Hodad

“THE BIDEN FBI PLACED 274 AGENTS INTO THE CROWD ON JANUARY 6. If this is so, which it is, a lot of very good people will be owed big apologies. What a SCAM - DO SOMETHING!!!" Truth social Do something? To whom is he writing? What does he want them to do?

Crazy that you see independent DoJ and state investigations and prosecutions of actual crimes and unfounded, nakedly political prosecutions at the order of the POTUS as the same thing. These cases are going nowhere. You don't care. All you actually want is for you orange Jesus to be above the law. You are offended that he was held accountable for his actions. And you want the people who stood up to him to be punished. WTF are you even talking about. Sober up and try again when you can string together a cogent reply.

Don't be ridiculous. "The government" being involved is not the same as people in government being involved. Bob Mendez's crimes are not "the government's" crimes. Right? Absolutely those people in government who could be reasonably connected to planning J6 should have been investigated. They don't get a pass just because they in office.

You know, when most people say "smaller government" they don't mean consolidating power to a lone dictator. Executive Power? Who needs Congress when you’ve got a Sharpie and executive orders? Nothing says “small government” like using the DOJ to settle personal grudges. States’ Rights? Federalism is great—unless Portland hurts my feelings. Independent agencies are for losers and suckers. Federal money into the president's pockets? Turns out the Hatch Act is just a suggestion, not a rule. Meritocracy? Nah, personal loyalty oaths, please. Appointing unqualified cronies totally shrinks the government, right?Peaceful (and dignified) transfer of power is such a quaint notion. If you don't win an election, "smaller government" means lying, cheating or rioting your way back into office. Inserting oneself--and dictating the presidential PoV--into arts, education and culture like Chairman farking Mao? Aggressively picking winners and losers in the markets based on political alignment? Actively meddling in science research to force alignment to a presidential PoV. In no way, shape or form is Trump fighting for a classical Republican interpretation of "small government." The truth is that MAGA has watched for decades as actual conservatism continued to lose in the marketplace of ideas. And since classical conservatism can't win the arguments, MAGA was born to force compliance through centralized government power. It is in every way the opposite of a free society and of small government.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's a really, really sad deflection from a fact you know to be true: Halligan is objectively unqualified. Time for a little introspection. You know for a fact someone without prosecutorial experience should not be installed as the top prosecutor for a district--which Trump has now done twice, picking his personal lawyers to do his bidding rather than qualified appointees. Children can understand that it's wrong. Dogs can understand it. You understand it. It's entirely indefensible, and there is not even an argument to be made that she is qualified. But you are so farking far up Trump's ass you can't even admit what you know to be true. You have to deflect and defend what you KNOW to be wrong. What the hell kind of man are you? What has Trump given you that was worth your dignity and self respect. Jeebus.

A. I said violent not deadly (though it certainly was deadly) B. Participants are on camera touting the intent to overthrow the government. C. Insurrection does not require "government organizational efforts," but there certainly were multiple efforts to organize and instigate, including the sitting POTUS. D. No matter what you want to call it, any attempt to delay the view certification through violence was illegal--which was your absurd question.

Trump's slavishly obedient real estate attorney, like so many of his appointees, is objectively--and abjectly--unqualified for the job, yet he's entrusted the business of justice for the American people to her. The top prosecutor in the district has never prosecuted a case. And now, with two embarrassingly thin indictments filed, the odds are good she still won't prosecute a case. Both of these cases are likely to be thrown out before trial. That's why Trump's first appointee wouldn't charge either of them. He had to find someone with less expertise and less charcter--someone more like him. What an utter embarrassment to this nation.

Should probably go without saying, but yeah, delaying the vote through violent insurrection is, indeed, against the law.

Does he have access to national intelligence information and did he marry a well known Russian intelligence operative? Because if those two things are true, yeah, probably.

The FBI got the FISA warrant and tapped Page's phone. Page was also meeting with the Russians--and catching the attention of our intelligence services--looong before the FISA warrant. Before he was even on the campaign. Giving them information. Lying about those meetings. And they knew he had been actively recruited by the Russians. It may have been shoddy, corner-cutting, lazy paperwork in that warrant application. That's a fair criticism. But did Page merit investigation based on what intelligence knew about his activities? Absolutely.

Apparently you can just make shit up. You drink so much from the fever swamp that it's hard to tell what you're taking about, but assuming it's Page and Manafort, and by "'they" you mean the FBI, that simply didn't happen. The FBI didn't manufacture intelligence and the was no political operation. That's why the inspector general report found no evidence of political influence on the investigation--let alone involvement by Obama. It's why Trump's "Durham investigation" resulted in nothing but some procedural finger wagging. And you have to be 7 kinds of crazy to think that Manafort and Page didn't deserve to be investigated. They were indeed found to be working with the Russians Random shit you read on Twitter is not news. Unplug from the algorithm and give your brain a scrub.

Is it your position that political figures should not be subject to investigation when they are reasonably suspected of criminal activity? This is exactly like the bogus claim that Obama spied on Trump. When in fact the FBI was spying on Russian intelligence operatives--and it just so happens that the Trump campaign kept contacting them. You know, to super secretly share totally casual information. 🙄

Thanks for sharing your dream journal.

