ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Party over country, Personality over party.  Self centered, myopic behavior taken to its logical end. 

 kurtster wrote:

That's all a convenient smokescreen that lets you  the current Wyo GOP say they're pro-Trump above all else without saying they're pro-Trump: Liz' opponent is (if we're applying labels like bandaids at the skate park) an identical Neocon. The only difference is the Trump question. But the race to get rid of Liz is furious. Why? It's two sides of the same coin, so why drop so much money on this race? Because as much as Liz has done and will do for the GOP agenda, she refuses to take a loyalty oath to 45, so she's got to go. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
So a Neocon is what a real repub is or is supposed to be ?  Not in my book.  Trump was an opponent / obstacle to the Neocons.  The most Anti - War POTUS in my lifetime.

Similarly, take McConnell.  The one good thing he did was keep Garland off the bench.  That does not give him a pass on all of the other crap that he brings with him.  I would have liked to see him having been gone a long, long time ago.  Fortunately, keeping Garland out of the SCOTUS turned out to be a very good thing all by itself based upon his actions and decisions as Attorney General. Parents are domestic terrorists ?  Really ?  And that is just for openers.

 kurtster wrote:

Last week she was a RINO. That she votes with Trump is incidental: She votes the way you would have her vote most of the time. 

Don't get me wrong: of the people running for the GOP nomination, I hope she wins. Her Trump-endorsed opponent is exactly like her except she endorses Trump. You won't find one iota of difference between them otherwise.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
You could not be more wrong. 

To me, she is a war mongering Neocon.  No different from her father.  Just because she sides with Trump on many issues does not forgive the former, nor give her a pass on that.  She is good for herself, not the country.

This is consistent with your point.  Right ?

 kurtster wrote:

Ironic, then, that you're vilifying her for her one "bad deed" despite all of the good ones she does (from your POV). I mean, she is everything you want in a legislator except for That One Thing. You should be championing her with every breath. You agree with her and she with you except for ...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Yes.  Thank you, yes !  This one "good deed" does not undo all of the bad ones.

To say it does is self serving myopic expediency.

 steeler wrote:

Lock. Him. Up.

 ScottN wrote:
I do not disagree with that argument.

 steeler wrote: 

 Red_Dragon wrote:
My guess at this point is that the decision in DOJ will be not to prosecute. It would not be an easy case (intent is the stumbling block), certainly not a slam-dunk,  and that may dictate against bringing it. The thinking very well may be that a prosecution that does not result in a conviction probably would strengthen Trump — and the prosecution itself  very likely would lead to political violence. Plus, it would not be a quick prosecution/trial.

Now, one would think that this damning evidence to date would result in Trump’s political demise. I would think it should drive a stake through his political heart . . . but one never knows for sure with this vampire.

 steeler wrote:

Does this country have the intestinal fortitude to imprison a former president? I think the more horrible precedent would be in not doing so.

 ptooey wrote:
I have followed all this rather closely from the November 2020 election until the present, and I was still astonished by details revealed today. 

 steeler wrote:


Me, for approximately the last 6 years: "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn".

Uh, er, um .  .  . Damning. Just damning.

 black321 wrote:

My gripe is that she is not good for me, she's not good for America, there's no way in hell I'll vote for her. There are other ways for me to let her know I appreciate her position on this one thing. Trump got a couple of things right too. Does that mean I have to vote for him? Nonsense. "My side" is all rallying to vote for her, switch parties and vote for her because she's right on this one thing. The gaslighting is the idea that we have to reward good behavior even if they're still bad overall. No. Thank you, no.

"Just say the election was corrupt."

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Not sure what your gripe is...
unless you are unwilling to give someone on the other side of the political aisle credit, 
for anything at all.

I've already broken my vow of not participating in this Trump BS, so i will stfu
and you can have the donut

 black321 wrote:
That's some gaslighting bullshit right there. She is not in the Trump camp and is calling him out for his wrongdoing. Well hooray, score one for the good guys!

...and then she voted "with" Trump far more often than her replacement in House leadership, so ... on matters that actually affect policy, she's in lockstep with Trump, essentially. On matters of no legal consequence, she's taking a stand. Fantastic, thanks for the donut, pls vote better thanks.

 kcar wrote:

You're being far too generous.