Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Thanks for reminding us that Trump has been an entirely positive force on democratic process.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for the funniest line ever posted on SicEm.

---

Surely he forgot the emoji

---

"forgot" would be that day Nancy Pelosi forgot to deploy the 10k National Guard troops Trump approved to defend the Electoral Vote process

---

Debunked.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/8929215002

---

Not debunked. Stone cold corroborated fact.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/trump-says-he-told-the-pentagon-10-000-national-guard-troops-would-be-needed-jan-6-but-was-ignored

CNN even reported it, pre-event. Those deployments were subject to Trump's order.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

Pelosi is desperate to show she refused repeated requests from Capitol Police for more security, and that Trump had in fact authorized deployment of far more NG troops than were requested, far more than even Miller anticipated would be necessary. So they are spinning 6Jan as a Republican insurrection rather than a dereliction of duty by Democrat leadership.

Give it up, man. You can't rewrite history.
(but that's what progressives do....rewrite history)
And the GOP will turn the tables in about 10 months to document the truth.

---

Nothing in those links comes close to supporting your claim. It's the same information that's in the USA Today fact check -- Trump claims that he ordered 10K troops, but there's no record of any such order.

---

They document it. He authorized his SecDef to deploy 10k National Guard, and his SecDef ordered, in writing, a smaller number to arms. It was under that authority that NG troops were actually deployed. It's a very bright line clearly showing Trump was trying to deploy troops to protect the process. (because he intended to use that process to contest the election to the bitter end.)

A few articles have speculated (in passing) that Pelosi refused to request the NG because they were afraid Trump would use them to pull a coup. I agree that was a major reason she did not. It is a natural concern to have if one does not trust one's adversary.

Stop trying to spin misinformation into the mix. DHS is gearing up to smack people for doing that. Be careful!

---

The only activation that was ever ordered prior to the Capitol breach consisted of 340 troops requested by the mayor, through the commander of the DC National Guard, and approved by Secretary of Defense Miller. They were to be unarmed and deployed away from the Capitol. Trump was not involved in any way, as Miller neither asked nor required his authorization. There was a brief phone conversation on Jan. 5 in which Trump mentioned that they would need 10,000 troops, but there was no follow-up on either side, and no one else who was involved in any capacity thought it necessary. Miller apparently brushed it off as an exaggeration. So blame him for that if you want. At no point were there any troops at Pelosi's disposal, much less 10,000 of them.

---

Historical facts are quite clear: 1) Trump, the alleged insurrectionist, was more proactively seeking to defend process than anyone else on the stage at the moment, 2) his SecDef pre-approved (in writing) deployment of the DC National Guard QRF on 4 January 2021, 3) his SecDef told others he had Presidential authority to order thousands more, and 4) Pelosi neither requested more NG troops nor acceded to CapPO requests for more security measures.

you know, Biden is erecting a Department of Truth in the DHS to fight exactly the kind of misinformation you're spreading. Be very careful here.....

---

Pelosi had no more to do with any request from the Capitol Police than McConnell did. That request, if it was made, came from the Capitol Police chief and was rejected by the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms. All three men have resigned, and the facts have been disputed. In any case there is no evidence that Pelosi denied the request or that she even knew about it. Several requests were allegedly rejected by the Pentagon on the day of the riot as well. Again that had nothing to do with the legislators. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but your attempts at victim-blaming are as ineffective as they are shameful.

---

And Chairman Lofgren (and others) were formally briefed on requests & status, so it's simply not plausible to assert Pelosi was out of the loop.

---

There's a word for this kind of thing. It's called speculation. What it's not is "stone cold corroborated fact." And your central claim that 10K troops were "pre-approved" and waiting for Pelosi's request is simply false. No amount of diversion or rhetorical gymnastics will serve to obscure that truth.

---

Watch out, Whiterock, Sam has no tolerance for anyone or anything that might get in the way of damning Trump.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not debunked. Stone cold corroborated fact.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/trump-says-he-told-the-pentagon-10-000-national-guard-troops-would-be-needed-jan-6-but-was-ignored

CNN even reported it, pre-event. Those deployments were subject to Trump's order.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

Pelosi is desperate to show she refused repeated requests from Capitol Police for more security, and that Trump had in fact authorized deployment of far more NG troops than were requested, far more than even Miller anticipated would be necessary. So they are spinning 6Jan as a Republican insurrection rather than a dereliction of duty by Democrat leadership.

