oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz is a liar. When he ran for Congress he lied to voters claiming he wasn't drunk when he was arrested and jailed for DUI - he claims he couldn't hear the officer because of his hearing loss suffered during combat in Afghanistan. Truth? He was drunk as a skunk. pic.twitter.com/aeKyvZ34Kb

— @amuse (@amuse) August 15, 2024

During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.

---

I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before

---

You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.

---

some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.

---

Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal

---

Strike 3. Wow.Just.Wow. You impress me with your devotion to ignorance.

---

My sense is that you have not seen criminal court in action. Did Walz plea?

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz is a liar. When he ran for Congress he lied to voters claiming he wasn't drunk when he was arrested and jailed for DUI - he claims he couldn't hear the officer because of his hearing loss suffered during combat in Afghanistan. Truth? He was drunk as a skunk. pic.twitter.com/aeKyvZ34Kb

— @amuse (@amuse) August 15, 2024

During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.

---

I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before

---

You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.

---

some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.

---

Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal

---

Strike 3. Wow.Just.Wow. You impress me with your devotion to ignorance.

---

My sense is that you have not seen criminal court in action. Did Walz plea?

---

-1000 for you and whoever starred this post. I do believe Walz did plea and got a reduced sentence. He probably had trouble beating the charges because he blew a .128 and was going 96 mph in like a 45 mph.

What planet do you hail from? Is it nice there?

dajo9 said:

---

Was that the same year Donold forcibly finger banged E Jean Carroll in a department store?

---

I'll believe Hillary Clinton before I believe E Jean Carroll.

dajo9 said:

---

Was that the same year Donold forcibly finger banged E Jean Carroll in a department store?

---

Jean Carroll is not sure what year it happened, but the vague timeline puts it around 10-12 years prior to Walz lying about his DUI. Him blowing .128 and driving 96 in a low mph zone was indeed around the time that Carroll vaguely recollected being violated.

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz is a liar. When he ran for Congress he lied to voters claiming he wasn't drunk when he was arrested and jailed for DUI - he claims he couldn't hear the officer because of his hearing loss suffered during combat in Afghanistan. Truth? He was drunk as a skunk. pic.twitter.com/aeKyvZ34Kb

— @amuse (@amuse) August 15, 2024

During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.

---

I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before

---

You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.

---

some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.

---

Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal

---

Strike 3. Wow.Just.Wow. You impress me with your devotion to ignorance.

---

My sense is that you have not seen criminal court in action. Did Walz plea?

---

-1000 for you and whoever starred this post. I do believe Walz did plea and got a reduced sentence. He probably had trouble beating the charges because he blew a .128 and was going 96 mph in like a 45 mph.

What planet do you hail from? Is it nice there?

---

So you didn't answer the question and have no idea about the legal system

Here is Sofa Loren. Build him up!

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz is a liar. When he ran for Congress he lied to voters claiming he wasn't drunk when he was arrested and jailed for DUI - he claims he couldn't hear the officer because of his hearing loss suffered during combat in Afghanistan. Truth? He was drunk as a skunk. pic.twitter.com/aeKyvZ34Kb

— @amuse (@amuse) August 15, 2024

During his 2006 congressional campaign, Tim Walz falsely claimed that he hadn't been drinking before his arrest claiming he was allowed to drive to the station. However, court records reveal Walz was driving 96 mph while drunk.

---

I don't see the issue here, he was a defendant and he is allowed to provide a defense. Defendants are innocent unless proven guilty.

I think I have heard Orange Clown and Rudy Gules state that before

---

You are generally not allowed to lie in court. It is called perjury. He could have simply refused to answer questions related to his reckless DUI instead of completely lying. He deserves to be criticized for lying to the public. I can't believe liberal clowns have a Cal grad believing it is okay to lie in a Congressional campaign because a candidate is choosing to lie in a legal defense. That is sad and idiotic.

---

some X post saying he completely lied without any evidence does not move me much.

Walz is a positive populist and a good man. Opposite of Trump's side

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/15/politics/tim-walz-2006-campaign-falsely-described-dwi-kfile

Here is the news story:

"According to court and police records connected to the incident, Walz admitted in court that he had been drinking when he was pulled over for driving 96 mph in a 55 mph zone in Nebraska. Walz was then transported by a state trooper to a local hospital for a blood test, showing he had a blood alcohol level of .128, well above the state's legal limit of 0.1 at the time.

But in 2006, his campaign repeatedly told the press that he had not been drinking that night, claiming that his failed field sobriety test was due to a misunderstanding related to hearing loss from his time in the National Guard. The campaign also claimed that Walz was allowed to drive himself to jail that night."

