do not respect the law. It is an insult to the great leaders of the past to suggest it cannot be done.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
Before people like you wrote off integrity in favor of policy. You don't get it if you do not demand it. You won't have it if you cannot respect the law. It is an insult to the great leaders of the past to suggest it cannot be done.
Click to expand...
We got Biden in office and you are talking about integrity.
The man that came from humble beginnings (his words not mine) has been in politics practicality his whole life and has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth has more integrity than Trump.?
 
Lets face it, it has now been shown that this is nothing but a witch hunt to prevent Trump from running in 2024. The Dems made sure to not allow any GOP Congress member on the committee that would ask hard ball questions.
Then they resorted to "Hearsay" information to damage Trump and that "hearsay" information came back to bite them by two protection agents deny the allegation made by a second rate aide and now the person who she said told this to her is calling her a liar. Sounds like that hit job that the Dems tried on a recent Supreme Court Judge hoping to deny him a seat on the Supreme court.
I wonder what job was promised to that female aide to get her to say the things she did. Since her creditability has been destroyed, the Dems will cast her to the wolves and the GOP will see that she never works for them in the future.
The Dems have screwed the pooch on this committee and will regret starting it with the voters turning against them in Nov.
RELH
 
JPickett said:
give me a minute, im going to walk out on my job site and ask one of my concrete carpenters what they learned from the Mueller investigation and how it will affect who he votes for. then when he tells me how he just paid 200 bucks to put gas in his truck to get here ill let him know that's not what matters and he needs to DVR the jan 6th hearings...
Click to expand...

Ask "them" (for a friend, of course) if there is there any reason why America cannot have a strong economy as well as government that respects the law?
 
Last edited:
notdonhunting said:
We got Biden in office and you are talking about integrity.
The man that came from humble beginnings (his words not mine) has been in politics practicality his whole life and has amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth has more integrity than Trump.?
Click to expand...

Being "in politics" does not have to be a slur. For the right men and women, it is service; and you are a poor student of American history if you cannot see this. When we allow it to become anything else, then that is our own fault.

That said, the day I begin defending Biden's mistakes I will be no better than those who defend Trump's. Is Biden the best defense you can provide for Trump?

Why would anyone settle for the lesser of two evils when there are 300 million other people to choose from? Why should I argue for a stick to the shin on the grounds that I might otherwise receive a blow to the head? As long as it is within my power to do so, I will refuse either.

But you go ahead. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
The hard core Trump guys will always ignore evidence they don't like. They've already said that somebody they'd never heard of before has credibility issues because something she very clearly stated was secondhand was disputed by somebody they'd never heard of before. They don't wait for both sides, they already know whom they believe. I haven't heard one person say they want to wait for the Secret Service testimony.

There can be two hours of undisputed testimony, but one line in question nullifies everything else that is harmful to their chosen one? It's nonsensical.

There is a certain group of people that will always stick with their side, R's & D's, but elections aren't won there, they're won in the margins. That's who these hearings are for.

Here's a fine example of the thought process of many of the people in the committed-ideology sphere... even after being shown the videotapes, they do mental gymnastics trying to find their justification. We all have our biases, some are just stronger than others.

 
Agreed that nobody here is swayed, but that testimony was designed to play to the gal’s. Mission accomplished.

As a married man, I’m a little apprehensive about a female president. :oops:
 
grizzly said:
The hard core Trump guys will always ignore evidence they don't like. They've already said that somebody they'd never heard of before has credibility issues because something she very clearly stated was secondhand was disputed by somebody they'd never heard of before. They don't wait for both sides, they already know whom they believe. I haven't heard one person say they want to wait for the Secret Service testimony.

There can be two hours of undisputed testimony, but one line in question nullifies everything else that is harmful to their chosen one? It's nonsensical.

There is a certain group of people that will always stick with their side, R's & D's, but elections aren't won there, they're won in the margins. That's who these hearings are for.