Give it up, man. You can't rewrite history.
(but that's what progressives do....rewrite history)
And the GOP will turn the tables in about 10 months to document the truth.

---

Nothing in those links comes close to supporting your claim. It's the same information that's in the USA Today fact check -- Trump claims that he ordered 10K troops, but there's no record of any such order.

---

They document it. He authorized his SecDef to deploy 10k National Guard, and his SecDef ordered, in writing, a smaller number to arms. It was under that authority that NG troops were actually deployed. It's a very bright line clearly showing Trump was trying to deploy troops to protect the process. (because he intended to use that process to contest the election to the bitter end.)

A few articles have speculated (in passing) that Pelosi refused to request the NG because they were afraid Trump would use them to pull a coup. I agree that was a major reason she did not. It is a natural concern to have if one does not trust one's adversary.

Stop trying to spin misinformation into the mix. DHS is gearing up to smack people for doing that. Be careful!

---

The only activation that was ever ordered prior to the Capitol breach consisted of 340 troops requested by the mayor, through the commander of the DC National Guard, and approved by Secretary of Defense Miller. They were to be unarmed and deployed away from the Capitol. Trump was not involved in any way, as Miller neither asked nor required his authorization. There was a brief phone conversation on Jan. 5 in which Trump mentioned that they would need 10,000 troops, but there was no follow-up on either side, and no one else who was involved in any capacity thought it necessary. Miller apparently brushed it off as an exaggeration. So blame him for that if you want. At no point were there any troops at Pelosi's disposal, much less 10,000 of them.

---

Historical facts are quite clear: 1) Trump, the alleged insurrectionist, was more proactively seeking to defend process than anyone else on the stage at the moment, 2) his SecDef pre-approved (in writing) deployment of the DC National Guard QRF on 4 January 2021, 3) his SecDef told others he had Presidential authority to order thousands more, and 4) Pelosi neither requested more NG troops nor acceded to CapPO requests for more security measures.

you know, Biden is erecting a Department of Truth in the DHS to fight exactly the kind of misinformation you're spreading. Be very careful here.....

---

Pelosi had no more to do with any request from the Capitol Police than McConnell did. That request, if it was made, came from the Capitol Police chief and was rejected by the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms. All three men have resigned, and the facts have been disputed. In any case there is no evidence that Pelosi denied the request or that she even knew about it. Several requests were allegedly rejected by the Pentagon on the day of the riot as well. Again that had nothing to do with the legislators. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but your attempts at victim-blaming are as ineffective as they are shameful.

---

And Chairman Lofgren (and others) were formally briefed on requests & status, so it's simply not plausible to assert Pelosi was out of the loop.

---

There's a word for this kind of thing. It's called speculation. What it's not is "stone cold corroborated fact." And your central claim that 10K troops were "pre-approved" and waiting for Pelosi's request is simply false. No amount of diversion or rhetorical gymnastics will serve to obscure that truth.

---

Watch out, Whiterock, Sam has no tolerance for anyone or anything that might get in the way of damning Trump.

---

A priori reasoning. He needs for Trump to be responsible for what happened on 6 Jan, and everything flows from there.

We have multiple points of corroboration that Trump verbally ordered up to 10k National Guard troops for Inauguration Day.
We have written confirmation that SecDef approved NG troops prior to inauguration day, at a level lower than that authorized by POTUS.
We have multiple points of corroboration that CaPO requested more security, and that it was denied by the individuals appointed by Pelosi to be responsible for security.

Those are the facts.
That they happen to be inconvenient to Sam's argument is, well, inconvenient.
Also typical.....

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Anyone thinking Trump will just 'go away' is delusional.

And unless DeSantis runs, Trump is the most qualified candidate of any party running. Someone better may show up by 2024, but for now it's idiot Democrats, Smurfs, fake Republicans and MAGA who dominate the landscape.

Deal with it.

---

Today, he wins 40 states in an Electoral College blowout.

2024 is a lifetime away. Things can change. But he's keeping his mouth shut, for a change, and Democrats have literally sounded the alarm for general quarters to obtain gasoline for their ongoing self-immolation.

---

Is this an opinion based on polling? Or just an opinion?

