Liz Cheney defeated in Wyoming primary

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  499 comments

By:   Harriet Hageman (YahooNews)

Liz Cheney defeated in Wyoming primary
Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), a one-time ally of Donald Trump who became one of his most ardent Republican critics, is projected to lose her primary on Tuesday after a longshot bid to survive defying the former president and his influence over GOP voters. NBC News and CBS News both called the race shortly after 10…

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), a one-time ally of Donald Trump who became one of his most ardent Republican critics, is projected to lose her primary on Tuesday after a longshot bid to survive defying the former president and his influence over GOP voters.

NBC News and CBS News both called the race shortly after 10 p.m. ET.

Cheney was soundly defeated by Harriet Hageman, an attorney and former Republican National Committee (RNC) member who was endorsed by Trump last year. Hageman will be the heavy favorite to succeed Cheney next year as the deep red state's lone representative in the House.

Hageman's victory on Tuesday was the final — and perhaps most significant — milestone in Trump's effort to purge the House of the 10 Republicans who voted last year to impeach him for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Of those 10, four opted not to run for reelection this year, while four others — including Cheney — have lost renomination to Trump-backed challengers. Only two have survived primary challengers so far: Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.).

Cheney's primary loss is a particularly symbolic victory for Trump. After Cheney voted to impeach the former president last year, she emerged as a Republican bulwark against Trumpism, frequently criticizing Trump as an anti-democratic strongman with little, if any, regard for the U.S. Constitution.

That criticism landed her in hot water with her GOP colleagues and prompted them to remove her as the chair of the House Republican Conference.

The fallout didn't stop there.

The RNC and Wyoming Republican Party voted last year to censure Cheney, and many of her fellow Republican members of Congress rallied around Hageman's effort to oust her.

Cheney remained defiant. She was one of two Republicans tapped to serve on the House select committee charged with investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and was eventually elevated to the role of vice chair.

All the while she faced brutal headwinds in her primary as Trump took a particularly keen interest in the race. His team spent months interviewing potential Republican challengers to Cheney and the former president himself fielded meetings with some candidates before weighing in on Hageman's behalf.

Story continues

The result was a significantly narrower primary field that turned the race into a clear choice between a steadfast Trump ally and Cheney.

It was an unusual turn of events for the three-term Wyoming congresswoman, who endorsed Trump six years ago during his 2016 White House bid and maintained that support even as many Republicans distanced themselves from him following the release of a recording in which Trump was heard making vulgar remarks about women.

As a member of Congress, Cheney also voted in line with Trump's positions nearly 93 percent of the time, according to the data website FiveThirtyEight.

But it was the aftermath of the 2020 presidential race and Trump's claims that the election was rigged against him that pushed Cheney to a breaking point from which she would never return.

Even in the leadup to the Tuesday primary, as polling showed her trailing Hageman by wide margins, Cheney was unapologetic in her criticism of Trump. Earlier this month, her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, cut a campaign ad for her in which he railed against Trump as a "threat to our Republic."

Cheney also did little to rally conservatives to her cause. In the only debate of her primary contest, the Wyoming congresswoman used her closing statement to tell voters that if they disagreed with her brand of politics, they should cast their ballots for another candidate.

"I'm asking you to understand that I will never violate my Oath of Office," Cheney said. "And if you're looking for somebody who will, then you need to vote for somebody else on this stage."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

In her concession speech Chaney suggested the hint of a presidential run and compared herself to Abraham Lincoln.




FaVLWuPWYAEYRtv?format=jpg&name=small



 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Is the punk who was president who recently deluded a man so severely that he gave his one and only 42 years old life up on a lie by attacking a FBI office and its agents, STILL talking and not apologizing for all the trouble he delivers with a punch?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @1.1    one month ago

When an organization like the FBI becomes a political tool it brings heat on itself.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.2  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Vic your pithy answer has failed you once again. You can no more call the FBI a political tool today than you would during the Trump Administration establishing its "perpetual" Durham special council Investigation that is years-long (2019 to present). So, don't go there!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @1.1.2    one month ago

I think anyone could see the difference between the way Hillary was investigated and the way Trump has been treated.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago

Yes, there were endless unnecessary trials with no indictments for Hillary and no wrongdoing and #45 has been treated as though he is a victim here.  I think anyone could indeed see the difference.

Also a deflection.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago
Yes, there were endless unnecessary trials with no indictments for Hillary and no wrongdoing

I think most rational human beings might disagree

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago
I think anyone could see the difference between the way Hillary was investigated and the way Trump has been treated.

I am sure we will soon see Wray stating Trump will not be indicted because he is careless...jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.7  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    one month ago

Vic, don't be ridiculous. This is not time for a pity party for Trump. It is an insult to our intelligence that you would characterize Trump as being treated badly by the FBI who has a job to do caused by the antics and foolish activities of a solidly depraved sociopath, named Donald J. Trump. Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton and her former campaign, you can not be taken serious to call the Trump presidency and the removal of state documents to his home residency according to reporting remotely the same.

Just knock it off! Do not try whataboutism with me. It makes everything else you say after it questionable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.6    one month ago

LMAO!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @1.1.7    one month ago
Just knock it off!

Ok


Do not try whataboutism with me.

Alright


 It makes everything else you say after it questionable.

It does?  A Reggie Jackson quote now comes to mind.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.10  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    one month ago

And I think you do not know what rational human beings think, when you fix your fingers to type Trump is right to cause all this "HELL" and unrest in our country! The nation's citizens are at each other's throats daily and literally republicans are dead today because of trying to follow Donald Trump's lies. This can not be what this country is aspiring to be!

One has to wonder why you can't classify the casualties to political ruin and actual death to Donald Trump's corrupt rhetoric and actions. And yet you want us to regard anything against democrats you write?

Does it seem to you Donald Trump is trying to get MAGA conservatives killed one by one, incrementally, or even in droves?

Shame on the GOP for being given over to one man!  Is it Donald Trump who is the problem or is the GOP gone astray in itself that Donald Trump is a 'proper' outcome?

I think rational human beings deserve an answer!

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.11  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Heat? Half the former Republican party is using blow torches and old democratic idiocies. You even have MTG selling 'Defund the FBI' coffee cups for $20.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.12  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Sunshine @1.1.6    one month ago

Sunshine, don't side with defenseless stupid behavior. As you may know, classified documents are not to be toyed with in our society as 'loose lips sink ships' is an idiom relevant today at a former president's home. There is no acceptable excuse for having any classified materials not properly kept. None. So don't even try carelessness on for public consumption.

Carelessness is not a justifiable reason to misappropriate, hold, and outright lie about the possession of classified materials. That you come to minimize this speaks volumes.

We told you Donald Trump was a jerk from "J" to "K" and that he respects no-one, not even his supporters. And yet the GOP has foisted this 'delinquent' upon this great nation. It speaks to the corruption in the GOP running rampant.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.14  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

Unless you plan to quote Reggie Jackson, why bother mentioning him?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.1.15  Sunshine  replied to  CB @1.1.13    one month ago
Carelessness is a justifiable reason to misappropriate, hold, and outright lie about the possession of classified materials. That you come to minimize this speaks volumes.

So Trump will not face charges because is was careless with documents as this was the deciding factor that Hillary was careless with them and should not face charges.

CB, glad you are for equal treatment under the law.  At least you are honest.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.16  CB   replied to  Sunshine @1.1.15    one month ago
Carelessness is not a justifiable reason to misappropriate, hold, and outright lie about the possession of classified materials.

I fixed my comment. Now you fix yours. You can try to pretend all you want, but it is clear you are not after truth or justice here. And if pure politics is all this about, then we are doomed as a nation and can just go bag sand off the beaches of this country all day long.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    one month ago

I think most rational human beings agree.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @1.1.14    one month ago

You don't remember?

"New York Yankee baseball player Reggie Jackson’s comments in  Sport  magazine from May 1977 angered other Yankees, such as catcher Thurman Munson. Jackson was quoted as saying: “it all flows from me. I’m the straw that stirs the drink."

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.1.19  Sunshine  replied to  CB @1.1.16    one month ago
Carelessness is not a justifiable reason to misappropriate, hold, and outright lie about the possession of classified materials.

Tell it to the FBI...

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
1.1.20  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  CB @1.1.16    one month ago

I always said that most conservatives don't want the truth, they want to be right even if it means lying.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.21  CB   replied to  Wishful_thinkin @1.1.20    one month ago

The time has come to stop appeasing deliberately delusional people. To ALL Conservatives! Liberals are tired of your bull @!*^ and we are not just going to take it anymore!  We're not budging on our liberties, rights, or privileges in this country. So bring it and reap the whirlwind.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.21    one month ago
The

When exactly do you imagine the progressives have even attempted to appease conservatives, and in what way?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @1.1.21    one month ago
So bring it and reap the whirlwind.

Do describe this "whirlwind" for me.  What does this involve?  Will you resume marching around shouting at the sky?  Or go back to sleeping in the park as you "Occupy" something?  Or will this mostly be talking about your feelings?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.1.24  Sunshine  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.19    one month ago
Carelessness is not a justifiable reason to misappropriate, hold, and outright lie about the possession of classified materials.
Tell it to the FBI...
FBI's Comey says 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against Clinton for emails (cnbc.com) He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were “  extremely careless  in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law. Still, Comey said the FBI’s recommendation is that Clinton not face criminal charges for her actions.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.21    one month ago
So bring it and reap the whirlwind.

Are you channeling your inner Chuckie Schumer now?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.26  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.23    one month ago

All of the above, plus. Did I touch enough bases that time?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.27  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.25    one month ago

Piss off.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  CB @1.1.27    one month ago
Piss off.

As you have been told several times now--No, don't think I will, and your disappointment is yours alone to bear.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.29  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    one month ago

Oh so I am just supposed to know sport quotes? Okay. . .tell me why I am supposed to remember 'it'? (Just messing with you Vic. jrSmiley_43_smiley_image.gif )

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.30  Ronin2  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.23    one month ago

Sorry, they have graduated to intimidation, arson, assault, and the occasional murder. The riots of 2020 showed that.

Still not big boy insurrectionists; but they are working on it.

Be more afraid of what the Democrats are doing at the Federal level. They will get one party rule one way or another.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.30    one month ago

Your projection and deflection and denial is so fucking tiresome.

Plus you make shit up.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.32  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.31    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.33  Hallux  replied to  Hallux @1.1.12    one month ago

Taunting [Perrie Halpern R.A.] 

Guess I will not be quoting the conservative god Edmund Burke again ...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    one month ago
Yes, there were endless unnecessary trials with no indictments for Hillary

Can you name even ONE 'trial' Hillary was in?

Never mind 'endless"!!

How about ONE?????????

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.35  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.30    one month ago
Sorry, they have graduated to intimidation, arson, assault, and the occasional murder. The riots of 2020 showed that.

Well...nobody can intimidate you without your permission, and we don't defund police in Texas, so I'm not particularly concerned. 

Be more afraid of what the Democrats are doing at the Federal level. They will get one party rule one way or another.

By spending endless amounts of money and being stupid?  I don't think so.  

We're re-living 1978.  We're coming to the end of a generation gap, an ancient, feeble Democrat is in the WH watching inflation soar.  Russia has invaded somebody, Americans are all worked up about an Asian economic power, and we've had a black swan economic event that we're still working through several years later.

We're just looking for the next Ronald Reagan, and we're all set.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.36  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago
When an organization like the FBI becomes a political tool it brings heat on itself.

trump turned it into a tool with the guy that he appointed, who is now enforcing the law equally. acts of domestic terrorism aren't much further down the same path that discrediting national LE lies.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.1.36    one month ago
trump turned it into a tool

You see Trump as transformational?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.38  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.37    one month ago

more like fecal-based compost...

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.39  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.37    one month ago

“You see Trump as transformational?”

No, he is entirely transactional…including the sticky wicket that would be the truth. His eventual undoing. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.40  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.39    one month ago
“You see Trump as transformational?”

No, not at all, devangelical did.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.41  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.1.38    one month ago
more like fecal-based compost...