Here's a fine example of the thought process of many of the people in the committed-ideology sphere... even after being shown the videotapes, they do mental gymnastics trying to find their justification. We all have our biases, some are just stronger than others.

Click to expand...

No doubt you could find equally incoherent excuses given for any number of liberal issues. (I recently read one op-ed arguing that health insurance should cover abortion-related travel costs.)

But your point is correct for those on both fringes. BLM or Big Lie, both are entirely focused on their own interests, with no respect for law, or principles of democracy.
 
bullskin said:
Being "in politics" does not have to be a slur. For the right men and women, it is service; and you are a poor student of American history if you cannot see this. When we allow it to become anything else, then that is our own fault.

That said, the day I begin defending Biden's mistakes I will be no better than those who defend Trump's. Is Biden the best defense you can provide for Trump?

Why bother? Why would anyone settle for the lesser of two evils when there are 300 million other people to choose from? Why should I argue for a stick to the shin on the grounds that I might otherwise receive a blow to the head? As long as it is within my power to do so, I will refuse either.
Click to expand...
Ya, well here’s a little tidbit that may come in handy, someday, it’s not within your power, so you “will be refusing both”.

There are somewhere near 300 million to choose from, but admit it, none of them are up to your lofty standards. You prove this by complaining, in great detail, what there id a lot wrong with any that are seeking the job but refuse to identify a single one. And….. of those 300 million that you do support……. you refuse to identify, which means you actually “ no one”.

You know, there are folks that flat out can’t stand anybody, be they butcher, baker, or candle stick maker……. if you don’t suffer from misanthropy, give us the name of someone you believe is, Who Then.t

And, to save you some keyboarding you don’t need to tell us, again, who you don’t want and why. You’ve made that’s perfectly clear, a week ago. Just saying……. nothing personal.
 
2lumpy said:
There are somewhere near 300 million to choose from, but admit it, none of them are up to your lofty standards. You prove this by complaining, in great detail, what there id a lot wrong with any that are seeking the job but refuse to identify a single one. And….. of those 300 million that you do support……. you refuse to identify, which means you actually “ no one”.

You know, there are folks that flat out can’t stand anybody, be they butcher, baker, or candle stick maker……. if you don’t suffer from misanthropy, give us the name of someone
Click to expand...

In this thread, post #11, I wrote "I would support any number of old-school Republicans in a heartbeat. Cheney, Romney, and any others who were willing to stand against Trump's lies. These are discounted as "RINOs" by Trump, but the fact remains that they are more conservative than he ever was."

In post #92, you wrote "it is a little disappointing that your not willing to identify anyone of 300 million. It does seem kinda disingenuous."

To which I again offered, in post #95, "I would happily vote for any Republican willing to acknowledge that the Big Lie was exactly that. Kinzinger, Kemp, Cheney, Romney, Rice, or any number of others willing to place integrity before power. Barring any such Republican, I would vote for the most conservative nominee of any party in the running."

And now you suggest I have failed to provide even a single name? You are not "saving me much keyboarding" by asking me to repeat myself, over-and-over...
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
In this thread, post #11, I wrote "I would support any number of old-school Republicans in a heartbeat. Cheney, Romney, and any others who were willing to stand against Trump's lies. These are discounted as "RINOs" by Trump, but the fact remains that they are more conservative than he ever was."

In post #92, you wrote "it is a little disappointing that your not willing to identify anyone of 300 million. It does seem kinda disingenuous."

To which I again offered, in post #95, "I would happily vote for any Republican willing to acknowledge that the Big Lie was exactly that. Kinzinger, Kemp, Cheney, Romney, Rice, or any number of others willing to place integrity before power. Barring any such Republican, I would vote for the most conservative nominee of any party in the running."

And now you suggest I have failed to provide even a single name? You are not "saving me much keyboarding" by asking me to repeat myself, over-and-over...
Click to expand...
You will never agree nor understand, Who Then. It was an inquiry for a Who. Singular. We can all give a jumble of names or 300 million names.

Give a name and let’s see if they can stand up to the scrutiny you’re put Trump and Biden through.

