Trump insinuates using rifles to fire on Liz Cheney

and the vile attacks by the left are encouraging these attempts

 

Well, let's look at her resume:

Kamala Harris has built a career across multiple branches of government and levels of public service, bringing a range of experiences that contribute to her qualifications for the presidency:

1. District Attorney of San Francisco (2004-2011): Harris became the first woman and the first person of color to serve as San Francisco’s district attorney. She launched programs to address recidivism, sought reforms to prevent unjust prosecution, and prioritized community-centered policing strategies. Her tenure focused on reforms like diversion programs for first-time offenders.
   
2. Attorney General of California (2011-2017): As California's attorney general, Harris was the first woman and person of color in this role. She managed one of the largest legal departments in the country, overseeing cases that spanned from environmental policy to consumer protection, criminal justice reform, and civil rights issues. Notably, she pushed for a national foreclosure settlement that secured billions for Californians affected by the 2008 financial crisis and fought for fairer mortgage practices.
   
3. U.S. Senator from California (2017-2021): Harris served on key Senate committees, including the Judiciary, Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Budget Committees. Her work in the Senate was marked by advocacy for healthcare reform, environmental protections, criminal justice reform, immigration, and worker rights. Known for her incisive questioning during committee hearings, she focused on holding officials accountable, especially on issues of civil rights and government transparency.
   
4. Vice President of the United States (2021-present): Harris made history as the first woman, first Black person, and first South Asian to serve as vice president. She has played a role in addressing key national and international issues, including leading efforts on voting rights, immigration reform, and initiatives to address the root causes of migration from Central America. She also works on economic policy, national security, and public health, complementing the administration’s broader goals and being positioned to step into presidential responsibilities if necessary.
   

Through her legal, legislative, and executive roles, Harris has built a deep understanding of national and international issues, and she has shown a commitment to addressing systemic inequality and advocating for marginalized communities. This experience collectively forms a strong foundation for the responsibilities of the presidency.

 

All of that will die on appeal because it is all nonsense. And E,Jean Carroll is a demonmstrable nut bar whose story was purloined from law and order and has publicly fantasized about being raped. She is basically as credible as the old lady in the Clint Eastwood movie from decades ago who sat in the anteroom of the police precinct accussing every man that walked by of raping her.

 

See #252

 

Third rate law student took two tries to pass the bar slept her way to the top.

 

Dream on.

You can choose to ignore the facts, Trump fans often do.

No me.

As for Carroll....
'
She isn’t some “nut bar” who concocted a story out of thin air or pulled it from the nearest TV episode. We’re talking about a respected journalist, a former Elle magazine columnist, a woman who built a career on credibility and sharp, insightful writing. Yet here we are, hearing desperate smears and ludicrous claims that she somehow “fantasized” about being raped. Let’s get one thing straight: the facts obliterate this nonsense. Trump bragged about the very thing he as adjudicated for having committed, he's made numerous misogynistic comments about women.

First, Carroll’s story doesn’t need Hollywood fiction. The assault she described, in graphic detail, happened in the mid-1990s. The supposed “Law & Order” episode didn’t air until 2012. This wasn’t “borrowed” from TV -- it was her experience, backed up by two friends she confided in at the time. So, no, there’s no “purloining” of plots, no fictionalizing her account to fit a convenient narrative.

Then there’s this mischaracterization that she somehow “fantasized” about rape. Let’s set the record straight: Carroll has long argued for a reexamination of the way we talk about sexual assault. She spoke satirically to highlight the absurdity of society’s views on sexual violence. Her words were twisted to make it seem as though she welcomed an attack -- when the truth is, she’s been working to dismantle the kind of harmful thinking that normalizes such violence.

And let’s not forget what actually happened when her case went to court: a jury of ordinary citizens found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. That’s a court decision, folks, not a tabloid headline. A jury looked at the evidence, weighed her credibility, and ruled in her favor, awarding her damages. That’s what happened when her story was examined under the full force of the law, not in the court of public opinion.

So enough with the smears. Carroll’s allegations are backed by contemporaneous witnesses and a court ruling. To reduce her account to some “fantasy” or “borrowed” story is a desperate attempt to discredit a credible woman. The facts speak for themselves -- and they’re louder than the noise.

 

Did anyone catch this most recent of Trump's rally statements. He is giving the go ahead for somebody to shoot thru the fake news media. He does not "mind that."

TRUMP: "I have this piece of glass here, but all we really have over here is the fake news, right?" The crowd laughed. "And, to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news, and I don't mind that so much. I don't mind. I don't mind that."

Trump Says ‘I Don't Mind' if the Media Gets Shot

Also, he fantasizes having 9 marksmen in his firing squad, and aiming not at Cheney's heart, as such an execution is usually done. His hatred is so great for his "enemy from within" that he prefers that HIS fantasy firing squad should train on her FACE, to obliterate her face. That is your candidate Fuhrer for president!

 

She would have to face those same rifles that she is willing to send our fighting men up against.

 

It is still hearsay.

 

Then it is also OK to mention that was very common during the Vietnam war. If people could find any excuse for a deferment, they took it. I gave up condemning them for their actions a long time ago.

 

Just like much else I told you. Such actions were common during that very unpopular war. A useless war that wasted over 50,000 of our finest and trillions of dollars.

 

Which is irrelevant to Trump's hypocrisy.

I'm not condemning the legal avoidance of a war one disagrees with.

 

we're not in court, kriman, we're entitled to make reasonable opinions given the facts.

Given the facts, the opinion is reasonable. in that light, 'hearsay' isn't a compelling counter argument.