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.42  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.18    one month ago

Was that the year he smacked the World Series Winning home run?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

You spelled Cheney wrong.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    one month ago

Oh, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP THE PRESSES, WE HAVE SOME REAL NEWS HERE!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    one month ago

liz has successfully driven a wedge into the GOP that will detonate twice. it might be tough to get all the factions to synchronize their goosestepping now...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

299272842_814576016378286_3355412037394941877_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=8zMp0TK-NFIAX-wpNsV&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_w80WA0rnQ-7NZg07Xl2R4rRwNU54dDPUzjlM0x9KCJw&oe=63012EBB

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

maxresdefault.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Bitchy little AOC can't remember blubbering like a baby over an empty parking lot!

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.3.3  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Are you a fan of the Godfather?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sunshine @1.3.3    one month ago

I think she told us once that she enjoyed Brando more in Last Tango in Paris.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @1.3.3    one month ago

What if I am?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.3.7  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.6    one month ago
What if I am?

Just wondered if you where into the Mafia and thought that was an ideal comparison.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.4    one month ago

That's a lie.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @1.3.7    one month ago

That's 'were' and who is 'into the mafia' dear?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.3.10  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.9    one month ago
That's 'were' and who is 'into the mafia' dear?

Can you not answer a simple question?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.11  devangelical  replied to  Sunshine @1.3.10    one month ago

can you not compose one?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.3.11    one month ago
can you not compose one?

Few here can compose to your standards.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.8    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Liz running for President? jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

She had better find a weak electable Bush to be VP for. That will be the closest she ever comes to being President. 

Maybe she can get her father to make another commercial for her to help out? How she thought the one person despised more than her by both the left, middle, and right would be of help during her bid for reelection proves she is unfit for office. Seeing Dick again in that ad was like watching Death chastise War, Pestilence, and Famine for letting to many people die from old age. Go away Dick, and this time stay away! Oh, and take your daughter with you. No more Cheney's in a position of power ever!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    one month ago
Seeing Dick again in that ad was like watching Death chastise War, Pestilence, and Famine for letting to many people die from old age. Go away Dick, and this time stay away! Oh, and take your daughter with you. No more Cheney's in a position of power ever!

Why, specifically, are you so negative against Liz Cheney (and her father)?   Did you not vote for Cheney for V.P. twice?   That is, did you vote for Gore and Kerry?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4    one month ago
Liz running for President?

It IS amusing!

Liberals can't vote for her because of her voting record, and it is obvious her career as a member of the GOP is over.


She has about as much chance at getting elected President as AOC has!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.1    one month ago

Sorry, I went 3rd party both times.

Go ahead and tell me I put Bush/Cheney in power by voting 3rd party. I already got that shit from Democrats and leftists in 2016 when I campaigned and voted for Gary Johnson. I will say it again; I lost a lot of leftist friends after the elections. Ones that the temerity to try and reconcile in 2020 I told to fuck off forever. Don't need on and off again friends depending solely on which party is in the White House. Now I vote for the lesser of two evils- no 3rd party will ever come to power. It will either get absorbed by one of the two Establishment parties; or whither and die as their charismatic founders leave the political arena. 2016 proved that no matter how shitty of candidates the Establishment parties gave us; they were the only two horses in the race and one of them will always win.

Seems you forgot Dick's role in the Bush Administration. Poor George Jr was such a weak bad president. He really didn't want the job and it showed; but his father told him who to put into positions of power. Good old Dick was running the show. At least for the first four years if not longer. Try reading Bush Sr's biography. He is not very complimentary to either Dick or Rumsfeld in his son's administration.

Former President George H. W. Bush has ignited Republican infighting by alleging in an upcoming biography that former Vice President Dick Cheney formed his "own empire" within the White House and evolved into an "iron-ass" on foreign policy while serving in George W. Bush's administration.

According to  The New York Times , the 41st president is highly critical of Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the book, with the elder Bush slamming both men for having "served the president badly." Bush has particularly harsh words for Cheney, who he says for the past 15 years has barely resembled the man who once served as his secretary of defense. 

“He just became very hard-line and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with,” Bush told his biographer, Jon Meacham. “Just iron-ass. His seeming knuckling under to the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything, use force to get our way in the Middle East.”

Cheney told Meacham that the former president's comments were "fascinating," the Times reports, adding that he "never heard any for this from 41. He would sometimes stick his head in and we'd talk, but he never indicated anything like this."

RELATED:  Biden: Cheney lost President Bush’s confidence

Rumsfeld was far less tactful with his take on the analysis. “Bush 41 is getting up in years and misjudges Bush 43, who I found made his own decisions," the former defense secretary told NBC News. In the book, the elder Bush says Rumsfeld has a "lack of humility" and is "arrogant," statements Sen. John McCain agreed with during an appearance on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell on Thursday.

Don't get me wrong. Bush Jr gets his fair share of the blame for taking the job to begin with. He had Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell during his first term. Imagine if he would have listened to them; instead of letting Dick run the show? Where would be we now? Maybe we don't go into Iraq? Maybe we don't go for nation building in Afghanistan? There were far cooler and less hard headed advisors for him to listen to other than Dick and Don.

As for Liz. She was a prominent member of the Republican party before Trump took office in the House, nationally, and at the state level. Do I really think she has TDS? Not anymore. She is a power hungry, self centered, ass willing to do anything to get power; just like her father. Trump stood in her way. He dared to usurp leadership of her party! Trump just like the Tea Party would have been a temporary threat. Liz is willing to do anything- including side with Democrats that have thrown their morals, the law, and any ethics out in order to get Trump at all costs. Like father like daughter. 

I had to live through the father getting that type of power. No need to see the daughter, who is built in the exact same mold, in action.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.3    one month ago
Sorry, I went 3rd party both times.

Given your support for Trump, I am indeed surprised by that.    Odd that you can render such criticism for Bush, Cheney, et. al. but will incessantly defend Trump.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4.5  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.4    one month ago

Look up my past comments. I have stated many times I can't stand Trump. He reminds me too much of my father. His way or the highway. Willing to say and do anything to get attention- even if it is negative and hurts those around him. He can survive anything; but those around him will fall like flies. If you get on his bad side; you wonder if it wouldn't be just a little safer on his good side. Then you look again and opt out; getting as far away as you can.

What does "lesser of two evils" mean? Look that up and get back to me.

When the Democrats come back to earth and realize that laws only work if they apply to everyone let me know. That throwing out morals, ethics, and the law to get rid of one individual (even as vile as Trump) makes them no better than the CCCP or Putin.

I won't hold my breath for that to happen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.4.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.5    one month ago

You have decided that someone who literally tried to overthrow our government is the lesser of two evils?  Doesnt say much for your judgement. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.5    one month ago

Leaping to snark does not explain why you are so critical of Bush, Cheney yet incessantly defend Trump.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4.8  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.6    one month ago

Thank you John, now I know I am good standing.

I trust your judgement the least of anyone on here. Which is saying a lot.

So if you are questioning mine I know I am on the correct path.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.4.9  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.7    one month ago

You call demanding that Trump get his basic rights defending Trump? WTF

Trump was President whether you, the Democrats, Liz Cheney, and the TDS driven like it or not. He is entitled to the same rights as any other president including executive privilege. Beyond that he is entitled to the far more basic rights that we are supposed to enjoy. Attorney/Client confidentiality and Innocent until proven guilty.

Do you really think Trump is getting due process? That the actions being taken against Trump and those around him are normal? Look back at how past administrations were handled. Even during impeachments. Look at the way the FBI was used. Special Counsels. DOJ. You think the Jan 6th committee is normal? 

Nothing about Trump and the way Democrats are handling him is "normal". Pretending it is just proves how low this country is sinking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.10  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @1.4.9    one month ago
You call demanding that Trump get his basic rights defending Trump? WTF

No.   I call a series of comments that routinely fall on the side of defending Trump with myriad allegations of TDS to those who criticize Trump a general pattern of defending Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.11  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.10    one month ago

Amazes me how people can say they are not defending trump while doing so...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.12  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.4.11    one month ago

The very definition of delusion.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.4.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @1.4.11    one month ago
Amazes me how people can say they are not defending trump while doing so...

It amazes me how any deviation from the torch and pitchfork formation is construed as "defending Trump".

I take that back.  It's not amazing.  It's not even surprising at this point.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.4.14  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @1.4.13    one month ago

Funny how people see the ones with the pitchforks differently...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2  MrFrost    one month ago

Shame.. She was one of the few repubs in congress that actually has a spine. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @2    one month ago

... and ethics.

I would prefer more like Liz Cheney in the GoP yet the party continues to be infected with the MAGA (Trump) parasite.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    one month ago

I would prefer more like Liz Cheney in the GoP yet the party continues to be infected with the MAGA (Trump) parasite.

Agreed, she DID vote with trump what was it...98% of the time? Yikes. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    one month ago

93%, I stand corrected. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    one month ago

Voting with Trump is basically voting for GoP policies.   That is exactly what one would expect.

And this illustrates the sickness of the GoP.   Her Republican constituents voted her out of office NOT because she was a bad R, but because she refused to compromise her ethics and stand quietly while the GoP supported Trump's Big Lie.

She voted GoP policies yet was voted out of office for holding true to truth and ethics.  

The GoP is sick.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago
The GoP is sick.

Exactly. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  CB   replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago

The GOP has made itself sick. That is, Liz Cheney, a truer republican a reasonable party can not find, tonight exposed the GOP comprehensively. It is now categorically clear that the GOP down to its voting public OUSTED a true-blue republican from her duties with a full understanding that Donald Trump is a corrupting influence on all things conservatives and right-leaning independents say they value. Liz Cheney, a high-value conservative, was demoted, censured, and though she demonstrated her intent to stay in the MAGA zone has been 'tossed.'

It can not be made any clearer that the GOP party affiliation and voters did this with their eyes wide open! They chose Trump, the crook. And now he is laughing at another real republican whom he has literally ruined. Trump conservatives literally lifted Liz Cheney out of her political chair and tossed her out in the wilderness!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago
"She voted GoP policies yet was voted out of office for holding true to truth and ethics."  

Principles and integrity mean fuck all to the Trump supporters.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.2    one month ago

In her recent Senate campaign there wasn't much talk about inflation or gas prices or what was good for Wyoming. It was all about the man she hated.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago
The GoP is sick.

What gets me is they eat their own just because she dared to go against donald. Then some people around here will say, with a straight face, that donald is not in charge of the party...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.9  CB   replied to  Ender @2.1.8    one month ago

Call them out for their rank hypocrisy. Don't let them just get away with it. :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago

It's rotten (rotting) stinky and deplorable.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.5    one month ago

Liz Cheney is no victim, and deserves no sympathy or explanations from voters.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    one month ago

This is classic stalking obsession on the internet.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.12    one month ago

Perhaps a tutorial on how internet forums work is in order for you.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.1.12    one month ago
This is classic stalking obsession on the internet.

Is social media old enough to have classics now?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago
Her Republican constituents voted her out of office NOT because she was a bad R, but because she refused to compromise her ethics and stand quietly while the GoP supported Trump's Big Lie.

That's a highly oversimplified assessment.

She voted GoP policies yet was voted out of office for holding true to truth and ethics.  

It is one thing to agree that Trump lost the election.  It is another thing to participate in the political theater of the Jan 6 committee.  If she didn't recognize that as political suicide, she certainly should have,

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.15    one month ago
That's a highly oversimplified assessment.

I think mine is a very accurate summary.    Her voting record was solid GoP and she had even voted for Trump in 2020.   She did not lose the election because of her representation;   she lost because she dared stand against Trump after his Big Lie — something every R should have done.

It is one thing to agree that Trump lost the election.  It is another thing to participate in the political theater of the Jan 6 committee.  If she didn't recognize that as political suicide, she certainly should have,

It is quite likely that Cheney knew that she would lose her seat.   She had already lost her leadership position in the GoP for challenging Trump's Big Lie.   Pretty obvious.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.15    one month ago
It is one thing to agree that Trump lost the election.  It is another thing to participate in the political theater of the Jan 6 committee.

Trump HASN"T AGREED HE LOST THE ELECTION, and many on the "right" believe HE DIDN"T !   You HAVE to be able to see the problem here. If you claim not, that's your choice to live with. I am so through with intelligent people who play as if 'nothing to see here, Trump just refuses to accept the results of our legal election process, and YOU attempt to call out The Jan 6th committee for "political theatre" ......WTF Jack, but, whatever i guess, but for one who was so concerned about an alleged death threat, you sure could wind up with blood on your own hands, cause those Death Threatening our Law Officers are encouraged and incentivized when they see people NOT calling out 45 and his BIG LIE. Sound Familiar? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.18  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.17    one month ago
Trump HASN"T AGREED HE LOST THE ELECTION,

If you people would stop misleading, maybe people would take you serious....