Giving a list is a cop out. Yes/No ?
 
bullskin said:
660+ posts and no one cares? It sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself.

It is too bad that we cannot agree on the simple stuff in life--like recognizing when a lie is a lie--so that we could focus on the important things together.
Click to expand...
ok...good deal....agree with me that the lie is from the left.
 
2lumpy said:
You will never agree nor understand, Who Then. It was an inquiry for a Who. Singular. We can all give a jumble of names or 300 million names.

Give a name and let’s see if they can stand up to the scrutiny you’re put Trump and Biden through.

Giving a list is a cop out. Yes/No ?
Click to expand...

You wrote "NONE of them are up to my lofty standards." Yet, I have given you many.

If your intent is to discredit them as candidates, then I am giving you multiple opportunities. Pick any one of them and give it your worst.
 
Last edited:
Homer said:
ok...good deal....agree with me that the lie is from the left.
Click to expand...

The left has its lies. Trump has his. Whichever lie we choose to discuss, where law enforcement and the courts have made their determination, I stand with them rather than the talking heads at Fox or MSNBC.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
660+ posts and no one cares? It sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself.

It is too bad that we cannot agree on the simple stuff in life--like recognizing when a lie is a lie--so that we could focus on the important things together.
Click to expand...
660+ posts about J6? No one cares.

BTW, you talk a lot about integrity. Somehow you're trying to convince yourself that you have it but I have a feeling you don't.

Something must have triggered you to continue to talk about it. And Trump is your excuse. Did you lose a job because of it?
 
bullskin said:
You wrote "NONE of them are up to my lofty standards." Yet, I have given you many.

If your intent is to discredit them as candidates, then I am giving you multiple opportunities. Pick any one of them and give it your worst.
Click to expand...
So………. You agree then,

“You will never agree nor understand,”

This is silly. We can visit another day on another subject
 
I must be working too hard, or maybe I just missed it.
Can someone please tell me what law Trump has broken since he was elected?
Was he prosecuted?
If not, Why?
Has he been convicted by an actual court with a judge and jury?
 
grizzly said:
The hard core Trump guys will always ignore evidence they don't like. They've already said that somebody they'd never heard of before has credibility issues because something she very clearly stated was secondhand was disputed by somebody they'd never heard of before. They don't wait for both sides, they already know whom they believe. I haven't heard one person say they want to wait for the Secret Service testimony.

There can be two hours of undisputed testimony, but one line in question nullifies everything else that is harmful to their chosen one? It's nonsensical.

There is a certain group of people that will always stick with their side, R's & D's, but elections aren't won there, they're won in the margins. That's who these hearings are for.

Here's a fine example of the thought process of many of the people in the committed-ideology sphere... even after being shown the videotapes, they do mental gymnastics trying to find their justification. We all have our biases, some are just stronger than others.

Click to expand...
Grizz you did not even know who she was you said she was a Trump Aid are really following this trial.
Two hours of undisputed testimony what are you talking about. How do you dispute testimony when there is no one to dispute it.
Talk about bias when you refuse to recognize the fact there is no one that might ask questions that might benefit Trump.
 
bullskin said:
These hearings are rapidly closing the door on Trump's political aspirations. Few will watch multiple, two-hour sessions, but all of America with the exception of MAGA world is paying attention to the testimony.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

The judgement on Trump has already happened. No one is swayed by this soap opera either way.
 
grizzly said:
The hard core Trump guys will always ignore evidence they don't like. They've already said that somebody they'd never heard of before has credibility issues because something she very clearly stated was secondhand was disputed by somebody they'd never heard of before. They don't wait for both sides, they already know whom they believe. I haven't heard one person say they want to wait for the Secret Service testimony.

There can be two hours of undisputed testimony, but one line in question nullifies everything else that is harmful to their chosen one? It's nonsensical.

There is a certain group of people that will always stick with their side, R's & D's, but elections aren't won there, they're won in the margins. That's who these hearings are for.

