|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 15, 2024 15:37:22 GMT -8
No...because it wasn't obvious. He was still supporting Trump publicly in interviews well after 2021. It's incredibly rare to cross the party, so to speak. As I said before, we've literally not seen this happen. Yes.... Pence himself said this. "It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year." You do remember how Trump treated Pence and what he said about him, correct? It would have been more of a surprise if he DID endorse him. He said that TODAY. It doesn't negate the fact we haven't seen this since 1912.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 15, 2024 15:58:48 GMT -8
Yes.... Pence himself said this. "It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year." You do remember how Trump treated Pence and what he said about him, correct? It would have been more of a surprise if he DID endorse him. He said that TODAY. It doesn't negate the fact we haven't seen this since 1912. Sure, he said that today, but it's been obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him for quite awhile now. I get how rare the situation is. I'm just saying that it was predictable.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 15, 2024 16:03:14 GMT -8
He said that TODAY. It doesn't negate the fact we haven't seen this since 1912. Sure, he said that today, but it's been obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him for quite awhile now. I get how rare the situation is. I'm just saying that it was predictable. Only you....lol. Whatever you say.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Mar 15, 2024 16:37:22 GMT -8
That Republican presidental candidate OKed the hanging of his Vice President Mike Pence, and Putin doing whatever the hell he wants with NATO countries! SMH
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 15, 2024 16:56:46 GMT -8
Sure, he said that today, but it's been obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him for quite awhile now. I get how rare the situation is. I'm just saying that it was predictable. Only you....lol. Whatever you say. Only me??? Lol. Whatever you say. How about Pence himself. He knew it was obvious. It was so obvious to him that he felt he needed to point out that it was obvious. Obvious because of how Trump treated him, which you talked about ad nauseum. The world isn't shocked. Another no brainer and obvious thing is how you were going to react to my original response to you. You're combative, because, well, someone commented on your post (me) and pointed out that what you are saying is obvious and you don't like that. Hurt your ego? You're very predictable Ryan.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 15, 2024 17:09:30 GMT -8
Sure, he said that today, but it's been obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him for quite awhile now. I get how rare the situation is. I'm just saying that it was predictable. Only you....lol. Whatever you say. I'm actually fairly certain that you know it was obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him. You simply brought it up, because of it's rarity. But, if you're challenged, so to speak, in ANY way, you won't have it. It hurts you too much. That's a VERY bad quality. Release some pride, Ryan. It's a bad look.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 15, 2024 17:35:13 GMT -8
Only you....lol. Whatever you say. Only me??? Lol. Whatever you say. How about Pence himself. He knew it was obvious. It was so obvious to him that he felt he needed to point out that it was obvious. Obvious because of how Trump treated him, which you talked about ad nauseum. The world isn't shocked. Another no brainer and obvious thing is how you were going to react to my original response to you. You're combative, because, well, someone commented on your post (me) and pointed out that what you are saying is obvious and you don't like that. Hurt your ego? You're very predictable Ryan. Combative? You added nothing of value to the post. Most of your posts include the word "obvious" or "not surprised." It's rudimentary, surface level thinking. It doesn't matter if it's "obvious" or not - That isn't the point. How you can't understand is that...predictable. It was so "obvious" that he had to announce it on television. You're not hurting me by posting, you're just unable to provide any kind of serious worth to the conversation. A vice president hasn't disavowed his former CIC in over a century. That's the headline, "obvious" or not.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 15, 2024 17:39:13 GMT -8
Only you....lol. Whatever you say. I'm actually fairly certain that you know it was obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him. You simply brought it up, because of it's rarity. But, if you're challenged, so to speak, in ANY way, you won't have it. It hurts you too much. That's a VERY bad quality. Release some pride, Ryan. It's a bad look. If you have actually followed Pence in the wake of January 6th, you'd understand the nuance involved here. He openly went back and forth, many times, praising and criticizing his former boss. Political endorsements are like gold, though. They matter, especially inside their own party. You're not "challenging" anything by saying three words. The fact you want to "challenge" someone on a message board signals to me that you should probably touch some grass.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 15, 2024 17:44:03 GMT -8
