“Inflammatory.”
Well if you believe that, then you cannot believe this impeachment is “dangerous”.
Because one thing following the other leads to the one conclusion. Two contradictory things cannot follow to a conclusion of any sort. A sitting President who inflames people to physically riot is by definition a High Crime. So if you say he inflamed a crowd to riot, then impeachment is not dangerous, but would be the necessary conclusion.
But you contradict its necessity by claiming the logical conclusion is not a necessity, but is instead “dangerous”. How can the required conclusion of your stated “fact” be dangerous?
So either you are caught in intellectual cowardice and your integrity is now compromised or —
Yeah. You cucked. Tired of standing alone in your circles where people you consider peers morally shame you. So you cucked.
Who the hell is threatening Hawley? Does this have to do with committee assignments? There's no way every Senator/Congressman believes this shit. No one here had a problem with DJT's rhetoric; in fact, most people thought he should have made a much, much stronger statement.
Hawley has plenty of balls. Just because he said one thing critical of Trump, followed immediately by something much more important, you guys pack up your shit and are ready to forget him. That’s stupid. And very unserious.
The fact is: Trump did not say anything inflammatory that day. He called for a peaceful march. In fact, a very large majority of people that broke into (or were let into) the Capitol didn't even hear his speech. Hawley needs to explain his reasoning and not just make one statement after another.
Seriously, Hawley, go find your balls again, you left them somewhere.
Hawley was always fake. Another Gowdy. The Deep State sends up these fucks to attract us with red meat rhetoric. They aren't on our side.
“Inflammatory.” Well if you believe that, then you cannot believe this impeachment is “dangerous”. Because one thing following the other leads to the one conclusion. Two contradictory things cannot follow to a conclusion of any sort. A sitting President who inflames people to physically riot is by definition a High Crime. So if you say he inflamed a crowd to riot, then impeachment is not dangerous, but would be the necessary conclusion.
But you contradict its necessity by claiming the logical conclusion is not a necessity, but is instead “dangerous”. How can the required conclusion of your stated “fact” be dangerous?
So either you are caught in intellectual cowardice and your integrity is now compromised or —
Yeah. You cucked. Tired of standing alone in your circles where people you consider peers morally shame you. So you cucked.
No heroes boys. None.
I think the sky is blue. But then it gets dark and I think that's really dangerous.
Who the hell is threatening Hawley? Does this have to do with committee assignments? There's no way every Senator/Congressman believes this shit. No one here had a problem with DJT's rhetoric; in fact, most people thought he should have made a much, much stronger statement.
We The People know Re Elected in a landslide, peaceful assembly was interrupted by Nasty Pigolsi's paid goons.
You're quoting someone from the WSJ. Maybe he said it, maybe he didn't. But I certainly would NOT take Lindsay Wise's word for it.
As I have been saying...Never , ever trust a politician. Not even one. They are not our fiends, not our representatives and not our allies.
Dont buy into their plan "MAGA without Trump" .
They're all fucking scum bag controlled opposition.
I've lost all interest in politicians of any supposed team. It's even less interesting than NFL now.
Inflammatory is an interesting way to describe telling the truth.
Hawley has plenty of balls. Just because he said one thing critical of Trump, followed immediately by something much more important, you guys pack up your shit and are ready to forget him. That’s stupid. And very unserious.
The fact is: Trump did not say anything inflammatory that day. He called for a peaceful march. In fact, a very large majority of people that broke into (or were let into) the Capitol didn't even hear his speech. Hawley needs to explain his reasoning and not just make one statement after another.