Teslag said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

No one is accountable for Trump's behavior other than Trump. The Dem party had nothing to do with the brazen corruption he is engaging in and are certainly not to blame because you are defending it. You have such a childish mindset.

---

Your side is to blame because you don't give us a reasonable democrat alternative. You enabled Trump and made him palatable.

---

Overall this is a good result. We needed Trump to stop the globalist progression.

How about you not try to impeach, jail and kill a man 80 million people voted for to do a job.

flown-the-coop said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I thought MAGA was drain the swamp. Then we have the most blatant corruption this country has ever seen. MAGA cheers it on while our deficit spirals out of control.

---

You mad because your boy Rafflesburger didn't make it to the primary runoff?

---

He had no chance. I voted for him in the Republican primary, but I knew he'd lose. Not sure whether to vote for Jones or Jackson but anyone but the Dem candidate. Dooley for Senate.

Dooley? I saw he did well around Atlanta but I see him as the weaker choice.

Setting Trump aside, do you think he's the one that has a decent shot at Ossoff? Personally, I would swag Ossoff pulls it off anyway in November, unfortunately, but Bottoms at the top of the ticket on their side will hurt him.

nortex97 said:

---

Dooley? I saw he did well around Atlanta but I see him as the weaker choice.

Setting Trump aside, do you think he's the one that has a decent shot at Ossoff? Personally, I would swag Ossoff pulls it off anyway in November, unfortunately, but Bottoms at the top of the ticket on their side will hurt him.

---

Ossoff is loaded with $$, so unfortunately, he probably wins. Kemp endorsed Dooley and he's popular in the State so that was my reasoning. I'll vote R for whomever wins.

nortex97 said:

---

Dooley? I saw he did well around Atlanta but I see him as the weaker choice.

Setting Trump aside, do you think he's the one that has a decent shot at Ossoff? Personally, I would swag Ossoff pulls it off anyway in November, unfortunately, but Bottoms at the top of the ticket on their side will hurt him.

---

Ossoff needs to be a lesson in the South. Even a Democrat from the South can and will be a far left radical nut job as ossoff is. These aren't your father's democrats.

Iced-T14 said:

---

It's a simple question Buster, is he draining the swamp or is he expanding it?

---

Draining.

There would have to be a hell of a lot of expansion to fill in the draining done by USAID alone.

Add in the MN Medicare fraud, and you have a hell of a lot of draining.

Add in the 250,000 federal employees that were canned, and you have even more draining.

And, he's not finished. This is just in the first 5 months.

M.C. Swag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Were I a Republican, my vote would have been for Nikki Hayley.

---

So, do you agree with her policy positions? At all?

---

No I'm not a Republican but if I were she at least seems like a competent, decent person who has a track record that backs up her policies. Trump on the other hand pretending to be an avatar for traditional family values, fiscal responsibility, peace maker, etc was always laughable. I understand the people who held their nose to vote for him against Kamala, but I'll never understand anyone that voted for him in the Primary. Even the charisma vampire Desantis would have been a better Presidential candidate than this grifter.

---

Who would you vote for that does share your policy priorities?

No idea. Ask me again in 2 years

M.C. Swag said:

---

No one is accountable for Trump's behavior other than Trump. The Dem party had nothing to do with the brazen corruption he is engaging in and are certainly not to blame because you are defending it. You have such a childish mindset.

---

What exactly is the brazen corruption you are referring to?

The allocation of funds that are not yet spent, but have congressional oversight on how they are spent?

M.C. Swag said:

---

No idea. Ask me again in 2 years

---

Who would you have voted for in the Dem 2024 primaries?

Democrats have one loose canon in the senate, and the GOP has around 10-12 that are prone to support whatever the leftist talking points of the issue/day are. Anyone voting for a democrat should at this point know exactly what they are really getting; Spanberger, no matter the 'moderate' messaging.

The Kraken said:

---

Ellis Wyatt and flown-the-coop still carrying the water for Trump. Who could have predicted that?

---

I don't carry a damn thing for anyone.

Calling out ******ed takes on what is and is not corruption is not carrying water.

I would have nothing to post about if it was t for end stage TDS amongst so many.

Idk prolly Shapiro. I also like Pritzker but idk if he has the temperament. Shapiro would be my answer in this hypothetical.

I'm convinced they're Russian Claude bots

flown-the-coop said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Ellis Wyatt and flown-the-coop still carrying the water for Trump. Who could have predicted that?

---

I don't carry a damn thing for anyone.

Calling out ******ed takes on what is and is not corruption is not carrying water.

I would have nothing to post about if it was t for end stage TDS amongst so many.

---

It amazes me posters use that tired old trope of "still carrying the water for Trump". Posters make a valid argument in defense of a decision by President Trump's Administration and immediately are lumped into that stupid basket of "still carrying the water for Trump".
When they don't have a rational argument they deflect by attacking the poster calling them out for "still carrying the water for Trump".

It's funny to me at this point.

I do like it when posters say I post too much when their analytics show 5+ posts a day for 20 years.

M.C. Swag said:

---

I'm convinced they're Russian Claude bots

---

Did JB Pritzker tell you that joke?

M.C. Swag said:

---

Idk prolly Shapiro. I also like Pritzker but idk if he has the temperament. Shapiro would be my answer in this hypothetical.

---

Dude, he covered up the sexual harassment of one of his top advisors.

I don't know how you can sleep at night.

Can't say I'm familiar with the case because again, he was never an option. You're asking me to go back in time and cast an imaginary vote for a primary process that never occurred.

