For the record, I thought it would have been cool if they would have stated at the end of the Jeep (Divide) Super Bowl commercial that, as the 1st step in bringing people together, the House has redacted their impeachment.  I'm sure that was definitely not an option as they would have been ridiculed big time for any major change of that significance.

---

Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on this? The man is gone. He is no longer in office. What is this gonna accomplish? He's been impeached once and do you know what that did? Nothing! Trump continued doing what he always did, only on a larger scale. Impeachments are completely meaningless and are just an excuse to widen the divide and ignore the real issues that need to be addressed in this country. Once again, the system fails.

Three reasons:

1) Bragging rights. The left wants desperately to be able to claim they impeached Donald Trump twice.
2) To keep him from ever holding office again. Why? Because they're afraid of him.
3) If successfully impeached in the Senate, Trump would be ineligible for funds granted to former presidents for administrative and technical assistance for establishing a Presidential library. 

Again, it's not enough he's out of office. The left want his history canceled.

I'm not worried about this. He'd never get elected again after the insurrection. I'm worried about Don Jr. running.

---

OK, suppose I grant that point.

The Maxine comparison is fine as far as it goes, until you get to the point where Maxine has never been in command of security forces and Trump was in command that day.

Did Trump call for the National Guard to be deployed the moment he realized what was going at the Capitol?

Ah, ok... so instead of saying "I agree. Maxine Waters should be removed from her seat", you are going to play the "level of power" card.  She is a house representative dude.

Also, you people called him Stalin when the possibility of him sending in the Military to Portland was an option. You can't have it both ways all the time. Pick a belief.

No I didn't. I fully supported a limited, surgical effort by federal forces to keep federal courthouse secure.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on this? 

That's nothing compared to the taxpayer dollars we spent to secure the US Capitol and other State Capitols directly as a result of the Jan 6 rioters.

Correction: The money that is continued to be spent to keep the NG in the capitol through the month of March to in order to create the illusion DC is under siege so the left can leverage it politically.

---

Correction: The money that is continued to be spent to keep the NG in the capitol through the month of March to in order to create the illusion DC is under siege so the left can leverage it politically.

Yep --- it's all an illusion .... perhaps just like post 911 in the eyes of MTG  --- I mean, if 911 never happened then why did we need to step up airport security.

---

Three reasons:

1) Bragging rights. The left wants desperately to be able to claim they impeached Donald Trump twice.
2) To keep him from ever holding office again. Why? Because they're afraid of him.
3) If successfully impeached in the Senate, Trump would be ineligible for funds granted to former presidents for administrative and technical assistance for establishing a Presidential library. 

Again, it's not enough he's out of office. The left want his history canceled.

I'm not worried about this. He'd never get elected again after the insurrection. I'm worried about Don Jr. running.

Don Jr. might, but he seems greasy. I don't think he has the support to get elected.

---

I'm not worried about this. He'd never get elected again after the insurrection. I'm worried about Don Jr. running.

Don Jr. might, but he seems greasy. I don't think he has the support to get elected.

It's gotta be DeSantis. His success as a top 3 governor in the country and his response to COVID gives him a very solid platform to run on. Cruz will be a serious contender. Graham will try to be, but he won't. Will be interesting to see where Pence fits into all of this.

---

Correction: The money that is continued to be spent to keep the NG in the capitol through the month of March to in order to create the illusion DC is under siege so the left can leverage it politically.

Yep --- it's all an illusion .... perhaps just like post 911 in the eyes of MTG  --- I mean, if 911 never happened then why did we need to step up airport security.

You really don't see the difference between Islamic terrorists planning attacks overseas and a ragtag bunch of Trump supporters clamoring into the capitol building? 

Wait, no need to answer.

---

I'm not worried about this. He'd never get elected again after the insurrection. I'm worried about Don Jr. running.

Don Jr. might, but he seems greasy. I don't think he has the support to get elected.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people I know that would vote for him simply because of his last name.

---

For the record, I thought it would have been cool if they would have stated at the end of the Jeep (Divide) Super Bowl commercial that, as the 1st step in bringing people together, the House has redacted their impeachment.  I'm sure that was definitely not an option as they would have been ridiculed big time for any major change of that significance.

I’m still trying to figure out why in that commercial the guy was driving in winter (with snow on the ground) jacket, leather work gloves and... no top on the Jeep.

---

You answered your first question with another question. Nice!

Go home and come back when you can follow an argument.

Argument?

