gatomontes99

I don't use bullshìt sources. I use sources you don't like because they make you look bad: List of socialists in the house and Senate, by year: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_members_of_the_United_States_Congress But, yeah, you go ahead and believe Marxists dont exist in our government.

Homan is my favorite pick so far.

Original video Everything the left tells you is a lie. The most racist party is the Democratic Party.

But, if i give you a source you'll either pretend it isn't a valid source or runaway. So why should I? It isnt like what I said is some obscure knowledge.

He nominated this guy to his anti terrorism task force. Why would he do that if he's planning on walking away from Ukraine?

Just making shìt up for the fun of it now?

He was in office on J20 until noon.

Omg...if i said the Sun was hot, you would want a source.

You didn't ask me to explain the drop in 2024. That was a result of the reversal of the 2021 policy decisions. As for the first question, the answer to the second question lends to the logical conclusion that if the original policies are reversed and the border crossings drop, then the policies are the catalyst that enabled the crossings. Why each individual crossed was supposed to be answered by Kamala. She didn't answer. But, I am sure the individual excuses as to why they violated the law are as diverse as the criminals, themselves.

If you are going to introduce assumptions of motives and ignore SCOTUS ruling, how can you ever come to a logical and correct solution?

There isn't one single iota of evidence for your speculation.

We literally have congressional representatives that support Marxism. Bernie and AOC are just two well known for their support of total control of the economy.

Cake walk. When did he take the documents? Before January 20th 2021. Was he still President? Yes. What is the president's authority regarding classified documents? Total authority, no limits. Since he was President and he took the documents, he had full authority to retain the documents. As for returning the documents, the National Archives does have authority to request any documents they feel are needed. The POTUS also has the right to challenge those requests. In fact, every President has challenged requests from the national archive. Your allegation that he hid the documents is baseless. The fact that the corrupt DOJ was able to get a warrant for the exact location of the documents proves they were not hidden. Meanwhile, you say nothing about Biden, Obama and Bush having documents that were supposedly classified. Why just this instance? We know why. I just want to watch you dance around the obvious. ***************************** As for the J6 case, in order for speech to be considered inciting violence, it must literally and specifically call for violence. So the assertions that giving speeches that called the election rigged are baseless. There are accusations that members of his team directed some to incite violence. None of that is supported by anything other than some loose associations. The cases are trash. They have always been trash. They ignore precedent, lack backing and reek of political prosecution. Yes. It is crap. He tries to say that, while Trump was President, he moved classified documents as a personal act. That is the most laughable excuse ever.

If you were being honest, you would acknowledge that the rephrasing was pathetic. Both cases were trash. They were only brought to stop the Democratic process.

Remember when the rain forest was going to disappear, never to return? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

/thread

Air tight? They were so air tight the SCOTUS ruled they can't be brought?

SCOTUS.

Smith couldn't make the case. Dropping the cases only serves as supporting evidence that there was nothing there.

That is complete speculation. Especially since Trump has bookend the claim that he will end the war on day one with stories about how he threatened the Taliban leaders. Trump has never said, outright, what he would do. He has implied that there would be subtle threats.

The first two quotes were lamenting Marxism in education and lawyers questioning battle tactics. The third quote is a metaphor that is just lazy writing. It has been used at least 1 million times. The last quote is actually a quote from Hillary Clinton about Hamas...so what does it have to do with Pete? Put the first three together, and you have a conservative career warrior. He understands that America is a country based on freedoms being held by the citizens, not the government. He knows that Marxism, if installed, will relieve all that reside in our country of all rights and effectively end the Earth's greatest experiment in governance. He also understands that the military has one job, kill people and break things. They are do things that, if not authorized by the government, are blatantly illegal. But the government authorized it. To be effective, they must be free of unreasonable legal constraints and should only be held accountable for not following orders. Even then, only by their own and only when the actions are blatantly intentional. We shouldn't be fighting righteous enemies so we shouldn't treat our warriors like criminals. None of this connects with the original thesis that Hegseth will use the military to attack liberals. The only, very loose, connection is a general hostility towards the liberal ideology and his military background. It is an absurd connection to make. However, I have come to expect absurd connections from the left. After all, we have a certain poster here that says Trump wasn't like Hitler in his first term and Hitler wasn't like Hitler in his first term so they are exactly alike.

That's what I thought.

@DUI_Offender and @Black Dog sure ran away fast.

Bullshìt. You didn't come up with this fantasy on your own.

It's not about the show, it's the extreme views and how those views are being suppressed by their own. The show just provides a convenient launching point for dissenting arguments. The irony is thick. Didn't you ignore me because I don't provide substance?