Here's a fine example of the thought process of many of the people in the committed-ideology sphere... even after being shown the videotapes, they do mental gymnastics trying to find their justification. We all have our biases, some are just stronger than others.

Click to expand...


www.politico.com

Secret Service: Jan. 6 committee didn’t reach out before Hutchinson’s explosive Trump testimony

The agency says it got no outreach for 10 days before the committee aired testimony about Donald Trump’s behavior in the presidential vehicle Jan. 6.
www.politico.com www.politico.com


It's funny. I keep posting articles from lib sites to disprove your assumptions.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but if your going to use "a witness", should you not, oh I don't know, use the witness that was there? One who had previously testified?

And WHY was the rush to an emergency session?

Because her name got leaked and if they didn't hurry, the actual story might come out?


Oh ya. Now I heard this today, haven't looked.

But this girl, was on the list of folks who were going to be working for Trump AFTER his Presidency.

Seems odd she'd work for a boss that did all the things she's claiming?


As to video tape. WHO IS RAY EPS?
 
bullskin said:
The left has its lies. Trump has his. Whichever lie we choose to discuss, where law enforcement and the courts have made their determination, I stand with them rather than the talking heads at Fox or MSNBC.
Click to expand...


So your previous statement is void?

Or has Trump been CHARGED in an ACTUAL COURT?
 
bullskin said:
660+ posts and no one cares? It sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself.

It is too bad that we cannot agree on the simple stuff in life--like recognizing when a lie is a lie--so that we could focus on the important things together.
Click to expand...

Did Trump conclude with Russia?
 
Ray Eps???....how dare you bring that up...

I bet if there was a defense he might be brought up....
 
One reporter for the Washington Examiner does not believe that Cassidy Hutchinson was truthful in her statements. That reporter was also critical of the committee for failing to contact the secret service agents for direct evidence about Trump and his actions in the limo.
I think the Dems have cooked their goose with the voters on this fact finding venture that is now looking like a circus of clowns in a circle jerk.
RELH
 
RELH said:
One reporter for the Washington Examiner does not believe that Cassidy Hutchinson was truthful in her statements. That reporter was also critical of the committee for failing to contact the secret service agents for direct evidence about Trump and his actions in the limo.
I think the Dems have cooked their goose with the voters on this fact finding venture that is now looking like a circus of clowns in a circle jerk.
RELH
Click to expand...
well.....Bullskin and Grizzly believe it....They're not alone.
 
RELH said:
One reporter for the Washington Examiner does not believe that Cassidy Hutchinson was truthful in her statements. That reporter was also critical of the committee for failing to contact the secret service agents for direct evidence about Trump and his actions in the limo.
I think the Dems have cooked their goose with the voters on this fact finding venture that is now looking like a circus of clowns in a circle jerk.
RELH
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Committee is doubling down tomorrow. Hutchinson’s ex WH birthing companion is being called to testify, no mention of any Secret Service witnesses yet. Imagine that!
 
2lumpy said:
Sounds like the Committee is doubling down tomorrow. Hutchinson’s ex WH birthing companion is being called to testify, no mention of any Secret Service witnesses yet. Imagine that!
Click to expand...

They should have nancy talk about how she denied the 20,000 troops trump asked for. Also ask the fbi for what they knew. Fbi is a total failure and untrustworthy
 
nfh said:
They should have nancy talk about how she denied the 20,000 troops trump asked for. Also ask the fbi for what they knew. Fbi is a total failure and untrustworthy
Click to expand...
Jan6th is like forest fires in California. They're political tools of the left. Don't you dare put them out.
 
Homer said:
well.....Bullskin and Grizzly believe it....They're not alone.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell me where I indicated that believed Ms Hutchinson told the truth.

And, incidentally, she did not testify that Trump reached for the steering wheel. She testified that she was told, by secret service agents, that he did.
 
Oh, come on fellas.

You all are just biased.

Unlike the sterling committee just trying to defend "our democracy"
 
bullskin said:
Really? Tell me where I indicated that believed Ms Hutchinson told the truth.