Strike 2.

Are you going to persist and go for Strike 3? The Giants hit better than you.

---

Both of those facts might be true though, not mutually exclusive espeically if his court appearance ended up in a plea deal

---

Strike 3. Wow.Just.Wow. You impress me with your devotion to ignorance.

---

My sense is that you have not seen criminal court in action. Did Walz plea?

---

-1000 for you and whoever starred this post. I do believe Walz did plea and got a reduced sentence. He probably had trouble beating the charges because he blew a .128 and was going 96 mph in like a 45 mph.

What planet do you hail from? Is it nice there?

---

So you didn't answer the question and have no idea about the legal system

---

He was targeted by an unjust biased breathalyzer, racist blood test, and generally anti-white system and, under duress, his attorney confessed to him driving drunk. The truth came out when this amazing honest Abe politician was campaigning years later where he said he wasn't drinking. Because of this arrest for not drinking but actually just going nearly 100 in a 55 zone, he now drinks diet Mountain Dew instead of alcohol. Because he was caught going more than forty mph over the speed limit, he no longer drinks 40s.

Did I get it right?

harebear said:

---

Gov. Walz: Once I had my own children, it became so clear to me that every child who came through the door of my classroom was someone's most special thing in their life. It gave me a sense of service pic.twitter.com/tauGVHO1Sj

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 17, 2024

---

The MONSTER!

GRETCHEN WHITMER: "I love Tim Walz. So, Tim, my daughters were saying to me, you know, 'He's like a male version of YOU, Mom.' And I thought that was so funny."

Yup.

Tim Walz frequently claimed his kids were conceived via IVF - turns out that was a bald faced lie. Walz's sperm could not make it into his wife's uterus so doctors were forced to insert them directly themselves. This is not IVF. Did Walz use a sperm donor?

Update on the lies that Tim Walz has told:

- Being an Afghan veteran
- Being a command sgt major
- Conceiving his children through IVF
- Knowing his unit was being deployed
- Carrying weapons into war
- Being a head football coach
- Lying about being deaf to get out of a DUI

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 20, 2024

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz frequently claimed his kids were conceived via IVF - turns out that was a bald faced lie. Walz's sperm could not make it into his wife's uterus so doctors were forced to insert them directly themselves. This is not IVF.

Update on the lies that Tim Walz has told:

- Being an Afghan veteran
- Being a command sgt major
- Conceiving his children through IVF
- Knowing his unit was being deployed
- Carrying weapons into war
- Being a head football coach
- Lying about being deaf to get out of a DUI

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 20, 2024

---

Seems like Walz has trouble with 100% honesty. Maybe not clear lies but exaggeration and stretching the truth.

Not a fan of Walz and thought Shapiro or Kelly would appeal to moderates more. Walz has the folksy aspect to him, but too much of a progressive record once he left Congress. And now too much fibbing that shows less than clear personal integrity.

However, I am confused by the objection to Walz based on these exaggerations when the former president at the top of the MAGA ticket is a walking fabrication, fraud and con. He even lies with a map and a sharpie. At what point do these criteria apply to both candidates?

After all, we aren't just tribalists, are we?

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz frequently claimed his kids were conceived via IVF - turns out that was a bald faced lie. Walz's sperm could not make it into his wife's uterus so doctors were forced to insert them directly themselves. This is not IVF.

Update on the lies that Tim Walz has told:

- Being an Afghan veteran
- Being a command sgt major
- Conceiving his children through IVF
- Knowing his unit was being deployed
- Carrying weapons into war
- Being a head football coach
- Lying about being deaf to get out of a DUI

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 20, 2024

---

Seems like Walz has trouble with 100% honesty. Maybe not clear lies but exaggeration and stretching the truth.

Not a fan of Walz and thought Shapiro or Kelly would appeal to moderates more. Walz has the folksy aspect to him, but too much of a progressive record once he left Congress. And now too much fibbing that shows less than clear personal integrity.

However, I am confused by the objection to Walz based on these exaggerations when the former president at the top of the MAGA ticket is a walking fabrication, fraud and con. He even lies with a map and a sharpie. At what point do these criteria apply to both candidates?

After all, we aren't just tribalists, are we?

---

If Trump said the same things Walz, Biden, or any of the Democrats have said even recently, the Democrats wouldn't have to make up the Russia collusion hoax or engage in lawfare to interfere with the election.