Video President Trump concedes, condemns supporters who rioted - ABC News (go.com)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.18    one month ago

Has Trump agreed that he lost the election?   That is what iggy stated and what you quoted.   Look first at his practice runs for the speech you posted:

Note this portion of the transcript:

1:45 But this election is now over.
1:47 Congress has certified the results. I don't want to say the election's
1:50 over. I just want to say
1:53 Congress has certified the results without saying the election's
1:56 over, Okay.
1:59 But Converse is certain.
2:01 Now Congress is right. Congress didn't say over. So let's let mission
2:06 Don't go to the paragraph before.
2:12 Okay?

Here Trump could not even bring himself to say the election is over but only that Congress certified the results.   In addition, we have a plethora of quotes from Trump where he continues to insist that the election was rigged and that he actually won.    

For example, in April of this year, we have this: 

Former President Donald Trump continues to say that he could have been reinstated to office after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden .

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he only lost to Biden because the election was "rigged" or "stolen." Despite the former president and his allies constantly saying the election results were fraudulent, no evidence has emerged corroborating the claims.

In an interview published Thursday morning by The Washington Post , Trump again repeated false claims about the 2020 election. He also asserted that he could have been reinstated to the White House—a claim that even some of his allies have previously rejected.

"But I believe when you see massive election fraud, I can't imagine that somebody who won the election based on fraud, that something doesn't happen? How has it not happened? If you are a bank robber, or you're a jewelry store robber, and you go into Tiffany's and you steal their diamonds and get caught, you have to give the diamonds back," Trump told the newspaper, explaining his thinking.

If you wish to argue that Trump has admitted that he lost the election, I would suggest this:

Here we have a few quotes from Trump where he inadvertently admits that he lost the election.   That is as good as it gets.   I have yet to see Trump directly state that Biden legitimately won the election (or equivalent words).  The rest of the quotes are Trump still insisting that Biden is PotUS only because the election was rigged.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.20  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.19    one month ago
 I have yet to see Trump directly state that Biden legitimately won the election (or equivalent words). 

Can you see this?

Now, Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.

Full Text of Speech in Which Donald Trump Finally Concedes Election to Biden Without Naming Him (newsweek.com)

He said the results were certified by Congress.  Is that not legit?  He conceded. 

con·cede
[kənˈsēd]
VERB
conceded (past tense) · conceded (past participle)
admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it:
"I had to concede that I'd overreacted" · [more]
synonyms:
admit · acknowledge · accept · allow · grant · recognize · own · confess · agree
admit (defeat) in a contest:
"he conceded defeat"
synonyms:
capitulate · give in · surrender · yield · give up the struggle · [more]
admit defeat in (a contest):
"ready to concede the gold medal"
surrender or yield (something that one possesses):
"to concede all the territory he'd won"
synonyms:
surrender · yield · give up · relinquish · cede · hand over · turn over · part with · deliver up · forfeit · sacrifice

Good gawd, no wonder we have so much division in our country with stupid shit like your post who just want to argue for the sake of argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.20    one month ago
Can you see this?

Apparently you cannot.  

You are the one who claims 'concession'; that is not what Iggy wrote.   It is your strawman.   Iggy wrote of Trump admitting that he lost the election, of accepting the results of the election as legitimate.    Trump did no such thing in his perfunctory concession speech (what you provided). 

I explained this in detail, provided links and you just ignored it and simply repeated your mistake.  

He said the results were certified by Congress.  Is that not legit?  He conceded. 

Again, Sunshine, neither I nor iggy stated that Trump did not make a concession speech.   That is you translating iggy's words into your strawman argument.    Pay attention to what he wrote (and then pay attention to what I wrote).

Further, I even gave you a link where Trump did inadvertently admit that he lost the election.   If you really want to challenge Iggy, that would be your best bet.   Note, however, that for those few slips there are plenty of quotes from Trump still insisting that he is out of office only because the election was rigged.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.22  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    one month ago

I gave you what you wanted...you choose not to accept it.  You said you wanted to see him saying it was legit.  I provided that to you.

He accepted the certification.  What was the certification for?  An election.  

I am not going to respond to your comments that will now drone on and on about nothing because you can't admit Trump conceded.

Enjoy your day.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.22    one month ago
I gave you what you wanted..

BULLSHIT.   You delivered a speech where Trump stated the results were certified: a fact that could not be denied as soon as Pence officially read the tally.   You ignored the outtake I provided where he nixed even stating that the election was over.   

You have failed to deliver Trump admitting that Biden is the legitimate PotUS.   But anyone, as I did, can deliver quotes from Trump still claiming that he is not PotUS only because the election was rigged.

Stop defending this miserable liar.   The only reason Trump remain relevant is because of people like you who will stoop to strawman arguments, etc. to defend him.    If the GoP had more people like Cheney who would stand with truth rather than partisanship, the GoP would not have the Trump parasite continuing to damage its integrity and credibility.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    one month ago
She did not lose the election because of her representation;

Any incumbent who loses an election does so because of their representation.  That is how representative government works.

she lost because she dared stand against Trump after his Big Lie — something every R should have done.

She lost because she accepted a part in The Nancy Pelosi Theater.  There is a significant difference between challenging Trump and actively aiding Pelosi's attempts to sway the midterm election against your own party. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.20    one month ago
He said the results were certified by Congress.  Is that not legit?  He conceded. 

To this day Trump is trying to have certain states reverse their election results in his favor. 

That sounds like a concession to you?

He conceded that Biden is in the White House. He has not conceded that Biden won the election. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.26  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.25    one month ago
He has not conceded that Biden won the election. 

What was the Certification for?  Was it for an election?  yes. Was it for Trump? no.  Because he didn't say the words that you think he should and only acceptable to you doesn't mean Trump didn't concede. 

Do you know what concede means?  I have already had to post the definition once.  I can do it again for you.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.17    one month ago
Trump HASN"T AGREED HE LOST THE ELECTION, and many on the "right" believe HE DIDN"T !

You act like people don't believe daft bullshit all the time.  You act like we don't have people who think the moon landings were fake, the WTC attacks were an inside job, Covid vaccinations have a microchip, and the government is controlled by either the Free Masons or the Illuminati.  Or both.

Tens of millions of Americans believe Bernie Sanders' math.  Tens of millions of Americans believe in astrology.  That's how stupid we are.

   You HAVE to be able to see the problem here.

There are thousands of problems here.  Among them is the fact that you only seem to see one.  Also among them is the degree to which some people care about what an ex-president has to say.

Trump just refuses to accept the results of our legal election process,

I don't give a shit what he accepts or doesn't.  He's like the bratty teenage basketball player who's still complaining that the referee cheated for the other team.  Who cares?   

and YOU attempt to call out The Jan 6th committee for "political theatre" ......WTF Jack,

There is no "attempt" here.  It absolutely is political theater and I am absolutely calling it that.  We're talking about a congressional committee that has zero power to do anything other than get on television and talk.  That's theater.  It makes you "feel better", but that's it.

What the DOJ is doing is not theater.  That's real.  The tax evasion case?  Also real.  

but, whatever i guess, but for one who was so concerned about an alleged death threat,

Which death threat was that?

you sure could wind up with blood on your own hands, cause those Death Threatening our Law Officers are encouraged and incentivized when they see people NOT calling out 45 and his BIG LIE. Sound Familiar? 

We're talking about feelings again.  You're also pretending that people who issue death threats to law enforcement give a fiddler's fuck about what you or I think, and that us talking about our feelings is somehow going to influence theirs.  I don't know how you come to such a view, but you probably want to re-think that.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.28  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.27    one month ago
the WTC attacks were an inside job,

I was in the Pentagon on 9/11, when folks believe that Rumsfeld fired a missile into our beautiful building.  These false theories were part of the current delegitimization of our Republic government. They demonized innocent groups and they shifted attention away from the real causes and perpetrators.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.29  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.26    one month ago

I dont wonder why people refer to TDS, I know the reason. They are delusional. 

You linked to a statement Trump made on Jan 7 2021, the day after the Jan 6 riot. Before I get to the concession, how about this

I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem. I immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.

There has been multiple people , testifying under oath, that that is not true and thus Trump was lying in his Jan 7 statement. What a shock. For hours Trump did nothing to stop the riot. 

As for the concession, this is his exact words about that

Now, Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20.

That is his "concession". Where in those two sentences does he admit Biden won the election?  Trump believes to this day that the election was wrongly certified and should not have been certified. Him saying it was certified on the next day is not even remotely a "concession" that he lost the election and Biden won. 

Now lets look at the smoking gun showing that he did not concede in the statement you linked

The events of January 6, 2021, have been dramatically replayed in meticulous detail in the past month during a series of slickly produced congressional hearings. Those featured an outtake from Trump's recorded message to the nation a day after the insurrection, in which he finally promised an orderly transition. The day after the January 6 attack, Trump still couldn’t say the election was over.

"I don't want to say the election's over," he said during the outtake. "I just want to say Congress has certified the results without saying the election's over."

Had enough yet Sunshine? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.30  Jack_TX  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.28    one month ago
I was in the Pentagon on 9/11

I'm glad you're OK.  Thank you for your service.

These false theories were part of the current delegitimization of our Republic government.

They're crackpot nonsense that nobody but the looniest loonies embrace.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.31  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.29    one month ago
That is his "concession". 

Yes it is whether you like it or not. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.32  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.24    one month ago

Cheney was Wyoming's congressional representative since 2016.   She was clearly representing her constituents, voting core GoP, rising through the ranks, etc.   She even voted for Trump in 2020.   She lost this election because she refused to simply sit back and silently accept the outrageous Big Lie and the actions Trump took under that con-job.

If she had not taken on Trump, she would have retained her position in the GoP and she would have been reelected because she had clearly been representing her constituents.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.30    one month ago

I was on the ground floor, almost opposite from where  AA 77 hit the building,  in a conference room.  The meeting started at 0900 and included folks from other locations on SVCT,  We knew that the first tower in NYC had been hit but didn't know that it was an airliner.  Most assumed a private small aircraft who's pilot perhaps had a medical emergency or maybe a tourist flight where the pilot got carless showing off.  Ten minutes into our meeting a late comer informed us that the second tower had been struck.  Now we knew this wasn't an accident.  About 30 min later we heard a muffled bang and I felt a vibration in my feet like I felt during some distant earthquakes that I had experienced in California.  People in the room were becoming uneasy but I was trying to continue the meeting and saying that we were safe,  That what we felt might have been a construction accident or maybe a truck bomb, but we were Ok.  I suggested that we jump ahead  to determine if we had consensus on the recommended way ahead.  By know we could here folks in the hallway yelling the the building was evacuating. As I was shutting down the SVTC, I was offering folks that we could regroup in a restaurant near the Pentagon to finish the meeting.  No one was listening to me as they evacuated.  LoL!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.31    one month ago

At the same time that Trump made what you call a concession , he was telling his aides that he did not want to say the election was over, and he didnt. The outtake of this is on video Sunshine and is beyond dispute.  You lost this argument. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.34    one month ago

I provided her the outtake video and the key excerpt of the transcript @2.1.19.   As usual with these 'debates' many routinely just ignore rebuttals and keep babbling to try to create a smokescreen to cover their failed argument.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.36  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.34    one month ago
he was telling his aides that he did not want to say the election was over, and he didnt.

So he didn't want to say the words "the election is over".  That is what you are basing your argument on?

Oh good grief, again what did Congress certify? And he said "Congress certified".  What does that mean?  It means the election is over.  Who did Pence announce as the winner?

Did Trump need to spell it out for you?  That's your problem.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.37  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    one month ago
She was clearly representing her constituents, 

Obviously not to their satisfaction.  

      She lost this election because she refused to simply sit back and silently accept the outrageous Big Lie and the actions Trump took under that con-job.

She lost the election because she chose to support the Democrat's efforts to use televised hearings as a campaign tool against her own party.  

She could have made her views known without joining Pelosi's committee.  Lots of other people did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.37    one month ago
Obviously not to their satisfaction.  

Make your case that, prior to Cheney refusing to back down against the Big Lie, that she was not representing them to their satisfaction (having served as their representative since 2016 and with a win by 73% on her last election).