Octo Pie said:

---

This administration is doing corruption on an order of magnitude worse than anything before it. These are the kinds of things you'd expect to see from third world dictatorships, not the leaders of the free world.

It's a travesty that the sports-fandom-ification of American politics rendered so many people tolerant of this behavior so long as it denies their perceived enemies power.

---

Can you give us some specific numbers? Because the frauds in one blue state dwarf any Trump numbers.

BusterAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Idk prolly Shapiro. I also like Pritzker but idk if he has the temperament. Shapiro would be my answer in this hypothetical.

---

Dude, he covered up the sexual harassment of one of his top advisors.

I don't know how you can sleep at night.

---

And Shapiro has no shot in the days of AIPAC fury, antisemitism and Josh's failure to condemn the genocide in Gaza.

Complete non-starter for the Dems.

Some lowlights looking through the Settlement Agreement

There is no requirement for the government to release the names/amounts of those that are compensated by the fund.

Section IV E
On a quarterly basis, or otherwise as directed by the Attorney General, The Anti
Weaponization Fund shall provide to the Attorney General a confidential written report
that includes the name and address of each claimant who has received any relief and if so,
nature of such relief.

The fund will expire at the end of Trump's term so any future president will not be able to use it.

Section IV G
The Anti-Weaponization Fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1,
2028.

The $1.776 Billion is the "Projected Amount" to initially be deposited into the fund. No where in the documents does it say there is any limitation to the maximum amount that may be dispensed.

lexofer said:

---

Some lowlights looking through the Settlement Agreement

There is no requirement for the government to release the names/amounts of those that are compensated by the fund.

Section IV E
On a quarterly basis, or otherwise as directed by the Attorney General, The Anti
Weaponization Fund shall provide to the Attorney General a confidential written report
that includes the name and address of each claimant who has received any relief and if so,
nature of such relief.

The fund will expire at the end of Trump's term so any future president will not be able to use it.

Section IV G
The Anti-Weaponization Fund shall cease processing claims no later than December 1,
2028.

The $1.776 Billion is the "Projected Amount" to initially be deposited into the fund. No where in the documents does it say there is any limitation to the maximum amount that may be dispensed.

---

So doxx these people so Mangione-Robinson-Crooks can hunt them down and kill them? BRILLIANT!!

Congressional oversight, OIGs and lawyers can access the information. Sorry you guys don't get a published kill list to continue the jihad.

Now do similar funds setup since the Obama administration.

Look forward to more fanciful "low" lights that are quite easily debunked.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Can't say I'm familiar with the case because again, he was never an option. You're asking me to go back in time and cast an imaginary vote for a primary process that never occurred.

---

You are asking for an imaginary politician with impeccable scruples that doesn't exist, so, we are in the same boat.

Octo Pie said:

---

This administration is doing corruption on an order of magnitude worse than anything before it. These are the kinds of things you'd expect to see from third world dictatorships, not the leaders of the free world.

It's a travesty that the sports-fandom-ification of American politics rendered so many people tolerant of this behavior so long as it denies their perceived enemies power.

---

This is incorrect.

Do you really think this administration was worse than Grant or Hardin?

BusterAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Can't say I'm familiar with the case because again, he was never an option. You're asking me to go back in time and cast an imaginary vote for a primary process that never occurred.

---

You are asking for an imaginary politician with impeccable scruples that doesn't exist, so, we are in the same boat.

---

No I'm not, I'm asking for someone who hasn't lied, cheated, or stolen from the people closest to him. I even gave Nikki Haley as a reasonable Republican candidate. They actually exist if you don't live inside the cult of Trump.

I mean, Nikki Haley has had two men come forward with allegations of inappropriateness.

Believe all men. Note, she denied the accusations but then again so has Trump.

M.C. Swag said:

---

Idk prolly Shapiro. I also like Pritzker but idk if he has the temperament. Shapiro would be my answer in this hypothetical.

---

Both far left radical nut jobs. Explains a lot.

BusterAg said:

---

Octo Pie said:

---

This administration is doing corruption on an order of magnitude worse than anything before it. These are the kinds of things you'd expect to see from third world dictatorships, not the leaders of the free world.

It's a travesty that the sports-fandom-ification of American politics rendered so many people tolerant of this behavior so long as it denies their perceived enemies power.

---

This is incorrect.

Do you really think this administration was worse than Grant or Hardin?

---

So we are going back over 100 - 150 years to find any sort of comparison?

M.C. Swag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Can't say I'm familiar with the case because again, he was never an option. You're asking me to go back in time and cast an imaginary vote for a primary process that never occurred.

---

You are asking for an imaginary politician with impeccable scruples that doesn't exist, so, we are in the same boat.

---

No I'm not, I'm asking for someone who hasn't lied, cheated, or stolen from the people closest to him. I even gave Nikki Haley as a reasonable Republican candidate. They actually exist if you don't live inside the cult of Trump.

---

And yet if she won the primary you'd still vote for any democrat but her

M.C. Swag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

M.C. Swag said:

---

Can't say I'm familiar with the case because again, he was never an option. You're asking me to go back in time and cast an imaginary vote for a primary process that never occurred.

---

You are asking for an imaginary politician with impeccable scruples that doesn't exist, so, we are in the same boat.

---

No I'm not, I'm asking for someone who hasn't lied, cheated, or stolen from the people closest to him. I even gave Nikki Haley as a reasonable Republican candidate. They actually exist if you don't live inside the cult of Trump.

---

Um, still waiting for your dem example. Shapiro doesn't meet your list.