Uh, oh.... 🤡 pic.twitter.com/QtpsU9mWMs

— The Constitutional Conservative (@TheCCShowcast) August 20, 2024

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Tim Walz frequently claimed his kids were conceived via IVF - turns out that was a bald faced lie. Walz's sperm could not make it into his wife's uterus so doctors were forced to insert them directly themselves. This is not IVF.

Update on the lies that Tim Walz has told:

- Being an Afghan veteran
- Being a command sgt major
- Conceiving his children through IVF
- Knowing his unit was being deployed
- Carrying weapons into war
- Being a head football coach
- Lying about being deaf to get out of a DUI

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 20, 2024

---

Seems like Walz has trouble with 100% honesty. Maybe not clear lies but exaggeration and stretching the truth.

Not a fan of Walz and thought Shapiro or Kelly would appeal to moderates more. Walz has the folksy aspect to him, but too much of a progressive record once he left Congress. And now too much fibbing that shows less than clear personal integrity.

However, I am confused by the objection to Walz based on these exaggerations when the former president at the top of the MAGA ticket is a walking fabrication, fraud and con. He even lies with a map and a sharpie. At what point do these criteria apply to both candidates?

After all, we aren't just tribalists, are we?

---

If Trump said the same things Walz, Biden, or any of the Democrats have said even recently, the Democrats wouldn't have to make up the Russia collusion hoax or engage in lawfare to interfere with the election.

---

This is just from 2017:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Trump is not winning any honesty or integrity competition.

Or even a faith competition when Harris has been a Baptist (fundamental Christianity) while Trump has vacillated from mumbo jumbo new age spirituality to prosperity gospel cult (current).

Or even a fiscal conservative competition (wants to control interest rate and make the health of the economy subject to politics like how he was pressuring the Fed to lower interest rate when economy was showing signs of inflation and overheating; wants to increase the budget deficit; want to stifle free trade).

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

If lovin you is wrong, I don't want to be right.

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

If lovin you is wrong, I don't want to be right.

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

calbear93 said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

If lovin you is wrong, I don't want to be right.

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

---

I wouldn't doubt that you would think Whitmer is a "pretty cool person."

Zippergate said:

---

She participated in the FBI kidnapping psyop to influence the last election by stirring up fear of white supremacy. Hard pass.

---

Even if it were viewed as entrapment, how did she participate other than being the target of easily influenced loonies who were ready and willing (even if induced) to kidnap violently Whitmer for her COVID policies?

She herself has rarely talked about it or used it for political purposes.

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

If lovin you is wrong, I don't want to be right.

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

---

I wouldn't doubt that you would think Whitmer is a "pretty cool person."

---

Sorry, I think most people would consider her cooler than you.

No one is asking you to take a leadership role.

When you mock a characteristic of someone superior to you in that aspect, you are only mocking yourself.

It's like someone driving a broken down Civic mocking someone driving a BMW for not owning an Aston Martin. You just have to go, ***?

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

---

I wouldn't doubt that you would think Whitmer is a "pretty cool person."

---

Sorry, I think most people would consider her cooler than you.

No one is asking you to take a leadership role.

When you mock a characteristic of someone superior to you in that aspect, you are only mocking yourself.

It's like someone driving a broken down Civic mocking someone driving a BMW for not owning an Aston Martin. You just have to go, ***?

---

Sorry but Gretchen was booed by her own constituents in Michigan.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer showed up to the NFL Draft in Detroit and got booed into another dimension.pic.twitter.com/Uimu46FcLH

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 27, 2024

Zippergate said:

---

It blows my mind that the country has memory-holed this incident.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/01/03/the_fbi-tainted_whitmer_kidnap_plot_youve_heard_next_to_nothing_about_1001971.html

"At the same get-together, several FBI informants and "Red" took their targets on a reconnaissance mission to stake out Whitmer's vacation cottage, the scene of the alleged prospective crime. It was the second time Chappel drove Fox to the property. (The governor and her staff were in communication with authorities for months as the entrapment scheme was under way; the FBI installed pole cameras and 3D devices around her property to record any activity to be used as evidence.)"

---

You are assuming quite a bit, and misremembering quite a bit as well.

There were nine people convicted, including a few who pled guilty. Even before the actions of the undercover FBI agents (having an undercover agent itself is not entrapment), these individuals had researched Whitmer's vacation home address and assessed the best way to break in to her house.

There is a question as to whether, without the actions of the undercover agents, the loonies would have carried it out and whether they were induced to do something they would not have done (the entrapment question).