 

Tell that to Trump,, who ordered a military op the first week he was in office which resulted in the death of a navy seal.

Not only that, she was never president. Unlike Trump she didn't order anyone to die in a war or military op, she, like many in congress, Bush, with Colin Powell's credibility paraded in front of a TV screen with alleged 'evidence', bamboozled a lot of folks.,

Unlike Trump, she is not a hypocrite.

 

It isn't common for a politician to admit not knowing something. I like that. Kamala said this "Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action." I wonder what reasonable gun safety laws are that we don't already have. Actually it takes no courage to add to the thousands of gun laws we have. It takes opposition to the second amendment.

 

AND New York LITERALLY created the law out of whole cloth to allow a 1 year window for her to create a story from ???????? years ago… she herself did not know what year it happened.

 

Tulsi Gabbard gave up her local political career in Hawaii to join the Hawaii National Guard after 9/11. She served in Iraq during the war in a medical unit. She is now a Lt Col in the Army. She has served as a member of Congress. She has had the courage to serve in the Army in a combat zone, and she has had the courage to think independently, in spite of blistering politically inspired lies about her as a consequence of that courage. She cares deeply about our country. She has given her entire adult life to public service. Lots of politicians claim they love our country. Lots of politicians claim that they're patriotic. Most of them are lying. Very few prove it by their example, and she is one of the few. I don't think she is irrelevant now, and don't think she will be irrelevant in the future.

One of the constant, recurring themes in her speeches is that we are all Americans, all deserving of respect in spite of our differences.

And yet, you insult this patriotic American just like Hillary Clinton did. She changed parties to Republican. But she didn't desert the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party vilified her, and lied about her, and deserted her because she wouldn't tow the line on Hillary's war in Syria. And she was right about Syria all along. Everybody knows that. It's not even debatable.

And by the way, my admiration for her didn't just begin when she changed parties recently. I first noticed her back in 2016, and I've been following her ever since. I voted for her for President in the 2020 Democratic primary election in my state, so you can forget about thinking my words are coming from a Republican partisan.

Have a nice day.

 

Not at all. It was common practice.

 

Your entire premise hinges on the flimsy notion that Trump’s four-year record of “no declared wars” is proof he’s a pacifist. That’s not evidence he won’t start a war in the future -- if anything, it shows he’s more likely to appease dictators like Putin, giving Ukraine away without a fight. The strategic damage would be catastrophic -- not just for Ukraine, but for the global balance of power. Trump slow-walked sanctions, fawned over Putin, and clearly envied his absolute power.

And as for Trump’s claim that he could “end the war instantly,” it’s absurd. This isn’t a reality show where he snaps his fingers and centuries-old conflicts vanish. The only “solution” he’s hinted at would involve selling Ukraine out -- handing over territory and lives to appease Putin. That’s not peace; it’s surrender.

Trump’s version of “peace” is capitulation disguised as diplomacy -- a quick fix that leaves Ukraine defenseless, Russia emboldened, and the rest of the world scrambling to contain the fallout. Hand over Ukraine, and you’re telling every despot from Xi Jinping to Kim Jong-un that the playbook is simple: use force, spread lies, wait for America to blink -- and take what you want. And when we find ourselves paying the price for that blink, it won’t be Trump footing the bill. It’ll be U.S. taxpayers, American soldiers, and every citizen of every nation who counted on America to stand for something more than petty deals with dictators.

So no, Trump can’t “end” the war instantly. What he’s offering is a shortcut to disaster, a fantasy of “instant solutions” that leaves the world more dangerous, not safer. It’s not only absurd; it’s dangerous. And anyone who buys it needs a hard dose of reality before it’s too late.

Let’s be clear: crediting Trump with “not starting a new war” is no stroke of genius -- it ignores the chaos he left behind. Avoiding Tehran and Pyongyang didn’t make him a visionary; it showed his erratic, isolationist policies left allies disillusioned and adversaries bolder. His “America First” retreat wasn’t peace; it was abdication.

And as for the “propaganda” of Trump triggering WWIII -- that fear didn’t emerge from nowhere. His erratic foreign policy -- a cycle of Twitter tough talk followed by baffling diplomacy -- kept the world in suspense. The U.S. avoided direct conflict not because Trump was a peacekeeper but because others restrained him or cleaned up his mess.

As for Trump “keeping you safe” from a hypothetical war he didn’t start? Fine, if that’s the low bar you want to set. But let’s not pretend that’s leadership. Real leadership strengthens alliances, deters conflict, and doesn’t rely on hollow stunts with dictators.

And remember, he dodged responsibility in Afghanistan, leaving Biden to clean up the mess. He ordered operations that resulted in the deaths of U.S. servicemen. So, yes, we can say with some authority that he’s a hypocrite -- hardly the character of a man worthy of the presidency.

 

You did not state it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

 

"A" death of a Navy Seal? Biden botched up an evacuation and killed 13 US servicemen.

Sometimes we have to make tough decisions. However, Cheney has the reputation as a war hawk. Sending one man on a mission which might save hundreds or thousands of lives is not the same as sending an army off to fight in a questionable battle.

 

Yes, but going into Iraq was not her choice, and she should not be executed by Trump's fantasy firing squad that shoots at faces because somebody shot at HIS FACE!

Liz Cheney did not have any authority to send U.S. troops into Iraq. The decision was by George W. Bush, with the authorization of Congress.

 

Then blame it on George W. Bush, NOT LIZ CHENEY!

 

No one thinks Trump is a pacifist just a lot more choosy about when and where to shed American blood and treasure