A bad day for Trump
-
@Larry said in A bad day for Trump:
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
God, I hope not. We have a very strong bench coming up of folks who would be better presidents.
I agree. I'd like to see him stay active but in the background. But it may just be that his bulldozer style is needed now more than ever.
How I see it, the far left are crazy. Then there's a pretty big middle, and a right who want someone to go in there and kick some ass.
What I'd love to see is a walk softly, big stick kind of conservative. Someone who can actually push back against all the madness but sounds reasonable and polite. Why we need that is to bring over more of the uncertain center and not alienate the losers. The far left not only needs to lose, but in a way that doesn't also humiliate the moderates who need the help of a conservative administration to clean house on their side.
We get another Trump in there and all it'll do is further crank up the culture wars. Others might love that but I sure as shit wouldn't. Give me a hardline civil conservative who shows us again how it's all supposed to work. Someone to provide a foil to the madness so the rest can see it for what it is. Not some asshole who's going to pour gas on everything.
@Aqua-Letifer said in A bad day for Trump:
@Larry said in A bad day for Trump:
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
God, I hope not. We have a very strong bench coming up of folks who would be better presidents.
I agree. I'd like to see him stay active but in the background. But it may just be that his bulldozer style is needed now more than ever.
How I see it, the far left are crazy. Then there's a pretty big middle, and a right who want someone to go in there and kick some ass.
What I'd love to see is a walk softly, big stick kind of conservative. Someone who can actually push back against all the madness but sounds reasonable and polite. Why we need that is to bring over more of the uncertain center and not alienate the losers. The far left not only needs to lose, but in a way that doesn't also humiliate the moderates who need the help of a conservative administration to clean house on their side.
We get another Trump in there and all it'll do is further crank up the culture wars. Others might love that but I sure as shit wouldn't. Give me a hardline civil conservative who shows us again how it's all supposed to work. Someone to provide a foil to the madness so the rest can see it for what it is. Not some asshole who's going to pour gas on everything.
Amen, brother.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A bad day for Trump:
@Larry said in A bad day for Trump:
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
God, I hope not. We have a very strong bench coming up of folks who would be better presidents.
I agree. I'd like to see him stay active but in the background. But it may just be that his bulldozer style is needed now more than ever.
How I see it, the far left are crazy. Then there's a pretty big middle, and a right who want someone to go in there and kick some ass.
What I'd love to see is a walk softly, big stick kind of conservative. Someone who can actually push back against all the madness but sounds reasonable and polite. Why we need that is to bring over more of the uncertain center and not alienate the losers. The far left not only needs to lose, but in a way that doesn't also humiliate the moderates who need the help of a conservative administration to clean house on their side.
We get another Trump in there and all it'll do is further crank up the culture wars. Others might love that but I sure as shit wouldn't. Give me a hardline civil conservative who shows us again how it's all supposed to work. Someone to provide a foil to the madness so the rest can see it for what it is. Not some asshole who's going to pour gas on everything.
Amen, brother.
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
Amen, brother.
I was going to get into all the details of what @Aqua-Letifer said.
No need. @Mik said it better.
-
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
Amen, brother.
I was going to get into all the details of what @Aqua-Letifer said.
No need. @Mik said it better.
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
Amen, brother.
I was going to get into all the details of what @Aqua-Letifer said.
No need. @Mik said it better.
Agreed. Well said. I don't know much about them besides the headlines, but it sounds like a Hogan or DeWine.
-
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
DeSantis.
Probably. He's very Trump-like without being like Trump, if you get my drift. I saw a poll saying that half of GOP members who were polled want Trump to not run. I think that number will only grow in the next year.
-
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
DeSantis.
Probably. He's very Trump-like without being like Trump, if you get my drift. I saw a poll saying that half of GOP members who were polled want Trump to not run. I think that number will only grow in the next year.
@George-K said in A bad day for Trump:
@Jolly said in A bad day for Trump:
DeSantis.
Probably. He's very Trump-like without being like Trump, if you get my drift. I saw a poll saying that half of GOP members who were polled want Trump to not run. I think that number will only grow in the next year.
Yeah it seems DeSantis is positioning well for that nomination. He also (should?) help lock in Florida's electoral votes. DeSantis/Haley would be a solid ticket.
-
Desantis would be fascinating. Pop culture will expect a pledge of fealty against him along the lines of Never Trump. Lots of opportunists who recognized how easy it was to publicly hate Trump are going to lose some friends, or come to terms that they’ll never be able to publicly support a GOP president again.
-
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
Looking like the frontrunner.
DeSantis/Haley? Not sure she'd take the VP spot.
Under the present global security situation, I think either would be a good choice. Together it would be a solid ticket, but I agree she may not want the VP spot.