What is not in question is the initial seed was planted by these idiots without the FBI agent involvement, and whether the additional defendants were recruited who were not originally part of the seeding of the plan.

As far as when Whitmer was involved, it was after the plan itself had been formulated. She was involved for her own safety (as opposed to her engaging in formulating the plan - what the defense argued was entrapment by the FBI agents - the initial development of plan) so that they can plan for surveillance.

How is she part of the entrapment?

If your family were to be notified by the FBI that bunch of loony liberals were formulating a plan to kidnap your family, you would not cooperate with the FBI to conduct surveillance and gather evidence? You would demand to be shown that it was not entrapment?

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

---

I wouldn't doubt that you would think Whitmer is a "pretty cool person."

---

Sorry, I think most people would consider her cooler than you.

No one is asking you to take a leadership role.

When you mock a characteristic of someone superior to you in that aspect, you are only mocking yourself.

It's like someone driving a broken down Civic mocking someone driving a BMW for not owning an Aston Martin. You just have to go, ***?

---

Sorry but Gretchen was booed by her own constituents in Michigan.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer showed up to the NFL Draft in Detroit and got booed into another dimension.pic.twitter.com/Uimu46FcLH

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 27, 2024

---

And yet she soundly beat her MAGA opponent to win in 2022.

But she got booed in a short video with NFL fans who are generally known for being liberal, so she must not be as cool as you.

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

GRETCHEN WHITMER:

---

---

Don't agree with her politics, but she is a pretty cool person.

Reminds me of a few of my friends with no bull****, authentic personalities that I really appreciate.

---

I wouldn't doubt that you would think Whitmer is a "pretty cool person."

---

Sorry, I think most people would consider her cooler than you.

No one is asking you to take a leadership role.

When you mock a characteristic of someone superior to you in that aspect, you are only mocking yourself.

It's like someone driving a broken down Civic mocking someone driving a BMW for not owning an Aston Martin. You just have to go, ***?

---

Sorry but Gretchen was booed by her own constituents in Michigan.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer showed up to the NFL Draft in Detroit and got booed into another dimension.pic.twitter.com/Uimu46FcLH

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) April 27, 2024

---

And yet she soundly beat her MAGA opponent to win in 2022.

But she got booed in a short video with NFL fans who are generally known for being liberal, so she must not be as cool as you.

---

You've done well to take down this 2034 idiot a few times today. He has so much energy to come back after being beaten into submission on the internetz day after day

Zippergate said:

---

Your narrative is impossible to reconcile with the reporting of Julie Kelly.

---

That's one reporting, that is not reflective of what was proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt of those who were convicted.

Those who showed enough evidence that they either repudiated the plan but continued to be recruited or who were not involved until recruited by the agents were acquitted.

And where in the report does it show that Whitmer was part of the plan formulation or recruitment?

And where does it show that these idiots were not actually recorded as saying they were going to shoot her or hog tie her?

You think the FBI can recruit / induce you to try to execute the plan to assassinate Newsom?

Where is the accountability? These were individuals who were posting videos about wanting to bring harm to Whitmer even before the FBI involvement.

So, irrespective of what FBI's role was, how does this reflect on Whitmer who only got involved after the plan was formulated and the convicted felons went to her vacation home?

That's one reporting, that is not reflective of what was proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt of those who were convicted.

Kelly documented that one of the many problems with this case was that the full nature of the entrapment plot was not presented in court. Given how the Jan 6 prosecutions have proceeded, I'm not the least bit surprised.

And where does it show that these idiots were not actually recorded as saying they were going to shoot her or hog tie her? Where is the accountability? These were individuals who were posting videos about wanting to bring harm to Whitmer even before the FBI involvement. And where does it show that these idiots were not actually recorded as saying they were going to shoot her or hog tie her?

Idiots is right. Not all that different from the ones I see on social media threatening this or that person all the time on both sides of the political spectrum. The Whitmer gang are guilty in the same way as a pedophile who makes a date to meet up with a child only to discover that it's actually an undercover cop. You don't think there are thousands of deranged lunatics who could be groomed to assassinate Trump, for example?

Based on what I've read and interviews I've heard, there was no plot of any significance without the FBI. These patsies were groomed, trained, driven around, and directed by FBI informants and had to goaded throughout the process. The whole thing was a staged psyop. Why the cameras? You don't need cameras to stop a plot like this. It was staged for maximum propaganda effect before the election. All part of the greater scheme to manufacture fear of "white supremacy" to weaponize the system against MAGA which continued on Jan 6. Now before you or anyone else blows a gasket, I do think that Jan 6 rioters should be prosecuted for the crimes that they committed. For the vast majority of them, that would mean misdemeanors, not having their homes raided in the middle of the night and held in jail indefinitely without bail on trumped up charges like disrupting a government proceeding or some such nonsense.