I have opined that Cheney would have been reelected if she had kowtowed like the majority of the GoP to Trump's Big Lie.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.39  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.36    one month ago

Just stop for christs sake. You lost the argument. In the same speech in which you say he conceded, off camera he was saying that he would not admit the election was over. 

You are WRONG. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.38    one month ago
Make your case that, prior to Cheney refusing to back down against the Big Lie, that she was not representing them to their satisfaction (having served as their representative since 2016 and with a win by 73% on her last election).

I never said anything about time frame.

I have said repeatedly that there is a difference between refusing to back down and actively undermining your party.

She chose the latter.  Her constituents do not believe that represents their views.  Had she rejected Trump's claims and also rejected Pelosi's theater, she would probably still be the nominee.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.41  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    one month ago
off camera he was saying that he would not admit the election was over. 

No John, read the words.

This is what he said..

1:47 Congress has certified the results. I don't want to say the election's
1:50 over. I just want to say
1:53 Congress has certified the results without saying the election's
1:56 over, Okay.

He didn't say I don't want to admit it is over.  You can't insert words that aren't there.  Your biased interpretation is irrelevant. You can have your opinion but not your own facts.

How many times does this need to be explained to you?

I am done dealing with your nonsense.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.42  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.41    one month ago

Your bs doesnt change a thing.  Try your twisting of the truth on someone more gullible than me. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.40    one month ago
I never said anything about time frame.

But I did and you responded to me!   You are objecting to my statement that Cheney has a record of supporting Trump policies (since they were basic GoP policies), voting for Trump, and serving as the repeatedly re-elected congresswoman (by 73% on prior election) for Wyoming. 

Until the Big Lie, where she would not kowtow to Trump like the majority of the GoP, she was clearly a key player in the GoP and her seat was secure (she would most likely have been reelected).

Your comments do not offer any refutation of those facts.

I have said repeatedly that there is a difference between refusing to back down and actively undermining your party.

You translate Cheney's attempts to challenge Trump as going against the GoP.   That is sad.   I see it as holding up the integrity of the GoP.    I wish the GoP had more Cheney-like members and fewer Trump sycophants.   The GoP would be in much better shape and Trump would be faded history by now.

Her constituents do not believe that represents their views.

Yes, as soon as she took on Trump and his Big Lie, her standing in the GoP and with her constituents flipped.   Just what I have stated.   

I asked you to:

TiG@2.1.38 ☞ Make your case that, prior to Cheney refusing to back down against the Big Lie, that she was not representing them to their satisfaction (having served as their representative since 2016 and with a win by 73% on her last election).

You quoted this but I see no case made by you that Cheney, prior to the Big Lie, was not representing them to their satisfaction.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.41    one month ago

You should read the words:

1:47 Congress has certified the results.  I don't want to say the election's
1:50 over. I just want to say
1:53 Congress has certified the results without saying the election's
1:56 over , Okay.

Trump stated that he does not want to say the election is over, he just wants to acknowledge that the formal process of certification has completed (which was undeniable at that point).  

How in your mind do you see Trump admitting that Biden won if he refuses to acknowledge that the election is over?   How does that compute to you?

You are aware, right, that Trump was claiming he won the election even after Biden had been inaugurated?  Crap like this:  

"We may have to win it a third time . It is possible," he said, showing yet again he thinks he won in November.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.45  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.43    one month ago
But I did and you responded to me!   You are objecting to my statement that Cheney has a record of supporting Trump policies (since they were basic GoP policies), voting for Trump, and serving as the repeatedly re-elected congresswoman (by 73% on prior election) for Wyoming.

No.  I'm rejecting that definition of "representing her constituents".  Which I've explained.

Until the Big Lie, where she would not kowtow to Trump like the majority of the GoP, she was clearly a key player in the GoP and her seat was secure (she would have been reelected). Your comments do not offer any refutation of those facts.

You seem to want to pretend that the 40 ton elephant in the room just doesn't exist. 

She had plenty of options of different ways she could "not kowtow" to Trump.   She chose one her constituents found unacceptable.

This is not unlike you finding something your neighbor does unacceptable, and because you refuse to kowtow, you beat up his 10 yr old kid and set his car on fire.  Nobody demanded that you kowtow, but everybody is still really pissed about your decision.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.44    one month ago

She is in total denial. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.47  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.45    one month ago

“This is not unlike you finding something your neighbor does unacceptable, and because you refuse to kowtow, you beat up his 10 yr old kid and set his car on fire.”

It is entirely unlike your metaphor.

She sits on a government committee fulfilling their oversight responsibilities, and doing so knowing it sealed her political fate. 

In fact, it is so far off base it can be considered Jack shit…

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.45    one month ago
I'm rejecting that definition of "representing her constituents". 

Given I have thoroughly explained my meaning, several times, you can choose to understand my meaning or insist that I must adopt your meaning.   There is no chance that you did not understand what I wrote.   

So do you agree or disagree with this?: 

Cheney has a record of supporting Trump policies (since they were basic GoP policies), voting for Trump, and serving as the repeatedly re-elected congresswoman (by 73% on prior election) for Wyoming.

If you disagree, then state specifically what part is in disagreement and then offer your argument.

You seem to want to pretend that the 40 ton elephant in the room just doesn't exist. 

Be specific.   What, specifically, do you consider the "40 ton elephant in the room"?   Then show me where I indicate that I am oblivious to it.   Vague allegations don't cut it.

She had plenty of options of different ways she could "not kowtow" to Trump.   She chose one her constituents found unacceptable.

Yes, she chose to stand up to Trump.   Her constituents clearly found that unacceptable.   This is obvious and certainly you see this in my comments.   So what is your point?

This is not unlike you finding something your neighbor does unacceptable, and because you refuse to kowtow, you beat up his 10 yr old kid and set his car on fire.  Nobody demanded that you kowtow, but everybody is still really pissed about your decision

Wow, you equate the actions of Trump to some merely unacceptable act of a neighbor and equate the actions of those calling Trump out to be equivalent to beating up a 10 year old kid and setting the neighbor's care on fire.

Suffice it to say that I find your analogy to be ridiculous.   Trump's Big Lie campaign is something to be taken as a deadly serious affront to our system of government and the rule of law.   It has seriously increased partisan divisiveness in our nation, caused people to question the integrity of our electoral system, and in the course, Trump has likely committed crimes and/or unconstitutional acts.   And at the very least he has abused the power and authority of the office of PotUS in wrongful acts.     This is not something that is merely an "unacceptable act of a neighbor".    Calling out Trump and exposing what took place via an entirely normal congressional process with under-oath testimonies of connected, high-ranking Republicans who compromised their own political careers to testify is providing transparency and encouraging justice.   The fact that the GoP is fundamentally on the wrong side of the truth is the fault of the GoP, not of people with guts and integrity such as Cheney.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.46    one month ago

A common affliction.  I am surprised when I find a Trump supporter who is NOT merely denying and deflecting from Trump's Big Lie (and now his classified documents woes).

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.50  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.44    one month ago
 he refuses to acknowledge that the election is over?  

Where did this happen?  In some other video?  He said he didn't want to say it in your video.  

 How does that compute to you?

Easy.  I know someone is an idiot but I don't want to say it right now.  Maybe I will say it later in some other post, or video, or letter.

No one has to acknowledge something to you verbally at the time you want to appease you.   

you are aware, right, that Trump was claiming he won the election even after Biden had been inaugurated?  Crap like this:    france24

So what?  He still conceded.  Do you want the defiintion of concede again? Because he didn't do it to your satisfaction doesn't change the fact that he did. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.50    one month ago
Where did this happen?  In some other video?  He said he didn't want to say it in your video.  

Already answered.   I gave you the outtake and part of the transcript of same, now actually do some work and watch it.

I know someone is an idiot but I don't want to say it right now.  Maybe I will say it later in some other post, or video, or letter.  No one has to acknowledge something to you verbally at the time you want to appease you.   

In short, you have nothing.

So what?  He still conceded.  Do you want the defiinition of concede again. 

Apparently you cannot seem to comprehend that I have focused on what Iggy stated, not on your strawman that shifts this into concession.   I have focused on the fact that Trump has never acknowledged that Biden is the legitimate winner of the election.   Rather, he continues with the damaging lie that the election was stolen from him.

So if you want to rebut what I have argued you need to show where Trump has acknowledged that Biden is the legitimate winner.   When Trump claims he might have to win the election a third time, the meaning of those words should be clear to you.

If you want to debate 'concession' then do so with JR since he has (for his own reasons) addressed your strawman argument.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.52  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.51    one month ago
Trump has never acknowledged that Biden is the legitimate winner of the election

Again, he said Congress certified the election.  How many times do you need to be told?

Are you now saying that a Congressional Certification is not legit?  You are all over the place.

Focus.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.53  JBB  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.50    one month ago

Get Real! Trump still claims he won. Where have you been?

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.55  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.51    one month ago

Perhaps he thinks what's good for the gander is good for the goose....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.52    one month ago
Again, he said Congress certified the election.  How many times do you need to be told?

And I have stated to you that acknowledging that the congressional certification process has completed is an undeniable fact.   That does not mean that Trump has acknowledged Biden as the legitimate winner of the election.

When he states that he must win a third time, that is clearly claiming that he won the election.

Are you now saying that a Congressional Certification is not legit?  You are all over the place.

How utterly pathetic to toss out such an absurd strawman.   No, 'Sunshine', I am not saying that the congressional certification was not legitimate.   You are confused.   I am saying that Trump acknowledged the completion of the event and that the completion of the event was undeniable.    What Trump did NOT do was acknowledge that Biden was the legitimate winner of the election and ... as I have shown via links (but you surely should already know this) ... Trump has continued to deny that Biden won and that he [Trump] actually won.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.55    one month ago

Of course, deflection.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.58  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.57    one month ago

Speculation not deflection. Carry on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.58    one month ago

Carry on?   We are talking about Trump refusing to acknowledge Biden as the legitimate winner of the election.   Hillary's funky problems will not change the facts of this matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.1.53    one month ago
Where have you been?

The fantasy land of incessant denial?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.61  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.56    one month ago

Trump "conceding" that the certification took place is NOT him conceding that Biden won the election. 

Trump does not recognize the legitimacy of the certification, which is just one of the things Sunshine doesnt get about this.  He can say that the result was certified without admitting he lost, and that is exactly what happened. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.62  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.48    one month ago
Given I have thoroughly explained my meaning, several times, you can choose to understand my meaning or insist that I must adopt your meaning.   There is no chance that you did not understand what I wrote. 

I didn't say I misunderstood it.  I said I rejected it.

If you disagree, 

I don't disagree.  I disagree that it matters in light of recent developments.

Be specific.   What, specifically, do you consider the "40 ton elephant in the room"?

Once again.....she could have chosen any number of ways to stand up to Trump that did not actively undermine the Republican Party.   She didn't.  

Yes, she chose to stand up to Trump.   Her constituents clearly found that unacceptable.

This is the bullshit dichotomy you seem determined to embrace.  You again ignore the elephant (pun intended, actually..... She could have stood up to Trump in any number of ways that would have helped the Republican Party instead of trying to damage it. 

Wow, you equate the actions of Trump to some merely unacceptable act of a neighbor and equate the actions of those calling Trump out to be equivalent to beating up a 10 year old kid and setting the neighbor's care on fire.

I simply illustrate that there are many options in life.    That's wholly inconvenient for this line of reasoning you're attempting to pursue, but it is true nonetheless.

It has seriously increased partisan divisiveness in our nation,

You must not have been paying attention before.

Trump has likely committed crimes and/or unconstitutional acts.

As luck would have it, we have people for that.  We have people whose whole job is to investigate those things.  Matter of fact, we have a whole massive government department full of these people.  You might have seen some of them in action at Mar A Lago recently.

Those people have the ability to bring charges.  Congressional committees simply have the ability to go on television and talk.  Now, I realize you like watching it, but it's just political theater, and like most political theater, the primary aim is to sway votes. Cheney lost her job because she joined that theater and is helping Pelosi attempt to sway votes against Republicans.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.61    one month ago
Trump "conceding" that the certification took place is NOT him conceding that Biden won the election. 

I know, why are you replying to me instead of Sunshine?

Trump does not recognize the legitimacy of the certification, ...

Clearly.   This is indisputable in terms of his public statements.

... which is just one of the things Sunshine doesnt get about this.

I would think 'refuses to get' is more accurate.