Eh, I think we're already on crazy island. January 6? Third term? Department of War practicing on Democratic cities? At any rate, this lack of cooperation is just part of the tension inherent in a federal system, and it happens, perhaps, a lot more than you may realize. Marijuana is legal in 24 states now, but still a schedule one drug generally--still a federal crime. There is no state enforcement assistance for that which is legal in the state. Some states have stricter gun laws on the books that federal laws, but the ATF isn't out enforcing state standards. The 10th amendment says that's fine--the federal government can't force state or city LEOs to do federal enforcement--and we've lived that way for a couple hundred years. Because immigration has been hyped into a hot-button issue at the moment, people seem to have forgotten that a lack of cooperation on points of legal disagreement between state and federal government is our status quo. That's our normal. Not some kind of escalation. Some states have determined that their citizens are safer and better off if pot is regulated and visible instead of being driven into the criminal underground. Some jurisdictions have similarly decided that their citizens are safer and better off if undocumented immigrants are visible and compliant rather than being driven into the criminal underground. They want these people to stop for the police, not run from them. They want witnesses to share information and testimony when they are investigating a crime, rather than hiding. They want people to send their kids to school rather than forcing them into the streets for gang recruitment. Surely that makes sense from the state and city perspective, no? It's not to spite the federal government, it's simply to govern more effectively. To do what is best for the people living there.

Cities aren't distancing themselves for political purposes. It's for entirely practical purposes. Trump is the one putting on a political show with his Gestapo abductions, courtroom ambushes and other vile antics--often produced for TV. His rhetoric is declaring "war" on these cities. Makes a super fun sound byte for the authoritarian crowd, but is entirely unhelpful for engendering trust and cooperation. But the show will eventually wrap and the camera crews will go home and the cities will be left to govern their people. So cities have a choice to make. Do they want to try to govern as the people who threw their lot in with ICE, alienating the communities they are left to govern? Or they can keep their distance and retain the trust of their communities? That's why sanctuary cities exist in the first place, now just amplified 10x by the divider-in-chief.

He's the seven deadly sins poured into a poorly made skinsack. The man has not a single redeeming quality. Nobody wants their son to grow up to be like him. Nobody wants their daughter to marry a creep like him. The question isn't why the British--and, indeed, the rest of the world--can't stand him. The question is, how do Republicans (most of whom once had a belief system) continue to choke down their natural, human revulsion at the sight and sound of this abominable boor in order to support him through every disaster and humiliation.

The first one is an article from 2019 about a policy idea to tackle ER overuse. The second is a current article talking specifically about Trump's claims regarding Democratic motives in the "government shutdown battle." Claims which are, as usual, entirely false. The Democrats are fighting to extend insurance subsidies for which undocumented illegals are not and never have been eligible. Their position in the shutdown negotiations has nothing to do with healthcare for the undocumented. That's a lie fabricated from whole cloth. Trumpco simply made it up. They are totally confident that their noisy-but-dumb base won't question it or call them on their lies. And you can't figure out how those two statements couldn't be true in their own respective times? It must be farking tragic to navigate the world without basic critical thinking skills. I assume that's why you haven't figured out that you're the cultist, swallowing whatever nonsense Trump shits out.

Nah, he'd have to be able to pronounce "acetaminophen" before that would even be possible.

Figures that it would be two-faced.

No, I put it simply because it's dead simple. If YOU are a doctor or hospital administrator and a destitute 8-year-old girl from Guatemala stumbles into your ER with internal bleeding you can: A. Behave like a human, follow the Hippocratic path that has guided doctors for centuries, do the decent thing and save a little girl's life. B. Ask for her documents and then, when she has none, act like a goddamn sociopath and calculate the marginal cost increase you'd need to pass on to paying customers if you saved her life--before deciding she should instead go die a minimum of 50 feet from hospital property. I'm pretty sure you already answered this, and told us exactly who you are.

Yes, Americans were attacked while Trump was president. Those weren't love rockets generously gifted to the bases by Trump's friends in the Taliban. The person who owns the surrender is the person who surrendered: Donald Trump. Trump effectively gave the Taliban the whole damn country, and you, being a sniveling toady, want to whine about Biden leaving one indefensible base that didn't even have enough troops to hold it. Jeebus, you're spineless.

Tell us your brilliant plan in which just 2,500 troops force compliance of a 60K Taliban fighters (and countless casual supporters). Go ahead, tell us that we should have re-invaded and re-taken Afghanistan. Setting--and extending--the exit date was simply trying to manage withdrawal, disable equipment, etc. And your premise is absurd. It's beyond question that the Taliban was going to attack our troops. As evidenced by the fact that they did attack our troops. Not as a strategic act. Not to gain ground (literally or politically)--we were already headed out the door-- but simply because they wanted to kill Americans. But you don't think that's "the face of evil." Those attacks were coming either way. Thankfully most of the troops were out and the cost wasn't higher.

Your sentence is backward. Biden withdrew the troops just before the base would have fallen. Trump left just 2,500 Troops in the country. 2,500. Think about that. 2,500 trying to secure Bagram against a Taliban force of 60K fighters. That's obviously not a tenable situation. The military leadership told Biden point blank that they wouldn't be able to hold the base. So they left. The only other option was to re-invade, and nobody wanted that. So they left. It's tragic that 13 died as they tried to leave. And maybe there are scenarios in which 13 are not lost. But it's idiocy to criticize his "surrender," because it cost 13 lives when trying to hold the base would have cost 2,500. You're clearly as eager to play politics with Troops lives as Trump is. Shame on you.

No, dummy, the whole world saw this. Yeah, that's Mike Pompeo of the Trump administration making the "surrender" deal with the terrorist regime who welcomed al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. Then they proceeded to withdraw 90% of the troops as the Taliban reconquered Afghanistan. None of which was remotely a surprise. It played out exactly as most experts predicted at the time of signing. Trump just didn't care. It was a campaign tactic and he knows people of your ilk wouldn't hold him accountable for playing politics.

No, dumb fark, Trump "surrendered." In writing. He made the deal with the Taliban. He pulled the troops. He just couldn't get the last 10% of the withdrawal completed (as he promised) and left Biden holding the bag for the messy part. You are trying to sell a fictional narrative that is literally the exact opposite of reality--and the opposite of recorded history that anyone can look up.