Cheney?
-
And y'all are the most sophisticated critters in the world?
Bullshit.
Right now, I'd rather have a man who holds a grudge in the Oval Office, than a man who has to be told everyday where the Oval Office is.
But Mr. Biden does behave. If he doesn't, they won't let him have his daily pudding treat.
-
-
@doctor-phibes said in Cheney?:
"Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being. I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party," Trump said. "She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy. She is a warmonger whose family stupidly pushed us into the never-ending Middle East Disaster, draining our wealth and depleting our Great Military, the worst decision in our Country's history. I look forward to soon watching her as a Paid Contributor on CNN or MSDNC!"
Trump does hold a grudge...
@doctor-phibes said in Cheney?:
"Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being. I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party," Trump said. "She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our Country. She is a talking point for Democrats, whether that means the Border, the gas lines, inflation, or destroying our economy. She is a warmonger whose family stupidly pushed us into the never-ending Middle East Disaster, draining our wealth and depleting our Great Military, the worst decision in our Country's history. I look forward to soon watching her as a Paid Contributor on CNN or MSDNC!"
Trump does hold a grudge...
One of his problems is that he takes everything personally. Everything is always about him.
Maybe he's got TDS.
-
I think it's possible that might be a spoof feed.
-
Yeah, that whole Twitter account is parody.
I'll wait for independent verification of this.
Parody is a protected use case for keeping a twitter account open, because we know how smart Americans are. Like who would believe it was real, like taking aquarium cleaner as protection from Covid.
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
Then vote for higher taxes, more socialism, porous borders, inflation and less employment.
The Dems will love you...
-
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
Then vote for higher taxes, more socialism, porous borders, inflation and less employment.
The Dems will love you...
I get that you want the leadership to reflect the prevailing view, and the prevailing view is pro-Trump.
But, the way she's been derided signals that you're either on the Trump train or not a Republican.
Off-putting to someone like me who would probably be more on the R side, but not a Trump fan.
Then vote for higher taxes, more socialism, porous borders, inflation and less employment.
The Dems will love you...
Well, Cheney is more conservative than Trump - but they didn't want her for loyalty / cultural reasons. It wasn't about policy with Cheney.
I can't vote anyways - and strangely no dem has reached out to me yet to canvas my vote.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Where I'd disagree with you is that they're "trump policies"
Agreed that there's some weird lingering loyalty to a man and not ideas.
I get the politics of it - but I can still disagree.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Where I'd disagree with you is that they're "trump policies"
Agreed that there's some weird lingering loyalty to a man and not ideas.
I get the politics of it - but I can still disagree.
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Where I'd disagree with you is that they're "trump policies"
Agreed that there's some weird lingering loyalty to a man and not ideas.
I get the politics of it - but I can still disagree.
No, they're Trump policies. They differ from 43 and certainly 41. They are more akin to 40, which saw a surge of blue collar voters to the GOP.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that. And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that.
Not true. It's "Trump's supporters" you are talking about, not "supporters of Trump's policies." The GOP elected simply want "Trump's supporters," they do not care whether "Trump's policies" come with or not. The choice for Stefanik to replace Cheney shows this very clearly. Be it the electorate or the elected, if "Trump's policies" are what they want, they would recognize that Cheney has more consistently support "Trump's policies" than Stefanik. But neither wants "Trump's policies". The GOP electorate wants Trump the person, the GOP elected wants "Trump's supporters." Neither cares about "Trump's policies."
And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Trump's own evolving stance regarding those wars aside, do you really believe that Dick Cheney's role during the Bush years have any bearing on Liz Cheney's dismissal from the GOP leadership role this week? Did the GOP not know what Dick Cheney's did back in the Bush years? Is the father's sin supposed to past onto the daughter? Dragging Dick Cheney into this now is neither an epiphany nor a principled stance, just after-the-fact aspersion cast upon Liz Cheney to justify the GOP's entirely personality driven decision to cancel Liz Cheney.
-
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that.
Not true. It's "Trump's supporters" you are talking about, not "supporters of Trump's policies." The GOP elected simply want "Trump's supporters," they do not care whether "Trump's policies" come with or not. The choice for Stefanik to replace Cheney shows this very clearly. Be it the electorate or the elected, if "Trump's policies" are what they want, they would recognize that Cheney has more consistently support "Trump's policies" than Stefanik. But neither wants "Trump's policies". The GOP electorate wants Trump the person, the GOP elected wants "Trump's supporters." Neither cares about "Trump's policies."
And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Trump's own evolving stance regarding those wars aside, do you really believe that Dick Cheney's role during the Bush years have any bearing on Liz Cheney's dismissal from the GOP leadership role this week? Did the GOP not know what Dick Cheney's did back in the Bush years? Is the father's sin supposed to past onto the daughter? Dragging Dick Cheney into this now is neither an epiphany nor a principled stance, just after-the-fact aspersion cast upon Liz Cheney to justify the GOP's entirely personality driven decision to cancel Liz Cheney.
Look, it's very simple. Trump's policies are very easy to get behind. The GOP elected could not care less about the man himself. They don't want him back. But they damn sure want his supporters. She jeopardized that.
Not true. It's "Trump's supporters" you are talking about, not "supporters of Trump's policies." The GOP elected simply want "Trump's supporters," they do not care whether "Trump's policies" come with or not. The choice for Stefanik to replace Cheney shows this very clearly. Be it the electorate or the elected, if "Trump's policies" are what they want, they would recognize that Cheney has more consistently support "Trump's policies" than Stefanik. But neither wants "Trump's policies". The GOP electorate wants Trump the person, the GOP elected wants "Trump's supporters." Neither cares about "Trump's policies."
And frankly Trump has a valid point that her dad was instrumental in dragging us into endless and largely fruitless wars.
Trump's own evolving stance regarding those wars aside, do you really believe that Dick Cheney's role during the Bush years have any bearing on Liz Cheney's dismissal from the GOP leadership role this week? Did the GOP not know what Dick Cheney's did back in the Bush years? Is the father's sin supposed to past onto the daughter? Dragging Dick Cheney into this now is neither an epiphany nor a principled stance, just after-the-fact aspersion cast upon Liz Cheney to justify the GOP's entirely personality driven decision to cancel Liz Cheney.
They didn't cancel her, you moron. They removed her from a leadership position because she was being a stupid twat. She was at odds with 90% of the people she was supposed to be representing and was using the power and stationary of her office to carry on a personal vendetta, without regard as to how much dissension she caused in the ranks.
They allowed her a vote of conscience and brooked her no ill will because of it. But she simply was not satisfied with her vote, she decided to don her Dona Quixote armor and single-handedly tried to wreck her party's unity while tilting at personal windmills. And even Bernie Sanders cheered her own, while just a few months ago, the Dems would have cheerfully cut her throat. Speaking of Dems, if she had been in that party, Pelosi would have cut her legs off months ago.
She is still, for now, the at-large representative for the state of Wyoming. Good Lord willing, and provided the GOP does not dilute the primary vote, she will be the ex-representative from Wyoming in 2022.
