Agreed. And if they try to pull a J6 in 2025, they're going to find out what the government does to insurrectionists when they don't have an idiot in the whitehouse putting their thumb on the scale.
We already had one (failed) business man attempt to run the country like a business, and it was awful. We don't need a different business man to fuck up in similar but different ways doing the same thing ...
Interesting. I haven't made it very far into the actual indictment this evening (reading legal docs when inebriated is not recommended), but I appreciate the info!
This isnt a pro work speech- im just saying that any productivity gains benefit the business not the employee.
I've had very good luck in the last few years of intentionally sandbagging my work output to make sure I don't get additional work hucked on me if I can avoid it. I still have decent output based on feedback from my peers and management, but I know for a fact that I'm only working like half as hard as I could at work.
Everything short of admitting to whatever dumb bullshit the conservatives are vomiting up today is a cover up or attempt to get in the way of them wasting money on something with less behind it than Benghazi.
Or he could say "I will not vote for trump if he's the Republican nominee" if he wasn't a coward. Deflecting away from the question might as well answer it in the affirmative. As is, he's just pussyfooting around saying he won't vote for the guy who encouraged the mob that wanted to hang him, so anything less than condemnation might as well be tacit consent...
Why are most mainstream Republicans such abject fucking cowards? I would think that mother would have told Mikey he's not allowed to vote for the guy who ginned up a mob to shout they wanted to hang him, but apparently he'd rather swing than admit his former boss is a monster.
I'd love to find more than one republican with a spine not made out of jello...
The funny thing about free speech is that naming who is part of a hate group can likely be argued as free speech moreso than "whaaah, we got fired for the awful shit we said", given that it's called freedom of speech and not freedom from the consequences of my speech. Doubly so when you're talking about consequences brought about by a private organization/not the government. After all, their place of employment has freedom of speech rights too, as well as the ability to choose who they associate with.
Extremes are untenable. There has to be a compromise at some point.
I don't know what rock you've been under the last couple of decades, but the democratic party has been trying to compromise with the republican party, and only ever gets fucked over for doing so. "Compromise" on the right effectively means 'fuck you, you're voting for what I want or nothing at all', and even then they'll still vote against the compromise.
I want compromises too, but both sides have to be willing to come to the table in good faith, and the republican party hasn't had good faith available since bush, possibly before then
This is still early in the process, so there may be a superceding indictment that includes that as well. But at this point, I think they're trying to go for the easy to prove shit to help flip his cronies so they can get an airtight case on it.
Because they think they are smarter than the rubes who already got duped, are sure they're one of the 'good ones' in trumps eyes and won't get fucked over, or want to be a name in the right wing grift and are rolling the dice on coming out ahead once they can ebeg to all the rubes who support these chucklefucks.