-
@Mik said in A bad day for Trump:
Looking like the frontrunner.
DeSantis/Haley? Not sure she'd take the VP spot.
Under the present global security situation, I think either would be a good choice. Together it would be a solid ticket, but I agree she may not want the VP spot.
@Renauda said in A bad day for Trump:
she may not want the VP spot
She might be interested looking forward 8 years. By then, it'll be her turn.
-
@Renauda said in A bad day for Trump:
she may not want the VP spot
She might be interested looking forward 8 years. By then, it'll be her turn.
-
The driver of "The Beast" said that what Hutchinson alleged never happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/us/politics/jan-6-trump-motorcade-secret-service.html
Testimony Fleshes Out Account of Trump’s Demand to Go to Capitol on Jan. 6
But a newly released transcript of an interview of the Secret Service agent who drove Donald Trump’s vehicle that day disputes that he tried to grab the steering wheel or lunged at another agent.
“The president was insistent on going to the Capitol,” recounted the driver, whose name was not disclosed. “It was clear to me he wanted to go to the Capitol. He was not screaming at Mr. Engel. He was not screaming at me. Certainly his voice was raised, but it did not seem to me that he was irate — certainly not, certainly didn’t seem as irritated or agitated as he had on the way to the Ellipse.”
But, the driver said, Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel or physically accosted the agents, contradicting one of the most sensational and hotly disputed elements of testimony given to the House Jan. 6 committee by a White House aide. The transcript of the driver is the first extensive eyewitness account of what happened in the armored vehicle to be made public.“I did not see him reach,” the Secret Service driver told investigators for the House panel. “He never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all. You know, what stood out was the irritation in his voice, more than his physical presence.”
The driver’s transcript adds detail to one of the most scrutinized episodes of Jan. 6, 2021. The transcript was never released publicly by the House Jan. 6 committee, which entered into an agreement with the Secret Service regarding 12 interviews to avoid disclosing “privacy information, for-official-use-only information, intelligence and law enforcement sensitive records and raw intelligence information.”
Republicans have suggested that the panel did not release the transcript because it contradicts portions of a public account of the incident from a prominent witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as an aide to Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff at the time. Ms. Hutchinson testified in June 2022 that she had heard about what happened from others second- or thirdhand. Republicans have faulted the panel’s decision to promote her account of Mr. Trump’s behavior in the vehicle.
So, as speculated Ms Htuchinson was testifying about what someone told her. That kind of testimony, in a real court, is called "hearsay."
And the driver's testimony was only released today. I wonder why.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
LOL just like the other thread, the truth is likely in the middle somewhere. Did he lunge at the driver? Probably not. Was he irate and wanted to go? Yes. Did he make any movement and/or joke about driving himself? I could see it, but who knows, but which is where Cassidy heard about it. And yes, that is hearsay... which is literally what the other thread (about the 10k troops) is, too. Hearsay.
BTW to you @George-K and @Jolly the article above literally says why it was not released publicly. The Secret Service had an agreement not to release the transcript for security purposes.
More importantly, Cassidy Hutchinson? I'd hit that. Maybe Jon would too.
-
LOL just like the other thread, the truth is likely in the middle somewhere. Did he lunge at the driver? Probably not. Was he irate and wanted to go? Yes. Did he make any movement and/or joke about driving himself? I could see it, but who knows, but which is where Cassidy heard about it. And yes, that is hearsay... which is literally what the other thread (about the 10k troops) is, too. Hearsay.
BTW to you @George-K and @Jolly the article above literally says why it was not released publicly. The Secret Service had an agreement not to release the transcript for security purposes.
More importantly, Cassidy Hutchinson? I'd hit that. Maybe Jon would too.
-
LOL just like the other thread, the truth is likely in the middle somewhere. Did he lunge at the driver? Probably not. Was he irate and wanted to go? Yes. Did he make any movement and/or joke about driving himself? I could see it, but who knows, but which is where Cassidy heard about it. And yes, that is hearsay... which is literally what the other thread (about the 10k troops) is, too. Hearsay.
BTW to you @George-K and @Jolly the article above literally says why it was not released publicly. The Secret Service had an agreement not to release the transcript for security purposes.
More importantly, Cassidy Hutchinson? I'd hit that. Maybe Jon would too.
@89th said in A bad day for Trump:
Secret Service had an agreement not to release the transcript for security purposes.
And another thing. The Committee was in possession of the Secret Service testimony which contradicted Hutchinson. Even if you accept (and I don't) the "security purposes" argument, the committee knew she was a) testifying to hearsay and b) probably lying.
They promoted her, while knowing she was wrong.
Ask yourself, why is that? "Security purposes" has NOTHING to do with it. It's a red herring to distract.
They knew, and they lied.