He can say that the result was certified without admitting he lost, and that is exactly what happened. 

I agree.   This should be obvious.   He can state an undeniable fact and refuse to admit that he lost.   And, as you note, that is what he did and continues to do.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.64  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.56    one month ago
And I have stated to you that acknowledging that the congressional certification process has completed is an undeniable fact.   That does not mean that Trump has acknowledged Biden as the legitimate winner of the election.

Well who is he saying Congress certified?  Himself?

You sound utterly ridiculous and unreasonable just because it is Trump.  

Trump blinders fully engaged

Again, he doesn't have to write it to appease to your stipulations.

But you will continue no doubt.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.62    one month ago
I didn't say I misunderstood it.  I said I rejected it.

So explain what part I got wrong based on what I have actually stated:

Cheney has a record of supporting Trump policies (since they were basic GoP policies), voting for Trump, and serving as the repeatedly re-elected congresswoman (by 73% on prior election) for Wyoming.

What part of this is wrong?   If you see nothing factually wrong then all you need do is recognize that I spoke of a time prior to the Big Lie where Cheney was clearly representing her constituents and then a time after the Big Lie where she clearly was not.   And in this part, Big Lie era, Cheney (as I pointed out) had risked her political positions within the GoP and was risking her reelection.

So, again, what part of the above is incorrect?  

She could have stood up to Trump in any number of ways that would have helped the Republican Party instead of trying to damage it. 

How do you help the GoP who is predominantly embracing Trump and his Big Lie while standing up to Trump?   Explain this magic act.

My guess is that you will state that Cheney should have stayed off of the Jan 6th committee.   Of course you recognize that the GoP had already blackballed her prior to the committee because she voted to impeach Trump and would not remain silent about his ongoing Big Lie allegations and all the shit it brought.   Well, Jack, my position is that the GoP is on the wrong side of truth.   And thus it is the GoP Trump supporters who have hurt the party.

You might find this extraordinary but I hold that partisan loyalty should never preempt truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.64    one month ago
Well who is he saying Congress certified?  Himself?

Faux obtuseness.

You sound utterly ridiculous and unreasonable just because it is Trump.  

Emotive language out of desperation.   Nobody is going to objectively read what I wrote in response to what you wrote and conclude I am the one who is being ridiculous.

Trump blinders fully engaged

Well said, look in the mirror and attempt to remove them from your face.

Again, he doesn't have to write it to appease to your stipulations.

Vague nonsense.


Given Trump publicly states that he might have to win the election for a third time, how do you not comprehend that means he holds he won the election in 2020?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.67  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.66    one month ago

          Faux obtuseness.

You are not capable of connecting that Congress certified Biden. It had to be pointed out to you. You needed help. Your welcomed.

  Nobody is going to objectively read what I wrote in response to what you wrote and conclude I am the one who is being ridiculous.

Oh they will.

Vague nonsense.

Very clear to those without Trump blinders.  Unless Trump said I lost the election or Biden won or whatever you are demanding, it isn't acceptable to you. It is your demands/stipulations.

Given Trump publicly states that he might have to win the election for a third time, how do you not comprehend that means he holds he won the election in 2020?

Your getting into the weeds again.  

Focus.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.67    one month ago
You are not capable of connecting that Congress certified Biden.

Sunshine, your allegations have gone so beyond ridiculous now I wonder how you cannot be mortified by your comments.

The congressional certification of the election is the formal process which designates the winner of the election.  It is not me who rejects that reality, it is Trump.   You do remember we are talking about Trump acknowledging that Biden is the legitimate PotUS, right?   Well, Sunshine, can you comprehend Trump acknowledging that the process has completed but NOT acknowledging that the process designated the true winner?   That is what he did.   Pay attention.

Now, as noted, when you put Trump's statements in the excerpt I gave you (where he refused to say the election is over) along with his past and then future statements where he deems that he was the true winner of the election, it should be clear to (really) anyone that Trump does not (at least publicly) acknowledge that Biden is the legitimate PotUS — that Biden legitimately won the election.

Again, just to be crystal clear, Trump acknowledging that the certification completed is NOT the same as Trump acknowledging that the certification was correct and that they certified the true winner.   Trump still declares himself the winner.   You do know this, right?

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.69  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.68    one month ago
Again, just to be crystal clear, Trump acknowledging that the certification completed is NOT the same as Trump acknowledging that the certification was correct and that they certified the true winner. 

Why?  Because you say so?  Too funny.  Who did they certify, the false winner?

Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.

The depths you reach to because you dislike Trump is truly amazing.

Mortified is not a strong enough word for your comments TG.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.69    one month ago
Who did they certify, the false winner?

No, they certified the true winner.   Biden legitimately won the 2020 election.   This fact is, at this point, indisputable.

The problem is that Trump, who you are trying to defend (poorly), refuses to publicly acknowledge that Biden legitimately got more electoral votes than he did and in so doing was properly elected and Trump properly was the loser.

Trump continues to maintain that he won the election.

You are aware of that, right?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.71  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.70    one month ago
, refuses to publicly acknowledge that Biden legitimately got more electoral votes than he did and in so doing was properly elected and Trump properly was the loser.

We call that doing a Clinton. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.72  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.59    one month ago

Yes I'm aware of what you're talking about. Did you notice the date on the article I linked?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
2.1.73  Gazoo  replied to  GregTx @2.1.72    one month ago

But that’s different, she has a “d” by her name.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.71    one month ago

That's wonderful, Sean.   Do you believe that Trump has publicly stated that Biden legitimately get more electoral votes than he?   That is what we are discussing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.75  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.74    one month ago

 Do you believe that Trump has publicly stated that Biden legitimately get more electoral votes than he?

Nope.  But I don't see how that's much different from claiming  an election was stolen and the certified winner is illegitimate.  Tomato Tomato. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.72    one month ago
Yes I'm aware of what you're talking about. Did you notice the date on the article I linked?

Why does it matter what Hillary says or when she says it?   We are talking about Trump.   Hillary does not have anything to do with Trump's dishonesty.

By the way, do you presume that I was or am a Hillary supporter?    Or do you presume that it matters to me which party has a candidate who falsely claims to have won the election?

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.77  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.76    one month ago

No I'm not presuming anything. Seems fairly obvious that one does not equate to the other in your opinion. As Sean said tomato tomahto

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.75    one month ago
Nope. 

Good.   So do you recognize that Trump continues to claim that he won the election?

But I don't see how that's much different from claiming  an election was stolen and the certified winner is illegitimate.

If Trump had publicly stated that Biden legitimately got more electoral votes than he did then he would be stating that, in his opinion, Biden did indeed win and he did indeed lost.   He has never done that.   All he has done was acknowledge that Congress has certified Biden to be the winner.    He refused to state that the election was over at that point and here we are approaching two years later and Trump still maintains that he won.

Trump is still stating that maybe he needs to win the election a third time.   Do you recognize how that is the same as claiming the election was stolen and that the certified winner is illegitimate?    Hint:   if Trump claims he won in 2020 that ipso facto claims Biden did not win and is illegitimate.   Add Trump's incessant cries of rigged and you have the 'elections was stolen' element.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @2.1.73    one month ago
But that’s different, she has a “d” by her name.

What does her party have to do with anything?   Truth does not care about party affiliation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.80  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.77    one month ago
... one does not equate to the other in your opinion ...

Be specific.   What do you think I am not equating and why do you think I should equate them?

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.81  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.80    one month ago

So the first loser still claiming the election was illegitimate isn't the same as the second loser claiming the same?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.82  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.78    one month ago
do you recognize that Trump continues to claim that he won the election?

Sure. 

Do you recognize how that is the same as claiming the election was stolen and that the certified winner is illegitimate?    

Of Course. That's my entire point. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.81    one month ago

See this is why I asked about your presumption.   You now presume that I would give Hillary a pass but not Trump.   You presume and then deflect.

Hillary has nothing to do with Trump.   If you want to seed the article about Hillary I will participate.   My position, FYI, is if Hillary is claiming that she is the legitimate winner of the 2016 election then she is as wrong (and loony) as Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.82    one month ago

So your 'main point' is to agree with what I have argued??

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.85  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.83    one month ago

I didn't presume anything nor deflect. Not sure if you noticed the ? at the end of my post but it was a query. Hilary and Trump are intertwined and always will be. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.86  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @2.1.85    one month ago

Greg, this thread is discussing Trump.   You enter and introduce Hillary.   That is deflection right off the bat.

Further, you pose a question that suggests you are summarizing my position:   "So the first loser still claiming the election was illegitimate isn't the same as the second loser claiming the same?".   Well that is NOT my position at all and I have not made any comment that even remotely implies this.

Hilary and Trump are intertwined and always will be. 

Not a great excuse for deflecting from Trump to Hillary.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
2.1.87  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.86    one month ago

Okay..

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.88  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.27    one month ago
We're talking about feelings again.  You're also pretending that people who issue death threats to law enforcement give a fiddler's fuck about what you or I think, and that us talking about our feelings is somehow going to influence theirs.  I don't know how you come to such a view, but you probably want to re-think that.  

The only paragraph i found worthy of a response to. If you think we are supposed to just lay down and accept, the fact that our country, yes, OUR Country JACK, is a divisive cut knife with serrated jagged edging a Sabre toothed Tiger Cat Lion about so damn much WE have ALL SEEN with hour own eyes that shut the timely opening of both our mouths, i cannot B leave you. I can sway opinions, best when i interact with peoples on an intimate one on one encounter, often. And iF you Can't, why the Hell are you on hear, if not to be herd, for you and eye can see how absurd that looks and sounds, when listened to seen.  4Saw in our country in two, too allow for the easier controls remotely found on that off chance i find the remote in a remote area where there are two moats. One for the remote chance that i sway another to see things my weigh, cause i would say i could see you doing the same, if you wanted an opine to sway, in quite the same way, yet via a different re moat, as our tact's would most likely be of different origin. And sorry, but you've failed to convince me that you "don't know how " i've come to such a view, because it is a view, that very few, do get to admire, due to not all can reach people, but i can see how you, with your crass brazen , attempted condescension, for if i forgot to mention, you of course believe you know best, perhaps, once in a while, realize we all know less than others about so many things, yet, when logic and critical thinking are applied, we can occasionally get to glide, on the thermals, under where there is Uber Lift to help others ascend and to acquire an ability to make others reach higher. 

   There is know doubt that if you attempted, YOU could via "talking about (our or possibly yours, as in ) feelings is somehow going to influence theirs" as in others, cause you are on hear to influence others, bottom line. And , it DOES matter to you, so WHY NOT attempt to sway possibly one of those who, in your words, give a fiddlers fuck about what you and i think, because many a fiddler lost their virginity after an encounter, and what happened at "Band Camp" blew US All away. Their are malleable Barbi and minds that Ken be swayed for good, and this is obvious to you, but guess your too cool to school people, where as i attempt to drive those capable of being enlightened, drive them to school, and on the way i enjoy getting my tongue stuck to the open window, cause people can be persuaded to not attempt to Kill and Threaten our LEO's, as it is Dependent on the degree of indoctrination.  Pretending to give a fiddlers fuck can pluck some strings pulled, and restore harmony, or, allow Harm on Many....so possibly, it is you, who may "probably want to re-think that." 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.89  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.88    one month ago
If you think we are supposed to just lay down and accept

I actually didn't say anything like that, but don't let that interrupt whatever you're doing.

 I can sway opinions, best when i interact with peoples on an intimate one on one encounter, often.

Reasonable people, sure.  How many reasonable people issue death threats?  To FBI agents?

There is know doubt that if you attempted, YOU could via "talking about (our or possibly yours, as in ) feelings is somehow going to influence theirs" as in others, cause you are on hear to influence others, bottom line.

Or...better yet... we might actually do something.

We could pass a law making death threats to federal agents a felony.  Oh wait.... they did that already.  Maybe we could simply enforce that law, track these fuckers down and lock them up.

This is the same difference we have over political theater, BTW.  You're quite happy to listen to people talk about how terrible Trump is.  I only care when people start to do something about it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.90  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.65    one month ago
If you see nothing factually wrong then all you need do is recognize that I spoke of a time prior to the Big Lie where Cheney was clearly representing her constituents and then a time after the Big Lie where she clearly was not

This is your first mention of her not representing her constituents.  Or maybe you've said it before and I missed it, in which case I apologize.

But yeah, I agree that she was a fine Republican Congresswoman...until she became a really terrible one. 

