BowlBrother85
1 star recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 44,136
- Likes
- 38,523
Then you have no idea if that account of threatening Pelosi being called is accurate or not.
Why doesn't it say much? Biden isn't ideologically inspiring by any means... but he was easily better than the other option. There isn't much to talk about so far, except that he has undone all of Trump's executive orders with executive orders of his own. And yes, I'm happy with that. Jen Psaki is professional as Press Secretary - a stark contrast to what we saw under the Trump circus tent. I also like what I've seen so far from his cabinet choices. Merrick Garland, in particular, was a very good choice as Attorney General. Ditto for Antony Blinken as Secretary of State and Lloyd Austin as Secretary of Defense.Doesn't say much for you and people like you who voted for Biden then. You happy with his performance so far?
I don't agree with the 'jobs' argument being made because you are right, the ones lost were temporary. But how do you justify the total disregard for the environmental concerns that Xiden has shown in this regard? Or..... do you think pipeline leaks will exceed the pollution from trucks and trains moving that oil? Or.... are you one of the stupid people that believe if there is no way to move the oil, it won't move?You mean their temporary job?
Ok, you say they’re lying about the stance on witnesses but, just like when I busted you for lying yesterday, you skipped right over the main point. The article cites 2 direct sources, not anonymous ones that you like to believe without hesitation, that Trump authorized 10,000 troops for that day. That doesn’t sound like someone planning an attack to overturn an election to me.That isn't true. Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of allowing witnesses, and several Senators from the Democratic Party have expressed disappointment and confusion with why they weren't called. I saw interviews with both Tammy Duckworth and Kirsten Gillibrand on MSNBC last night where they expressed disappointment. That far right source (redstate.com) is lying.
Trump certainly was still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential Election on January 6th... even though there was no longer a pathway within the framework of the United States Constitution towards doing so. Trump was lying to the crowd during the rally in front of the White House on January 6th on two fronts. (1) Trump led them to believe that he still had a chance of winning the election when it was completely out of Vice President Mike Pence's hands at that point. The Constitution does not grant the VP with the unilateral authority to choose his own set of electors from which to count electoral college votes for certification. And (2) Trump told the crowd that he would be walking with them down to the Capitol. In fact, Trump made a bee line back to the White House to watch the carnage unfold on television. The Capitol is the last place a coward like Trump would have ever gone.Ok, you say they’re lying about the stance on witnesses but, just like when I busted you for lying yesterday, you skipped right over the main point. The article cites 2 direct sources, not anonymous ones that you like to believe without hesitation, that Trump authorized 10,000 troops for that day. That doesn’t sound like someone planning an attack to overturn an election to me.