---

Don Jr. might, but he seems greasy. I don't think he has the support to get elected.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people I know that would vote for him simply because of his last name.

Personally, I like to see a candidate show his leadership skills in another facet of government before being considered for President. Trump is the exception because he ran a successful global multi-billion dollar company.

I think Rubio's seat is there for the taking.

---

For the record, I thought it would have been cool if they would have stated at the end of the Jeep (Divide) Super Bowl commercial that, as the 1st step in bringing people together, the House has redacted their impeachment.  I'm sure that was definitely not an option as they would have been ridiculed big time for any major change of that significance.

I’m still trying to figure out why in that commercial the guy was driving in winter (with snow on the ground) jacket, leather work gloves and... no top on the Jeep.

I don't know if you realized it, but "that guy" is Bruce Springsteen. The irony being Springsteen is a lefty who doesn't shy away from disparaging those who are not.

---

Yep --- it's all an illusion .... perhaps just like post 911 in the eyes of MTG  --- I mean, if 911 never happened then why did we need to step up airport security.

You really don't see the difference between Islamic terrorists planning attacks overseas and a ragtag bunch of Trump supporters clamoring into the capitol building? 

Wait, no need to answer.

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I’m still trying to figure out why in that commercial the guy was driving in winter (with snow on the ground) jacket, leather work gloves and... no top on the Jeep.

I don't know if you realized it, but "that guy" is Bruce Springsteen. The irony being Springsteen is a lefty who doesn't shy away from disparaging those who are not.

I did not know that.  Ive never really been a fan of his music, so I hadn’t  paid him much mind.  Lol, “that guy”. Wouldve been funny had I known and still called him that.

---

You really don't see the difference between Islamic terrorists planning attacks overseas and a ragtag bunch of Trump supporters clamoring into the capitol building? 

Wait, no need to answer.

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

This year's award for Hyperbolic Drama goes to...

---

I don't know if you realized it, but "that guy" is Bruce Springsteen. The irony being Springsteen is a lefty who doesn't shy away from disparaging those who are not.

I did not know that.  Ive never really been a fan of his music, so I hadn’t  paid him much mind.  Lol, “that guy”. Wouldve been funny had I known and still called him that.

I had to do a double take. Not only has he aged, but he was actually sporting a haircut.

---

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

This year's award for Hyperbolic Drama goes to...

This year's award for feigned ignorance goes to...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You really don't see the difference between Islamic terrorists planning attacks overseas and a ragtag bunch of Trump supporters clamoring into the capitol building? 

Wait, no need to answer.

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

The "insurrection" that you democrats like to call it was planned well before President Trump's speech that day.

President Trump said that they should "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard".  Those words hardly "incite a violent attack".

President Trump gave the order to deploy the National Guard.

You and other leftist democrats like you have an alternate reality of what took place.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

The "insurrection" that you democrats like to call it was planned well before President Trump's speech that day.

President Trump said that they should "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard".  Those words hardly "incite a violent attack".

President Trump gave the order to deploy the National Guard.

You and other leftist democrats like you have an alternate reality of what took place.

When, and to whom?
Show your work.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We don't know if flight 93 was originally intended to aim for the President in the White House. 
If you don't assume it was, then 9/11 was an attempt to kill thousands of Americans, but not to overturn the US constitution or the choice of President.
The January 6 attack might not have intended to kill thousands, but they certainly intended to kill some, and they definitely intended to overturn both the constitution and the choice of President.
So there is a difference, yes, but they are equally serious. 

And back to the point: We have to look at more than just what Trump said before the attack.  If you want to judge those words softly, and say, no he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol, that's fine, but, test that assumption  against his actions in the hours afterwards!

If Trump really didn't mean for those people to take his words that way, when did he find out that they were attacking, and did he immediately call the national guard?

If he didn't call on the national guard as soon as he found out about the breach, doesn't the assumption that he didn't incite the violent attack become totally ridiculous?!

The "insurrection" that you democrats like to call it was planned well before President Trump's speech that day.

President Trump said that they should "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard".  Those words hardly "incite a violent attack".

President Trump gave the order to deploy the National Guard.

You and other leftist democrats like you have an alternate reality of what took place.

I'm not a Democrat and it was an insurrection. That is a fact. 

You believe everything your "big, red, god" tells you, so of course you believe he did no wrong. According to many people, he should be nominated for sainthood. I know someone who thought that way and now he has a different opinion.

---