How do you help the GoP who is predominantly embracing Trump and his Big Lie while standing up to Trump?   Explain this magic act.

By rejecting Trump's nonsense and Pelosi's nonsense simultaneously, like over 100 of her other Republican colleagues, including Dan Crenshaw, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Ken Buck, Tony Gonzales and many, many more.

Odd that you describe something so common as "magic". 

My guess is that you will state that Cheney should have stayed off of the Jan 6th committee.

Not much of a guess.  211 Republicans in the House and only two were dumb enough to join Pelosi's squad.  Cheney is actively engaged in political theater designed to undermine Republican candidates as they seek office, and she is doing so at a juncture when moderate candidates will suffer the most. 

Once she did that, she became a "bad R"...to use your terminology... and her constituents let her know it.

So this implication that she is some sort of political martyr who was crucified because she held true to her ethics is an oversimplified bucket of nonsense.  There is a huge difference between maintaining your ethics and stabbing your allies in the back.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.91  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.90    one month ago
This is your first mention of her not representing her constituents. 

She represented her constituents since 2016 up to the point where she went against Trump;  at that point she demonstrably did not represent her constituents.   It was her turning against Trump that put her at odds with her constituents.   Joining the panel made things worse in that regard.

By rejecting Trump's nonsense and Pelosi's nonsense simultaneously, like over 100 of her other Republican colleagues, including Dan Crenshaw, John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell, Ken Buck, Tony Gonzales and many, many more.

We see this very differently.   To me, sitting back on the sidelines and not fighting against Trump's Big Lie and thus those who support same is not supporting the GoP — it is contributing to its ongoing disgrace.   I do not value holding party over truth or over what is right.   So I absolutely support Cheney's choice to risk (and wind up losing) her political position in the GoP and her seat to do the right thing and work to hold Trump accountable.   As I have noted several times, IMO the GoP has done wrong in supporting Trump and Cheney has done right is fighting that support.   That puts her at odds with her party but that is because the GoP has gone to the dark side.   She is right; they (the Trump supporters and toleraters) are wrong, IMO.

Cheney is actively engaged in political theater designed to undermine Republican candidates as they seek office, and she is doing so at a juncture when moderate candidates will suffer the most. 

Cheney is focused on Trump.   She is not going against the GoP (the actual GoP, not this bizarro GoP that supports Trump).   If her efforts  favor candidates who will not sell their souls to Trump and discredit candidates who continue to support Trump, his Big Lie, etc. then I applaud those efforts too.   Trump sycophants / Big Lie supporters will further pollute the GoP.   

Bottom line, I see the GoP as broken.   It is infected with the Trump parasite.   Those who seek to rid the GoP of said parasite are both serving the GoP and serving truth.   If that translates to some as going against her party then I applaud going against her party.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.92  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.90    one month ago
There is a huge difference between maintaining your ethics and stabbing your allies in the back.

It strikes me that you are inclined to support this form of political thuggery. Right?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.93  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.91    one month ago
She represented her constituents since 2016 up to the point where she went against Trump;  at that point she demonstrably did not represent her constituents.   It was her turning against Trump that put her at odds with her constituents.   Joining the panel made things worse in that regard.

She would have been fine if all she had done was "go against Trump" or "stand up to Trump".  Joining the panel was what killed her.  

To me, sitting back on the sidelines and not fighting against Trump's Big Lie and thus those who support same is not supporting the GoP — it is contributing to its ongoing disgrace.   I do not value holding party over truth or over what is right.

So publicly stating that Trump lost the election, voting to certify same, calling them "unproven allegations", or saying "These people have been lied to en masse by the millions" is somehow "holding party over truth".   That's just ridiculous.

You've said repeatedly that the hearings are biased and the committee is biased, but now you seem to assert that refusal to participate in Pelosi's political circus represents some sort of moral inferiority.

And that's where we disagree.  Refusal to participate in a massively biased political theatre does not make one morally deficient.  Neither does refusing to re-elect somebody who does participate.

Those who seek to rid the GoP of said parasite are both serving the GoP and serving truth.

If you think for a single minute that the Jan 6 hearings are about ridding the GOP of Trump, I have oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.  They seek to accomplish exactly the opposite and have no other purpose.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.94  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    one month ago
I would prefer more like Liz Cheney in the GoP yet the party continues to be infected with the MAGA (Trump) parasite.

Since he's no longer a part of the GoP she'll feel right at home with the MAMA party.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.95  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.93    one month ago

The president of the United States did nothing to end a riot inside the nation's capitol building, the home of the national legislature, seemingly because he wanted the riot to succeed in delaying or postponing the certification of his election opponent as winner to buy him time to continue and try and steal the election. 

Do you not think these facts should be investigated by congress?  The Republicans did not want to join the committee under the majority's terms. Should the investigation end because the Republicans wanted special consideration ? 

The "bias" in the committee is based on facts that we all see with our own eyes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.96  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.93    one month ago
She would have been fine if all she had done was "go against Trump" or "stand up to Trump". 

The facts suggest otherwise.   Look at the timeline:

Feb 6, 2021  Wyoming GoP censures Cheney because of her impeachment vote
May 12, 2021  Cheney removed from #3 leadership position in House
July 1, 2021  Cheney joins Jan 6th panel

Her vote to impeach Trump basically sealed her fate.   Her continued refusal to accept Trump's Big Lie just added to it.   She joined the Jan 6th panel after being blackballed by the GoP in Wyoming and in D.C.

So publicly stating that Trump lost the election, voting to certify same, calling them "unproven allegations", or saying "These people have been lied to en masse by the millions" is somehow "holding party over truth".   That's just ridiculous.

Yes that is ridiculous.   Maybe you should try rebutting what I wrote instead of creating your own scenario and attributing it to me.   My point was that NOT calling out Trump's Big Lie and —worse— giving credibility to his Big Lie and accepting endorsements from Trump is holding the party over truth.   In short, those who supported Trump (or remained silent) after the Big Lie so as to stay in good GoP standing were holding party over truth.

You've said repeatedly that the hearings are biased and the committee is biased, but now you seem to assert that refusal to participate in Pelosi's political circus represents some sort of moral inferiority.

Again you resort to putting words in my mouth.   The Jan 6th participation was simply a continuation of Cheney's determination to ensure that Trump never again has a chance to be PotUS.   My point has been that she has admirable integrity for choosing to fight Trump even though it cost her leadership position in the GoP and her standing among her constituents.    She had a lot to lose and she chose truth over her political positions.

If you think for a single minute that the Jan 6 hearings are about ridding the GOP of Trump, I have oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.  They seek to accomplish exactly the opposite and have no other purpose.

So your hypothesis is that the Jan 6th hearings are designed to encourage the GoP to rally around Trump;  to nominate him again?    That explains how you came to be owner of 'oceanfront' property in AZ.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.97  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.94    one month ago
Since he's no longer a part of the GoP she'll feel right at home with the MAMA party.

Would you prefer the GoP be populated with people who believe Trump's Big Lie (or sycophantically just allow it to fester) or by people with integrity who will not allows such outrageous and possibly criminal behavior within their own party?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.98  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.97    one month ago
Would you prefer the GoP be populated with people who believe Trump's Big Lie

Did that one result in 4 years of investigations like the "Russia Collusion" lie did that you seem to have "integrity"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.98    one month ago

Focus, Jeremy.   I asked a simple question and your response is a complete non sequitur.

It is always revealing when a simple, direct question is evaded.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.100  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.99    one month ago

I saw an NBC poll (I know, polls) that stated 41% of republicans would back trump over the republican party itself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.101  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @2.1.100    one month ago

Trump was elected against the will of the 2016 GoP establishment.    Thus those poll results are not surprising.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.102  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.99    one month ago

I am focused.  I'm not wearing the blinders you seem to wear.

Noticed you avoiding the question.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.102    one month ago

Would you prefer the GoP be populated with people who believe Trump's Big Lie (or sycophantically just allow it to fester) or by people with integrity who will not allows such outrageous and possibly criminal behavior within their own party?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.104  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.103    one month ago

Not re-typing my response.  See 2.1.98 .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.104    one month ago

We all can see that by twice refusing to answer my question you reveal that you would prefer politicians who support Trump's Big Lie over those with integrity.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.106  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.104    one month ago

Nice assumptions some folks are making.

Illogical at best, of course.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.107  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.105    one month ago

I ask for clarification.  YOU refuse to give it.  Give the clarification I ask for and I might answer.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.108  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.106    one month ago

They make some of the dumbest assumptions then get all pissy when you don't play their game.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @2    one month ago

I guess there weren't enough democrats in the beautiful state of Wyoming to screw around with the GOP primary.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago

Liz Cheney lost the Republican primary in Wyoming by 37 points, yet, should she run for president as an independent she will likely get many millions of votes. Who is out of step, Cheney or the yahoos in Wyoming who nominated a woman who says the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump?  This isnt even a close call. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago
Liz Cheney lost the Republican primary in Wyoming by 37 points,

And last time she won it by 73% all on her father's name.


 yet, should she run for president as an independent 

That will hurt democrats more than Republicans. That may have been the plan all along.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.3  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago

Oh, it's going to hurt republicans, because this kind of 'hit can only play itself out so far. Trump is skating on thin ice with the public by now. Look down around you, is your 'rink' thawing? Liz Cheney portends another 'wing' of republicans that have turned on the fool Donald Trump who tried to 'eat' more than he clearly can chew! Perhaps, the time has come for dog eat dog.

I hope the conventional GOP tears MAGA a 'new' one by November! It would be just desserts for all the harm done!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.3    one month ago

I hate to break it to you, but most Republicans have turned the page on Trump.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.5  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago

You don't hate anything. MAGA is Trump and you are MAGA. I don't trust anything irresponsible you write to us. Truth has an address. Find it and get on the right side of history.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
I hate to break it to you, but most Republicans have turned the page on Trump.

That is a delusional assessment. 

Trump is being urged to announce his 2024 candidacy now, which would be seen as striking while the irons are hot. A poll taken last week, after the Maralago raid, showed Trump with a huge lead over DeSantis as the choice for the Republican nomination. The part you miss, because you dont want to admit it, is that MAGA is a cult and Trump is the cult leader, and the cult leader almost always gets what he wants. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.5    one month ago
You don't hate anything.

That's kind of you to say.


 I don't trust anything irresponsible you write to us. 

That's why I refrain from making irresponsible statements.


Truth has an address.

It's at the base of the statue of The Thinker.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
2.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago
That will hurt democrats more than Republicans.

Like Ross Perot hurt them?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    one month ago
Trump is being urged to announce his 2024 candidacy now,

You would love that, right?


 A poll taken last week, after the Maralago raid, showed Trump with a huge lead over DeSantis as the choice for the Republican nomination. 

That poll would be meaningless, since it only measures emotions after that raid. I tried to tell all of you how bad that looked. Garland should have known better.


The part you miss, because you dont want to admit it, is that MAGA is a cult and Trump is the cult leader, and the cult leader almost always gets what he wants. 

The America First movement is here to stay. Trump was it's founder and now a martyr to it. DeSantis is the ROCK (to borrow a solemn phrase) that takes it forward!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.10  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    one month ago
The America First movement is here to stay. Trump was it's founder and now a martyr to it. DeSantis is the ROCK (to borrow a solemn phrase) that takes it forward!

The GOP squandered itself! And MAGA conservatives is a burnt out already? Why? Because lies and deceptions can only take an organization so far before the public sees the swindle. My advice to "America First movement" is to stop trying on new disguises. If it is MAGA 2.0 call it what it is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.2.8    one month ago

Think!

If you are a never Trump Republican you'd be voting democrat. Now they might get to vote for Cheney.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.10    one month ago

We are coming after the left!

Watch for it

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    one month ago

You are dreaming Vic. Trump is stuck to the bottom of your shoes like dog shit you stepped in . And keep stepping in.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.13    one month ago

You mean he is stuck in your mind.

You can't make it about him in November. What will you do then?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.11    one month ago

Its too early to tell, but a lot of Republicans who dont want Trump but still want a conservative president would vote for her. I'm not sure there are too many Democrats that would vote for her conservative agenda over a Joe Biden or another Democrat. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.11    one month ago

I just realized something: Last night Cheney didn't even have the decency to tell her supporters to now give their support to Hageman.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.15    one month ago
Its too early to tell, but a lot of Republicans who dont want Trump but still want a conservative president would vote for her.

