quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

And just like that, left wing nuts invent a new purity test to further cleave off supporters

Poor things, it must be exhausting

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

And just like that, left wing nuts invent a new purity test to further cleave off supporters

Poor things, it must be exhausting

Not nearly as exhausting trying to defend Trump’s idiotic behavior, cabinet appointments, and tariffs policy that almost all economists say will ultimately drive up COL and inflation. I disagree with Roland. Enabler = defender. I do find it strange that the rest of the TX Trumpiteers seem to have deserted you to carry the orange Jesus’s koolaid alone.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

And just like that, left wing nuts invent a new purity test to further cleave off supporters

Poor things, it must be exhausting

Not nearly as exhausting trying to defend Trump’s idiotic behavior, cabinet appointments, and tariffs policy that almost all economists say will ultimately drive up COL and inflation. I disagree with Roland. Enabler = defender. I do find it strange that the rest of the TX Trumpiteers seem to have deserted you to carry the orange Jesus’s koolaid alone.

you disagree with roland but can't accept that someone else that disagrees with roland could be at all correct??

do you have a diagnosis for your disfunction, or just winging it?

NOTHING, i repeat, NOTHING i have said since, say 2023, could be RATIONALLY seen as support for trump by a RATIONAL person ''18 words asking if they support the 35k proletariat being fired

good lord, the ideologically hidebound will say ANYTHING and do ANY mental gymnastics required...

you sure you wanna look like an idiot? go ask you wife or mother where ONE WORD i have said in this post supports trump, IN ANY WAY?

i friggin dare you.. post the results

the rest of the, how did you said it "rest of the TX Trumpiteers seem to have deserted" -- oh, you sweet summer child, men don't need to run to the support of other men defending truth ... but WOW, libbies like to go for a dog pile ...

funny ...

by your own post, you are failing jimmies purity test .. try THAT on for size

I am not saying Trump was right.

I am saying that Washington in general has been playing political games. Strange, when Biden fired a bunch of Trump appointees I didn't hear the outrage.

Do I think Comey's firing was due to politics? Yes.

Do I think its wrong? Yes.

Do I think that is how Washington works? Yes.

Do I think she got in to Harvard law by being the daughter of a high ranking DOJ employee? Yes.

Do I think she got her SDNY appointment by who she was related to? Yes.

I'd get more supportive of your position if I saw any outrage on your part when your party plays the games.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

If the shoe fits...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

. . . that is a pretty fair assessment. He's not the only one here that engages in such behavior either.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Now if you want to argue that her firing was political, I am not going to argue against that... Her dad got political and she has to pay the price for his behavior. Not right, but understandable.

Aha! I've figured out what bugs me about your posts sometimes. You're not a Trump defender--you're a mitigator. And therefore an enabler.

You attempt to mitigate the wrongfulness of Trump's words and actions. "That's not so bad," you say in effect. Or, "It's understandable."

Doesn't bother you to turn a blind eye to the facts. You were given the facts, the woman's credentials and work history, and you still insist she was appointed because of who she was related to.

You may not be a Trump supporter, exactly, but you are an enabler.

And just like that, left wing nuts invent a new purity test to further cleave off supporters

Poor things, it must be exhausting

Not nearly as exhausting trying to defend Trump’s idiotic behavior, cabinet appointments, and tariffs policy that almost all economists say will ultimately drive up COL and inflation. I disagree with Roland. Enabler = defender. I do find it strange that the rest of the TX Trumpiteers seem to have deserted you to carry the orange Jesus’s koolaid alone.

you disagree with roland but can't accept that someone else that disagrees with roland could be at all correct??

do you have a diagnosis for your disfunction, or just winging it?

NOTHING, i repeat, NOTHING i have said since, say 2023, could be RATIONALLY seen as support for trump by a RATIONAL person ''18 words asking if they support the 35k proletariat being fired

good lord, the ideologically hidebound will say ANYTHING and do ANY mental gymnastics required...

you sure you wanna look like an idiot? go ask you wife or mother where ONE WORD i have said in this post supports trump, IN ANY WAY?

i friggin dare you.. post the results

the rest of the, how did you said it "rest of the TX Trumpiteers seem to have deserted" -- oh, you sweet summer child, men don't need to run to the support of other men defending truth ... but WOW, libbies like to go for a dog pile ...

funny ...

by your own post, you are failing jimmies purity test .. try THAT on for size

Here is yes problem folks like Jeff and Crbutler find themselves in.

They do not like Trump. They may even be able to sat, “I voted 3rd Party.” The problem is Trump and this presidency represent the GOP. When this presidency and this Congress are discredited or lose the public’s faith, then Dems will obtain majorities or political power.

This is unconscionable to them. This, they come here to present argument to support the Regime’s actions and GOP controlled congressional action or inaction.

The Regime, the GOP must be supported otherwise folks might vote Dem. Oh, the horror of that!

They are all about presenting what this GOP has become as a better option. Hence, post like, “IBM did blah.”

I ain't new, sir. I am well aware that the clock turns and one party follows the other, in due time. I personally thought Hillary would have pulled a Reagan v mondale in 2016, or Trump would have done a perot to a real gop candidate. He was way out of his depth in 16 and hasn't really improved.

The gop will likely lose the house in 26, but you can see my prognostic abilities above. It's a high likelihood outcome.

quote:

This is unconscionable to them

ahmmm, in your opinion. Oddly not polled, at least from me. That means you don't KNOW it to be true. This is the strawman. I KNOW the parties will change, and there's miles of difference between "yawn" and the highly emotional word "unconscionable" doc and I are a little long in the tooth to have our first political awakening. Welcome to the show

I also know that every dirty rat trick the gop does, the dems will give back. Likely with interest. I am also aware that many of the persons having issues with an "issue" will look the other way when the parties are swapped, opinion based on observed past actions.