Only me??? Lol. Whatever you say. How about Pence himself. He knew it was obvious. It was so obvious to him that he felt he needed to point out that it was obvious. Obvious because of how Trump treated him, which you talked about ad nauseum. The world isn't shocked. Another no brainer and obvious thing is how you were going to react to my original response to you. You're combative, because, well, someone commented on your post (me) and pointed out that what you are saying is obvious and you don't like that. Hurt your ego? You're very predictable Ryan. Combative? You added nothing of value to the post. Most of your posts include the word "obvious" or "not surprised." It's rudimentary, surface level thinking. It doesn't matter if it's "obvious" or not - That isn't the point. How you can't understand is that...predictable. It was so "obvious" that he had to announce it on television. You're not hurting me by posting, you're just unable to provide any kind of serious worth to the conversation. A vice president hasn't disavowed his former CIC in over a century. That's the headline, "obvious" or not. Like I've said before, some things ARE that obvious, and not surprising. You just like to go deeper, at times, on issues that are really obvious and not surprising. Whatever floats your boat. Of course he would announce it on television. Come on. He was the Vice President under Trump, and he's not endorsing him. Like you said that's very rare, but it was not surprising. It would have been more surprising if he DID endorse him. You know that. You'll argue ANYTHING, especially if it challenges you in any form. What a life.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 15, 2024 17:47:12 GMT -8
I'm actually fairly certain that you know it was obvious that he wasn't going to endorse him. You simply brought it up, because of it's rarity. But, if you're challenged, so to speak, in ANY way, you won't have it. It hurts you too much. That's a VERY bad quality. Release some pride, Ryan. It's a bad look. If you have actually followed Pence in the wake of January 6th, you'd understand the nuance involved here. He openly went back and forth, many times, praising and criticizing his former boss. Political endorsements are like gold, though. They matter, especially inside their own party. You're not "challenging" anything by saying three words. The fact you want to "challenge" someone on a message board signals to me that you should probably touch some grass. Challenge, question, you know what I mean. You don't have it in you to say "obvious, but rare, because you would be conceding that I have a point. Never in a million years. That's how you roll. At least you're consistent.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 15, 2024 18:23:07 GMT -8
If you have actually followed Pence in the wake of January 6th, you'd understand the nuance involved here. He openly went back and forth, many times, praising and criticizing his former boss. Political endorsements are like gold, though. They matter, especially inside their own party. You're not "challenging" anything by saying three words. The fact you want to "challenge" someone on a message board signals to me that you should probably touch some grass. Challenge, question, you know what I mean. You don't have it in you to say "obvious, but rare, because you would be conceding that I have a point. Never in a million years. That's how you roll. At least you're consistent. I don't have it in me because I don't agree with your assessment. Nor is it the actual point of importance....but hey, obvious.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 17, 2024 11:57:09 GMT -8
That Republican presidental candidate OKed the hanging of his Vice President Mike Pence, and Putin doing whatever the hell he wants with NATO countries! SMH This is the part that makes it painfully obvious that Trump's supporters don't care what he does. He's got that R next to his name so these people are going to support him no matter what he does. He supported the mob execution by hanging of his own Vice President (for merely following the law). He called Putin a Genius for invading Ukraine. He invited Putin/Russia to invade NATO countries and to do whatever he wants there if those countries don't spend as much on defense as he wants them to. He takes classified documents - some highly sensitive documents regarding national security and nuclear weapons - and then tries to hide them and keep them when the government asks for their return. If he were a Democrat every single one of these Trump supporters would want him in prison for the rest of his life! But because he's a Republican they want him elected to be President. Party over country. Party over ethics. Party over doing the right thing. It's both sad and pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Mar 17, 2024 13:21:23 GMT -8
That Republican presidental candidate OKed the hanging of his Vice President Mike Pence, and Putin doing whatever the hell he wants with NATO countries! SMH This is the part that makes it painfully obvious that Trump's supporters don't care what he does. He's got that R next to his name so these people are going to support him no matter what he does. He supported the mob execution by hanging of his own Vice President (for merely following the law). He called Putin a Genius for invading Ukraine. He invited Putin/Russia to invade NATO countries and to do whatever he wants there if those countries don't spend as much on defense as he wants them to. He takes classified documents - some highly sensitive documents regarding national security and nuclear weapons - and then tries to hide them and keep them when the government asks for their return. If he were a Democrat every single one of these Trump supporters would want him in prison for the rest of his life! But because he's a Republican they want him elected to be President. Party over country. Party over ethics. Party over doing the right thing. It's both sad and pathetic. "Only I can fix it".."I love the poorly educated" "I know more about ISIS than the generals" magas are like candy from a baby easy to manipulate.