Don't delude yourself. The current GOP will never support her. She had her father's name, which was once golden in Wyoming.


I'm not sure there are too many Democrats that would vote for her conservative agenda over a Joe Biden or another Democrat. 

That you happen to be correct on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    one month ago
You can't make it about him in November.

What are you talking about? First of all , Trump is already a major topic of the mid terms, since he has never gone away and represents the Republican Party and conservatism even as we speak. In part, and perhaps a large part, the mid terms will be a referendum on whether or not Trump should be in national politics. You had your chance to get rid of him over the past two years, but instead you kept praising him and defending him. 

Secondly, Trump isnt going anywhere. A number of his endorsed candidates won GOP primaries, will be on the ballot in November, and Trump will be in the forefront of promoting these nutcases throughout the election season, which has already started. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.16    one month ago
I just realized something: Last night Cheney didn't even have the decency to tell her supporters to now give their support to Hageman.

LOL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.18    one month ago
and perhaps a large part, the mid terms will be a referendum on whether or not Trump should be in national politics.

The midterms will be a referendum on Biden's policies (or should I say AOC's policies)


Secondly, Trump isnt going anywhere.

You mean he will continue to be a force in the Republican Party. That is true, but his 2024 bid for President is all but cooked and we have Democrats to thank for it.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.2.21  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.16    one month ago

“to now give their support to Hageman.”

She is a shoe-in. And just another coattail rider bringing absolutely nothing to the table, especially those that understand the public land debate.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.21    one month ago

She brings another House seat to the table.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.23  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.12    one month ago

MAGA is coming. MAGA is coming!  jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif   Be veeeery afraiddddd . jrSmiley_22_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.4    one month ago
I hate to break it to you, but most Republicans have turned the page on Trump.

Given the primary in context, it would seem that most Republicans in Wyoming believe Trump won the election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.24    one month ago

I think Hageman said it best:

"Wyoming House Republican nominee   Harriet Hageman   said the reason why she defeated Rep. Liz Cheney in the GOP primary on Tuesday was in part due to Cheney’s “obsession about President Trump” and lack of focus on Wyoming.

During   an interview   with Fox News host   Laura Ingraham   after   her primary win in Wyoming ,   Hageman said that while she hasn’t spoken to   Cheney since her defeat, she “wasn’t surprised” that Cheney vowed to keep   Trump   away from the White House in   her concession speech , noting that it was “in large part what got her defeated.”

“I have not had an opportunity to even see or hear what she had to say because I’ve been kind of focused on what’s going on here,” Hageman told Ingraham. “It doesn’t surprise me that she would revert to those same old talking points, because that’s really in large part what got her defeated.”

“She’s not focusing on Wyoming,” she added. “She’s not focusing on our issues. She’s still focusing on an obsession about President Trump. And the citizens of Wyoming, the voters of Wyoming sent a very loud message tonight. We have spoken. And that is not what we are interested in in terms of our lone congressional representative.”

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.25    one month ago

Hageman won because she aligned with Trump and supported the Big Lie.   That is clearly what the Wyoming Rs wanted to hear.   It is pathetic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.26    one month ago

That's your opinion. One could say Hageman won because she ran on issues. Other's might say that Cheney lost because she was picked by Pelosi and not McCarthy to sit on a partisan committee. Either way it's the end of a career that was based on the Cheney name.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.28  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.25    one month ago

Hageman is full of 'hit. What is with all the self-righteous lying? Just admit it. Trump will take credit for the win and throw all the other rhetoric in to a 'hitcan.  Moreover, for the record, standing up for the right investigation even when it cost you something deep, professional, and personal can be politically awkward. The needs of the republic called to Liz Cheney, Hageman took advantage of that one thing alone.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.28    one month ago

It turns out that she was thinking of running for president.

Didn't I tell all of you?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.30  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    one month ago
The America First movement is here to stay. Trump was it's founder and now a martyr to it. DeSantis is the ROCK (to borrow a solemn phrase) that takes it forward!

Trump didn't found anything.

He simply capitalized on it.

What so many dipshits don't realize is that making Trump go away does nothing to make that movement go away.  Cheney didn't lose because she opposed Trump.  She lost because she doesn't understand what her constituents want.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.31  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.29    one month ago

It turns out revenge "upward" is a thing best served cold. She wanted reelection. It is why she bothered to run for it. A presidential run if she undertakes it will be an alternative 'knee-capping' action. But, you know this already.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.32  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.30    one month ago
She lost because she doesn't understand what her constituents want.

True, they want election denial. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.33  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.30    one month ago

Jack_Tx that is a curious way of stating that what Wyoming wants is a lesser republic ran literally by yes men and women politicians.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago

Cheney has about ZERO chance at the Oval Office.

Pretending she does is just an exercise in wishful thinking, ignoring reality.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
2.2.35  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.22    one month ago
She brings another House seat to the table.

Another? That chair has existed since the Flood.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.30    one month ago
Trump didn't found anything. He simply capitalized on it.

That is partially true but not completely. Trump figured out a way to capitalize on white grievance, which was sitting there waiting for a national leader. The red MAGA hats and slogans, the rallies, the identification of the movement with one person at the top of the heap, were all brought to fruition by Donald Trump and his team (Bannon, Miller, Flynn, Giuliani, etc.) .  No one else did it prior to Trump. 

His appeal to white grievance as a political foundation was hardly an accident, he had been working on it since 2011 when he became king birther. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.33    one month ago

Why can you not just accept that voters in Wyoming voted how THEY chose, and live with that?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.38  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.27    one month ago

Or, we can just say Wyoming GOP has discounted and stepped on it's integrity this time. Ouch!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.39  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.37    one month ago

Why should anyone have to "live with" cult fanatics effecting national politics?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.38    one month ago
Or, we can just say Wyoming GOP has discounted it's integrity this time.

That is true, you can SAY whatever you want, and it doesn't even have to be true!

Of course, discerning readers can discount those false claims.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.41  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.37    one month ago

Do you have a problem with someone disagreeing with the Wyoming voters and engaging in discussion about same?

Do you think Hageman (yet another Big Lie supporter and Trump sycophant) is better for the GoP than a stand-up, ethics-driven individual whose voting record was solid GoP policy?

To wit, would you prefer the GoP have more Trump sycophants (who will actually support the Big Lie to get elected) in power or fewer?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.42  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.36    one month ago

Trump is the embodiment of 'white grievance.' The poor little big man who can't get enough love or shame to satiate his appetite-pleads his case over and over and over and over. . . ad nauseam.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.43  JohnRussell  replied to  CB @2.2.42    one month ago

"White grievance" is essentially a rejection of a multi-cultural society. White people have always "ruled" America , and there are those who are terrified what will happen to "their" tribe if they lose the power to rule. 

What is amazing is that there are so many people who deny this. 

Unfortunately for them, the multicultural society cannot be put off forever. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.44  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.39    one month ago
Why should anyone have to "live with" cult fanatics effecting national politics?

To my best knowledge, no one is forcing you to do one damn thing.

Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean squat.

Gee, you aren't about to try and overturn the results of an election, are you?

National politics?

Come ON, man! 

It is ONE House seat out of 435, and you think it is effecting national politics?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.44    one month ago
It is ONE House seat out of 435, and you think it is effecting national politics?

Of course, it was a referendum on Trump as the leader of the Republican Party. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.46  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.45    one month ago
Of course, it was a referendum on Trump as the leader of the Republican Party

Alert all the folks in Wyoming who just got through voting to see who would run in November for Representative for Congress.

Man, were they fooled, huh?

LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.43    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.48  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.43    one month ago

Such. . .people. . . literally stand to our virtual faces and in person to tell us: they will not allow diversity to take its proper place in our country. They have deluded themselves into believing a lie that whiteness is superior. Let me be clear. Black people generally respect white people. We could even respect MAGA were it to get off its toxic mission. We have 'ordealed' in this country together through hell and back!  Of course there are bad feelings for many - for some, but that is not enough for such. . . people. . . to persist in trying to chain the country to its colonial past for its 'duration.'

Let the diversity 'flag' fly free!  Some. . .people. . .trying to stop it from unfurling and flapping will be as futile as trying to blow out the sun!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.47    one month ago
"America has always been racist"

This is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you think not, please give one decade in American history in which racism was not a major issue in America. You have 24 decades to pick from. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.50  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.49    one month ago
You have 24 decades to pick from

Oh, gee, we aren't going to go back to 1619?

LMAO!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.51  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.50    one month ago

You are as bad at math as you are at making factual comments. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.36    one month ago
The red MAGA hats and slogans, the rallies, the identification of the movement with one person at the top of the heap, w

Swap the red hats for the Guevera shirts, and you have the Obama movement. 

s appeal to white grievance as a political foundation

"White grievance" that has increased minority support for the GOP and made the Democratic Party more white?  Sure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.53  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.51    one month ago
You are as bad at math as you are at making factual comments. 

Do I really need to explain the mundane to you again?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.54  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.52    one month ago
Swap the red hats for the Guevera shirts, and you have the Obama movement. 

Not even worth commenting on. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.55  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.53    one month ago

I'm not sure you can explain anything, mundane, profound, or imaginary. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.55    one month ago
I'm not sure you can explain anything, mundane, profound, or imaginary. 

I am sure I can explain.

I am not sure you would understand, but hey, that's not really MY problem, now is it?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.57  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.5    one month ago
I don't trust anything irresponsible you write to us.

I don't expect to understand much of what you write to us. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.52    one month ago
"White grievance" that has increased minority support for the GOP and made the Democratic Party more white?  Sure.

Hey, some folks don't believe their own eyes when they see stats proving your claim.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.59  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.52    one month ago

You've never proven any of the bullshit you've posted.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.51    one month ago
You are as bad at math as you are at making factual comments.

Haven't there been 40 decades since 1619, not 24?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.61  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.60    one month ago
Haven't there been 40 decades since 1619, not 24?

You are obviously not well-versed in progressive new math!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.62  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.60    one month ago
Haven't there been 40 decades since 1619, not 24?

and ? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.63  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.39    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.64  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.6    one month ago

The 'new abnormal' cult of 45

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.65  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.64    one month ago

299966422_434335235394369_9060299535199426192_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=mIhEwb0FDOwAX8Usxh_&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8Jt13i4-AKiywtBg-fAfPkmHrtF9rt5ULTIVP9uvLuPQ&oe=6301F13B

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.66  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.36    one month ago
hat is partially true but not completely. Trump figured out a way to capitalize on white grievance, which was sitting there waiting for a national leader.

By which you mean "working class" grievance.  But it sounds much better if you can accuse everybody who disagrees with you of racism.  

No one else did it prior to Trump. 

Except Clinton.  And Reagan.  And Goldwater.  And others before them dating back to 1940.

It's much easier to pretend that Donald Trump has duped a bunch of redneck racists than it is to actually invest the intellectual effort to try and understand why they might actually have reason to be upset.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.67  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.39    one month ago
Why should anyone have to "live with" cult fanatics effecting national politics?

The galactic level of irony in this statement........

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.68  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.65    one month ago

Whose words are you quoting now?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.65    one month ago

"Someone else's quote - how profound - NOT."

Seems like your own words coming home to roost!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.70  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.67    one month ago

Your comment to me is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.71  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.33    one month ago
Jack_Tx that is a curious way of stating that what Wyoming wants is a lesser republic ran literally by yes men and women politicians.

And you have a curious way of reading exactly what isn't even there.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.66    one month ago
It's much easier to pretend that Donald Trump has duped a bunch of redneck racists than it is to actually invest the intellectual effort to try and understand why they might actually have reason to be upset.

Trump hasnt sought, throughout his political career, to exploit class differences, he has sought to exploit racial differences. 

Donald Trump retweeted about a dozen white supremacists during his 2016 campaign. I guess you think that was an accident.  The real kicker though was Trumps reference to "shithole countries" , the ones he named all being countries populated by people of color, and his spoken out loud daydream wish that we would have more immigrants from a place like Norway. 

You seem to not have a clue. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.2.73  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.72    one month ago
The real kicker though was Trumps reference to "shithole countries"

Were they "Not "Shitholes" that no one would want to live in ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.74  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.70    one month ago
Your comment to me is ridiculous. 

Again with the irony....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.75  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.57    one month ago

Sorry, maybe you have a disability.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.76  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.72    one month ago
The real kicker though was Trumps reference to "shithole countries"

Are those the same countries where many immigrants are coming from?

