Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

If you look at all the other stuff around campaign finances and CREEP. Nixon's re-election still pales in comparison.  

Of course... and outside of Nixon's state of mind at the end, generally speaking, the amount of lives theoretically put in danger is a massive difference.

It's just not a comparison.... but we live in a different, more polarized time now. Setting aside what potentially could happen legally, just politically, there was a time when all of this would be devestating. Nowadays, unfortunately, it may hurt a little on the margins but otherwise he'll still continue to hold his sway.

Edited by mtutiger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mtutiger said:

Of course... and outside of Nixon's state of mind at the end, generally speaking, the amount of lives theoretically put in danger is a massive difference.

It's just not a comparison.... but we live in a different, more polarized time now. Setting aside what potentially could happen legally, just politically, there was a time when all of this would be devestating. Nowadays, unfortunately, I doubt it.

There was a time when Trump wouldn't have ever won a nomination much less become president. There was a time even if he got elected, he would have been impeached and removed a long time ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“They’re not here to hurt me” strikes me as a more crucial statement than it is getting attention for rat the moment. How Trump said this phrase is really crucial.

The way Hutchinson testified, he basically said, kind of flatly, “they’re not here to hurt me”, maybe even a little emphasis on hurt. That would suggest they otherwise are there for something else, such as “they’re here to love me instead”, or “they’re here to praise me instead.” Something like that.

But if the way he said it put the emphasis on a different word—as in, “they’re not here to hurt me”—then we’re talking about a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Because then the alternative could only be, “they’re here to hurt someone else”. And we all know who that someone else is. And that would mean he had foreknowledge of impending violence, and might even suggest even that he would approve of it.

I kind of doubt they’ll try to follow up on that, but I think that’s a pretty important distinction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Stone was a "trickster" working for CREEP during the 1972 election. He was one of several college age wannabes who attempted to disrupt opponents campaigns.

He also has a portrait of Nixon tattooed on his back.

CREEP was under former AG John Mitchell

Edited by CMRivdogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think the testimony was damning, I actually think it will make him even more appealing to MAGAs for a few reasons:

(1) He didn't want them take away guns

(2) He actually did try to join them at the capital.

(3) He tried to physically attack his RINO secret service person.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      285
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...