And, incidentally, she did not testify that Trump reached for the steering wheel. She testified that she was told, by secret service agents, that he did.
Click to expand...


Why do you suppose they didn't just have THE AGENTS testify?

What could possibly be the reason?
 
hossblur said:
So your previous statement is void?

Or has Trump been CHARGED in an ACTUAL COURT?
Click to expand...
The courts ruled that his election fraud claims were incorrect. Are you suggesting that it never happened if he is not indicted? Lying is not a crime unless it is under oath--something Trump has been careful to avoid.
 
bullskin said:
Really? Tell me where I indicated that believed Ms Hutchinson told the truth.

And, incidentally, she did not testify that Trump reached for the steering wheel. She testified that she was told, by secret service agents, that he did.
Click to expand...
It’s kinda the voice tone, or something, just seems like there’s a slight slant to the text. Maybe it’s left leaning italics…….. I duhn-no…. Can’t put my finger on it but dang………..
 
bullskin said:
The courts ruled that his election fraud claims were incorrect. Are you suggesting that it never happened if he is not indicted? Lying is not a crime unless it is under oath--something Trump has been careful to avoid.
Click to expand...


" You can indict a ham sandwich".

A court ruled his claims false.

So that's a CRIMINAL OFFENSE?

I AGREE. If you CHARGE him, he appears under oath. So, why not charge him?

Could It be because there would be cross examination? That this girl, and any member of the council could be called UNDER OATH?

Perhaps because communication by the committee and Pelosi, might get brought to light?

Honestly.

Why have there not been charged filed?

At what point do you or Grizz, ask that question?

It's been 6 years of "damning evidence", but, alas, still no charges.

Even Trump eventually got tired of "lock her up". When do we as American taxpayers get a result for all the years and millions wasted?

Charge him. He's "obviously" guilty
 
bullskin said:
The courts ruled that his election fraud claims were incorrect. Are you suggesting that it never happened if he is not indicted? Lying is not a crime unless it is under oath--something Trump has been careful to avoid.
Click to expand...
the courts rejected his claims out of hand.......no investigation or hearing were held at a federal level...
 
Homer said:
the courts rejected his claims out of hand.......no investigation or hearing were held at a federal level...
Click to expand...
now……… those are actual facts……… see, they have a different taste……… maybe it the lack of Bull Chit or something, what ever it is, they just go down easier for some reason.
 
bullskin said:
The courts ruled that his election fraud claims were incorrect. Are you suggesting that it never happened if he is not indicted? Lying is not a crime unless it is under oath--something Trump has been careful to avoid.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that questioning the an election is a crime. Better start building more jails for all the politicians.
The democrats spent three years claiming Trump stole the 2016 election with the help of the Russians.
A year form now the R's will be doing an investigation on Jan 6.
My guess is they will be looking for answers to these and other questions.
Who is Ray Eps?
Why is he not charged?
Why did Nancy turn down the National Gard?
Why were some Capital Police waiving some protesters into the Capital?
What did the FBI know and how many agents were there?
 

Similar threads

J
CO gmu 21 or 22
Replies
57
Views
3k
MountainSqwabler
MountainSqwabler
MrRogers
Who has eaten BHS and your thoughts
Replies
14
Views
479
easyelk13
easyelk13
liecabucks
Seeking Wyo points partner.
2
Replies
155
Views
7k
TKMulePacker
TKMulePacker

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Sweet Utah Bull
Big Utah Bull
IMG_9310.jpeg
64.MP4
img_9586.jpg
C4B5A2F6-37AB-4A59-B957-DD503BB83FB1.jpeg
081A317D-827F-4CD8-8ADC-6BD4C216DFFC.jpeg
A441E733-3807-4681-96ED-176AD63048D9.jpeg
1A7B7A7A-6F9D-4BC1-A853-720A870EE025.jpeg
FBCEA1DD-13FC-4762-93CD-C438D83458D7.jpeg
_CAB9206-Edit.jpg
elk.jpg
Back
Top Bottom