As for Whitmer, it depends on what she knew and when. In my opinion, she knew enough and chose to play along in the entrapment scheme. I don't know that much about her but I am aware of her efforts to block the replacement of an important natural gas pipeline due to "climate change." Whether this was pandering to the lunatic climate fringe or just her own idiocy I can't say. Regardless, it's such a senseless, stupid policy stance that has a real impact of the lives of Minnesotans.

I doubt we'll agree on this one and that is okay.

Zippergate said:

---

That's one reporting, that is not reflective of what was proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt of those who were convicted.

Kelly documented that one of the many problems with this case was that the full nature of the entrapment plot was not presented in court. Given how the Jan 6 prosecutions have proceeded, I'm not the least bit surprised.

And where does it show that these idiots were not actually recorded as saying they were going to shoot her or hog tie her? Where is the accountability? These were individuals who were posting videos about wanting to bring harm to Whitmer even before the FBI involvement. And where does it show that these idiots were not actually recorded as saying they were going to shoot her or hog tie her?

Idiots is right. Not all that different from the ones I see on social media threatening this or that person all the time on both sides of the political spectrum. The Whitmer gang are guilty in the same way as a pedophile who makes a date to meet up with a child only to discover that it's actually an undercover cop. You don't think there are thousands of deranged lunatics who could be groomed to assassinate Trump, for example?

Based on what I've read and interviews I've heard, there was no plot of any significance without the FBI. These patsies were groomed, trained, driven around, and directed by FBI informants and had to goaded throughout the process. The whole thing was a staged psyop. Why the cameras? You don't need cameras to stop a plot like this. It was staged for maximum propaganda effect before the election. All part of the greater scheme to manufacture fear of "white supremacy" to weaponize the system against MAGA which continued on Jan 6. Now before you or anyone else blows a gasket, I do think that Jan 6 rioters should be prosecuted for the crimes that they committed. For the vast majority of them, that would mean misdemeanors, not having their homes raided in the middle of the night and held in jail indefinitely without bail on trumped up charges like disrupting a government proceeding or some such nonsense.

As for Whitmer, it depends on what she knew and when. In my opinion, she knew enough and chose to play along in the entrapment scheme. I don't know that much about her but I am aware of her efforts to block the replacement of an important natural gas pipeline due to "climate change." Whether this was pandering to the lunatic climate fringe or just her own idiocy I can't say. Regardless, it's such a senseless, stupid policy stance that has a real impact of the lives of Minnesotans.

I doubt we'll agree on this one and that is okay.

---

That's fair that you and I will disagree on this. And as you write, that's OK. Can disagree and still think you are a good poster.

Just to be clear, I disagree with Whitmer often on policy. I disagreed with her on the oppressive COVID shutdown acting as if there would not be long lasting economic and child development damage from the overreaction and unwillingness to debate the scientific arguments.

But from what I have seen, irrespective of policy, I think she means well for the country and she seems like the kind of person who would be a blast to just share a cold beer and discuss topics unfiltered. She doesn't seem like the kind of person who would mince words or say things she doesn't believe for virtue signaling purposes. I don't mind liberals who are genuine. I disagree with them but I still think they are likable. Michelle Obama, Whitmer. I think they are both really cool individuals. Misguided in policy but cool. Unlike those white, disingenuous male karens whose actual life reflects nothing representing sacrifice or civic duty or any hint of authenticity. And that's all I wrote in my original post.

Interesting perspective on Whitmer. We need more decent people in politics. Do you have a take on RFK Jr? There is so much about him that I admire and respect, but then he says things that call it all into question. Clearly my standards are too high.

Zippergate said:

---

Interesting perspective on Whitmer. We need more decent people in politics. Do you have a take on RFK Jr? There is so much about him that I admire and respect, but then he says things that call it all into question. Clearly my standards are too high.

---

Haven't really considered him seriously. Always have a default negative reaction to those who come from trust funds, but that's an unreasonable bias.

I just start off from my role as a director whether I would agree to appoint the candidate as a CEO of my company. Clearly I am not doing any interview, seeing references or results of Korn Ferry, LDW, etc personality assessment, but, just as a gut check, doesn't seem like the kind of person I would naturally consider for the top role. Could change my mind, but seems weird to reject all vaccines (and I mean even actual vaccines).