The same countries where Harris was supposed to be working on the root causes?

The same immigrants we are supposed to throw open the doors for as they seek 'asylum' because their home countries are just so freaking wonderful?

Okey-dokie then.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.77  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.72    one month ago
Trump hasnt sought, throughout his political career, to exploit class differences, he has sought to exploit racial differences.

You have simply not paid attention.  Which is hilarious, considering how much of your time this man dominates. 

Donald Trump retweeted about a dozen white supremacists during his 2016 campaign. I guess you think that was an accident.

I'm sorry... "retweeting" is now significant?  Are you listening to yourself?  

  The real kicker though was Trumps reference to "shithole countries" , the ones he named all being countries populated by people of color, and his spoken out loud daydream wish that we would have more immigrants from a place like Norway. 

Riiiight.  Because there aren't any other factors involved there.... like education level, skill level, what people can contribute to a country and its economy...anything like that.  It was all only about color... *eyeroll*

There was an interesting piece on NBC.com shortly after Trump made that comment.  It was a photo-essay demostrating how wonderful a country Haiti was.  One of the photos was a lovely little 10 yr old Haitian girl walking over a puddle of raw sewage in the street on her way to school.  So Haiti actually is...literally.... a shithole country after all.

They took the piece down shortly after people started pointing that out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.78  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.77    one month ago
I'm sorry... "retweeting" is now significant?  Are you listening to yourself?  

For someone who often bragged about his presence on twitter and used it as his main means of communication of course it is significant. You dont seem to know much about this guy.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.79  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.71    one month ago

And you have a curious way of writing vapidly, yet with intent. :)

(Since it won't go away-pack sand its cavity some say.)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.2.80  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.78    one month ago
For someone who often bragged about his presence on twitter and used it as his main means of communication of course it is significant. You dont seem to know much about this guy.

You are imagining that Donald Trump..... we're talking about Dooonaaaald Truuuuump... actually thought long enough about shit coming out of his Twitter account to understand the in depth history of the origins of what he retweeted.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.81  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.79    one month ago
And you have a curious way of writing vapidly, yet with intent.

Maybe I do, but I never invent words and put them in others' mouths.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.82  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.79    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.83  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.82    one month ago

Sure! (Since it won't go away-pack sand in its cavity some say.)

Best I intend to do. It should be sufficiently understandable now. If not, don't let it worry you. Move on. I have already.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.84  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.83    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.85  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.83    one month ago
Move on. I have already.

Good advice for anyone trying to understand your comments.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.86  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.84    one month ago

I would ask you to explain why you writes so vapidly; but I am a grown-up and while a child my family raised me not to be petty. In the future, if you see a missing connecting word left out of a comment, insert it and avert the 'crisis.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.87  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.86    one month ago
I would ask you to explain why you writes so vapidly; but I am a grown-up and while a child my family raised me not to be petty. In the future, if you see a missing connecting word left out of a comment, insert it and avert the 'crisis.'

I will never, ever writes like that!

In the future, check your posts.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.88  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.85    one month ago

For all the good it does to have you read anything I write, you could just pass on it. It would not bother me in the least! Of course, that would require some self-discipline which is not in abundance in some.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.89  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.88    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.90  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.87    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.91  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.88    one month ago
Of course, that would require some self-discipline which is not in abundance in some.

Self-reflection is good for the soul.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.92  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.90    one month ago
As I knew it would. . . here comes irksome and diluting of the 'content' of this article recklessly.

Are you taunting me about my language skills now?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.93  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.84    one month ago

Since it is so HARD for certain site instigators to figure out my writing style, let me elaborate on it ever so briefly: Besides writing fast, tired, and distracted, at times, I ALSO write leaving some meaning to the imagination. It is my effort/s to avoid the mandatory site censorship. I hope that helps the "instigators" who really don't have any other message or reason to be here but to nag, nit-pick, and harass democrats and independents. Oh! Did I leave out MAGA conservatives there . . why yes, I did.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.94  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.93    one month ago
Besides writing fast, tired, and distracted, at times, I ALSO write leaving some meaning to the imagination. It is my effort/s to avoid the mandatory site censorship.

Thanks CB, that really clarified it for me.  Leaving your meaning to our imagination is a clever step.  Do you mean to use MAGA as a noun, adjective and a adverb, whatever works for you at the time?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.95  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.93    one month ago

As good of excuses as any, I guess.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.96  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.95    one month ago

Well, at the least, when in doubt or need -you can blame the 'excuse.' jrSmiley_41_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.97  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.2.96    one month ago
Well, at the least, when in doubt or need -you can blame the 'excuse.'

Sure, whatever.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.98  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.92    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.99  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.98    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.2.100  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.99    one month ago

Dangling participles. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.101  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @2.2.100    one month ago
Dangling participles. 

Inane idiocy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

Vic, do you consider this good for the GoP or bad for the GoP?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

Neither.

It is a real bad sign for democrats and it is more about Biden's policies than anything else.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago
Neither

The non-answer I expected to read from you.

From your comments in this seed it is obvious that you are pleased that Cheney lost.   Your comments are decidedly anti-Cheney and pro-Hageman — a Trump sycophant who insists Trump won the election.   Your comments suggest that you prefer a dishonest Trump sycophant to a stand-up, gutsy, truthful woman of integrity.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4  Tacos!    one month ago

The race to partisan extremism continues. Imagine a politician as conservative as Liz Cheney, and with her political pedigree, losing a Republican primary in Wyoming. Because she had the integrity to hold her own side accountable, she gets voted out. Hope you’re proud of yourselves, Wyoming.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

We will have to wait until November on Alaska and the fate of Lisa Murkowski. She advances along with 3 others including her main challenger Kelly Tshibaka. Alaska now has that crazy  ranked choice voting system. That would really be an interesting one.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

299183918_5398423593552133_6605943725157577008_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=1D04vd7-82AAX9sOcPy&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8vOyXmHdJq2RmeTDKKFjPHrhHkPNzEAumG7ZBXUCvi4w&oe=6302D5B9

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
4.1.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

1.3.8  Tessylo That's a Lie !

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2  Sunshine  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago
Hope you’re proud of yourselves, Wyoming.

I think they are.  Jan 6th hearings are the usual showboating from Congressional Democrats.  Cheney decided to join in on it and the voters told her what they thought of that yesterday.  She is not a martyr or a hero. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @4.2    one month ago
Jan 6th hearings are the usual showboating from Congressional Democrats. 

The testimony about Trumps actions in and around Jan 6 was devastating and disturbing. Your denial of that reality not withstanding. 

Most of the people who testified were Trump supporters who worked in or around the White House , had regular contact with Trump, but grew disillusioned with his conduct following the election. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    one month ago

Your denial that no one cares about Trump is disturbing to say the least.  [Deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.3  CB   replied to  Sunshine @4.2.2    one month ago

Examine your own judgements. And I would suggest you not question anybody's reasoning, before you get clear on what you are politically backing.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.5  Sunshine  replied to  CB @4.2.3    one month ago
And I would suggest you not question anybody's reasoning,

The evidence is posted daily.  There is nothing to question.

before you get clear on what you are politically backing.

Crystal clear CB.  I suggest you take up your own advice that you like to spew.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.2    one month ago
Your denial that no one cares about Trump

What nonsense. Trump is the leader of the Republican Party TODAY. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.2.7  CB   replied to  Sunshine @4.2.5    one month ago

I will take that under real and close reflection.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.2.8  afrayedknot  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    one month ago

“Trump is the leader of the Republican Party TODAY. “

Indubitably…to their inevitable extinction.

To follow, to swallow, to ingest, and to regurgitate the bile is to ensure the end of the party as we know it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @4.2.8    one month ago
Indubitably…to their inevitable extinction. To follow, to swallow, to ingest, and to regurgitate the bile is to ensure the end of the party as we know it. 

Gee, we have been subjected to "the end of the GOP" since at least 2008.

And yet, here it still is, instilling fear in liberals.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.2.10  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.9    one month ago

Begging the question, just what about today’s gop do you defend?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @4.2.10    one month ago
Begging the question, just what about today’s gop do you defend?

Sorry, I don't feel the GOP needs defending from liberals.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.12  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    one month ago
What nonsense. Trump is the leader of the Republican Party TODAY. 

You do know that just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Exactly what decisions and policies is Trump making for the Republican party TODAY!

Do tell and be specific.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.2.13  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.11    one month ago

“Sorry, I don't feel the GOP needs defending from liberals.”

Interesting take, given the uncivil war brewing amongst your ranks. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @4.2.13    one month ago
Interesting take, given the uncivil war brewing amongst your ranks. 

Sounds much like the nonsense about the GOP dying.

Hilarious!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.2.15  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.14    one month ago

“Hilarious!”

The only thing more inane than your replies is the predictability. Should you ever cramp up, just let anyone know and a response could be easily offered up with your name all over it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @4.2.15    one month ago
The only thing more inane than your replies is the predictability. Should you ever cramp up, just let anyone know and a response could be offered up with your name all over it. 

Looks like I struck a nerve!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Sunshine @4.2    one month ago
Cheney decided to join in on it

Arbitrarily? Or maybe just to spite Republicans? No. She did it because she thought it was the right thing to do. In every other way, she is a perfectly good Republican. But Republicans have done the thing they always whine and complain about: They canceled her because they disagree with her on this one thing.

She called a spade a spade and got fired for it. People who don’t want to hear the truth - that Trump lost the election fair and square, and encouraged people to disrupt the legal process of transition - voted against her for speaking the truth. Cowards.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.18  Sunshine  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.17    one month ago
They canceled her because they disagree with her on this one thing.

I doubt that.  Her opponent received around 66% of the primary vote.  It may have been the driving factor for some, but not that many care about Trump. 

She called a spade a spade and got fired for it. 

She could have done that without joining in and being a part of the propaganda hearings. Doubt you really believe that the hearings have been bipartisan or a fair representation of the truth.  Not only did she want to be part of it she wanted a lead position.  Well, when you lay down with pigs.......

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.19  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.16    one month ago
Looks like I struck a nerve!

It's very easy for the constantly triggered.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
4.2.20  Tacos!  replied to  Sunshine @4.2.18    one month ago
I doubt that.  Her opponent received around 66% of the primary vote.  It may have been the driving factor for some, but not that many care about Trump. 

This poll doesn’t directly address motivation, but where voters stood on the issue seems pretty clear.

Of those likely voters who support Hageman in this primary, only 16 percent believe that Joe Biden’s election as president was legitimate, compared to 94 percent of Cheney supporters. Some 72 percent of Hageman supporters in the GOP primary say there is solid evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, while 3 percent of Cheney supporters say the same. When considering how closely likely primary voters have been watching the Jan. 6House Select Committee hearings, 83 percent of Cheney supporters say they have been following very closely or somewhat closely. Alternatively, 57 percent of Hageman supporters say they have been following not too closely or not closely at all.  

But Cheney’s willingness to hold Trump accountable has made her public enemy #1 among Wyoming Republicans for a while now. The party censured her for voting to impeach Trump. A censure is usually reserved for some kind of bad behavior, but here it was just because they didn’t like they way she voted. Additionally, the party has been giving her no support, like they usually would. All because she won’t cut Trump any slack.

Doubt you really believe that the hearings have been bipartisan or a fair representation of the truth.

I think the hearings are certainly not above criticism, and I have criticized them for certain reasons. Still, I applaud Cheney’s willingness to hold the leader of her party accountable. Far too much corruption happens in our society because powerful people can influence others to remain silent, or cover for them. Even if you think Cheney is wrong, she deserves respect for what she has done.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
4.2.21  Sunshine  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.20    one month ago
the party has been giving her no support, like they usually would. All because she won’t cut Trump any slack.

Hardly the case.

The Jan. 6 Select Committee is investigating an event that has already been investigated by federal law enforcement. The FBI – which seized banking, phone, social media, and geolocation records from the more than 700 people they arrested and charged – found no evidence of any central coordination or organization. Moreover, investigations demanded by Democratic House members into Republican House members, conducted by both the inspector general of the Capitol Police and the Government Accountability Office, have turned up nothing.

Does she really expect Republicans to vote for someone who is throwing her own colleagues under the bus with no evidence?

     she deserves respect for what she has done.

Good grief, whatever respect she had she lost because she decided power was more important.