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Mar 18, 2024 8:11:45 GMT -8
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/3b713ae6-5426-4d5c-9853-b19fcb7d75a5/7AA2E4D00C62DE8F036EE90481BC8EE2.ornato-ti.pdf
From testimony about the days leading up to January 6th, it seems Trump was interested in having the National Guard available to protect the protesters from potential counter-protesters. So he tells Meadows to give whatever security resources the DC Mayor wants. Meadows is overheard by both Patel and Ornato making an offer for the Thousands of National Guard troops and Mayor Bowser declines (to the point of putting it in writing). Did Trump order 10,000 troops to descend onto DC? No. Was the offer to have such a force available made by the Admin to the DC Mayor? Yes. Did the J6 Committee understand this fact? Yes. And being consistent with the Soviet Show Trial they were conducting, did the J6 Committee spike that information? Yes. The reason they spiked that info was that it ran counter to the narrative that Trump was hoping to support a flag-pole armed insurrection by knowingly barring and delaying security forces.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2024 8:20:06 GMT -8
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/3/b/3b713ae6-5426-4d5c-9853-b19fcb7d75a5/7AA2E4D00C62DE8F036EE90481BC8EE2.ornato-ti.pdf From testimony about the days leading up to January 6th, it seems Trump was interested in having the National Guard available to protect the protesters from potential counter-protesters. So he tells Meadows to give whatever security resources the DC Mayor wants. Meadows is overheard by both Patel and Ornato making an offer for the Thousands of National Guard troops and Mayor Bowser declines (to the point of putting it in writing). Did Trump order 10,000 troops to descend onto DC? No. Was the offer to have such a force available made by the Admin to the DC Mayor? Yes. Did the J6 Committee understand this fact? Yes. And being consistent with the Soviet Show Trial they were conducting, did the J6 Committee spike that information? Yes. The reason they spiked that info was that it ran counter to the narrative that Trump was hoping to support a flag-pole armed insurrection by knowingly barring and delaying security forces. This is absolute nonsense, as usual. Bowser declined the additional support, yes. But context matters. "In interviews with the House committee, Bowser and D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III also faulted the Defense Department for not responding more quickly to the Capitol as rioters mobbed the building, while explaining their own reservations about deploying federal personnel on city streets. Bowser also described an attempt by President Donald Trump to take over the city’s police force in the summer of 2020, with some details emerging publicly for the first time with the release of her testimony. Trump has blamed Bowser for the chaos on Jan. 6, saying she refused help from the National Guard. But Bowser and Contee said it made sense for the city to ask in advance of Jan. 6 only for unarmed Guard support to help with traffic and free up police for potential mayhem. Federal officers also have jurisdiction over the Capitol grounds, not D.C. police. Even that limited request from the District was met with what Contee described as “unusual” pushback from Army Secretary Ryan D. McCarthy. Unlike governors, the D.C. mayor cannot deploy National Guard troops on her own. McCarthy said the D.C. National Guard could not deploy east of Ninth Street NW — nine blocks from the Capitol — or be moved at all without explicit Army permission. Contee called that restriction “odd” but said he assumed federal authorities would request National Guard support as needed and “pivot” in response to an emergency. “My lesson learned, everybody does not pivot necessarily as quickly as the Metropolitan Police Department does,” he said. What's important is not Bowser declining the request days in advance, but Trump's refusal to put them in motion on January 6th.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 15, 2024 10:39:02 GMT -8
That Republican presidental candidate OKed the hanging of his Vice President Mike Pence, and Putin doing whatever the hell he wants with NATO countries! SMH The second part, about Putin, is pretty much true. But the first? Hmm. Give me a link that quotes Trump saying that he "OKed the hanging of Vice President Trump". I'm not saying categorically that he did not say it, but frankly I doubt that he did. There is no doubt that Trump attacked the Veep, but hang him?
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 15, 2024 11:21:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 15, 2024 17:42:49 GMT -8
Tomorrow is a pivotal day. Supreme Court will hear arguments from one January 6th defendant on whether obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the umbrella of the insurrection. If the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't, hundreds of defendants will likely have their cases re-examined and two of the counts against Donald Trump will be removed.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Apr 16, 2024 7:44:39 GMT -8
Tomorrow is a pivotal day. Supreme Court will hear arguments from one January 6th defendant on whether obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the umbrella of the insurrection. If the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't, hundreds of defendants will likely have their cases re-examined and two of the counts against Donald Trump will be removed. This Supreme Court is a stain on democracy and a black mark on our national history. The hearing today has been filled with nonsensical hypotheticals and more debate on the English language than the actual law. And Clarence Thomas *still* hasn't recused himself. Unethical, but I'm not sure the man has any ethics to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Apr 16, 2024 8:08:29 GMT -8
Tomorrow is a pivotal day. Supreme Court will hear arguments from one January 6th defendant on whether obstruction of an official proceeding falls under the umbrella of the insurrection. If the Supreme Court rules that it doesn't, hundreds of defendants will likely have their cases re-examined and two of the counts against Donald Trump will be removed. This Supreme Court is a stain on democracy and a black mark on our national history. The hearing today has been filled with nonsensical hypotheticals and more debate on the English language than the actual law. And Clarence Thomas *still* hasn't recused himself. Unethical, but I'm not sure the man has any ethics to begin with. No surprise, all according to plan once Trump was elected in '16.
|
|