---

There are quite a number of polls like this one in the last 3-4 weeks, all showing Biden trailing in all the purple states, and running weakly in a number of blue states. Sure, he's fine in CA and NY, but in Va? 2pts. And we're even seeing governor races in very blue states, like NY specifically, where the incumbent is in the mid-40's and GOP candidate single digits behind.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/28/republicans-jump-to-10-point-lead-in-generic-ballot-test-new-fdrlst-susquehanna-poll-shows/

And we're also seeing Trump tied, or slightly ahead in nearly all the head-to-head polling with Biden, and running better than that against Harris.

So a 40 state EV win if election held today would be a consensus pick, not an opinion. Oregon gov is at 41%, IIRC. (maybe 43). So that state is in play. So is ME and NH and VA and NJ and..... Best case is better than 40 states.

And that's before we get to important questions about where events will be leading up to 2024. it's just hard to point to any of the key issues and say "improvement is on the way." On almost every one, the chasm is just now starting to yawn open on the Dems. We're not on the edge of inflation. We're on the edge of stagflation. We're not in the middle of an immigration crisis the public does NOT like. We're on the edge of an open border policy that will spawn 5x illegal flows. And on & on. There is no improvement in sight on gas prices, on interest rates, on the Ukraine War, on China trade, etc.....

Even worse. The Dems are baked in on this. They are not trying to fix anything. They are using high gas prices to transition the economy to electric vehicles (no matter how long it might take). and on and on..... The Dem ideologues think they're on a mission from God, and the Dem pragmatists think things are so bad they might as well ram thru their wish list. The Dems are in a situation where they literally cannot think straight. There is no oxygen for pragmatism and across the aisle governance.

So policy things are going to get a LOT worse for the next 12-18 months. Realistic case, if they were trying to fix things for the middle and working classes? = some improvement stating to show just as the primaries get underway in summer of 2024. But none of the policies they currently propose will get them to that point. And Biden will be facing a GOP House and senate in 2023, which will be investigating all kinds of things, like election interference (by Democrats), like big-tech censorship, like Hunter Biden's laptop, etc..... And they've lost Twitter. So the media narrative will not be as supportive as in the past. A ministry of truth at DHS manned by a person who pushed Russia collusion? It's like they're TRYING to make themselves look like fools.

Their only hope for 2024 is a third party candidate to draw away enough votes to let Biden/Harris slip by. They've done it twice before for WJC. If Hillary is the nominee (possible, but not likely) you can count on one. But I'm not sure even that will help. Dems have blown apart their historic coalition. Minorities are going to vote GOP at percentage levels (per polling) that create impossible math for Dems......because no matter what your identity is, you need a job, a home, a car, a better life for your kids. That plays to Trump's advantage, because he has a historically good record on such performance metrics, at a time when Dems are studiously asserting out loud that none of that stuff matters much.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not debunked. Stone cold corroborated fact.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/trump-says-he-told-the-pentagon-10-000-national-guard-troops-would-be-needed-jan-6-but-was-ignored

CNN even reported it, pre-event. Those deployments were subject to Trump's order.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

Pelosi is desperate to show she refused repeated requests from Capitol Police for more security, and that Trump had in fact authorized deployment of far more NG troops than were requested, far more than even Miller anticipated would be necessary. So they are spinning 6Jan as a Republican insurrection rather than a dereliction of duty by Democrat leadership.

Give it up, man. You can't rewrite history.
(but that's what progressives do....rewrite history)
And the GOP will turn the tables in about 10 months to document the truth.

---

Nothing in those links comes close to supporting your claim. It's the same information that's in the USA Today fact check -- Trump claims that he ordered 10K troops, but there's no record of any such order.

---

They document it. He authorized his SecDef to deploy 10k National Guard, and his SecDef ordered, in writing, a smaller number to arms. It was under that authority that NG troops were actually deployed. It's a very bright line clearly showing Trump was trying to deploy troops to protect the process. (because he intended to use that process to contest the election to the bitter end.)

A few articles have speculated (in passing) that Pelosi refused to request the NG because they were afraid Trump would use them to pull a coup. I agree that was a major reason she did not. It is a natural concern to have if one does not trust one's adversary.

Stop trying to spin misinformation into the mix. DHS is gearing up to smack people for doing that. Be careful!

---

The only activation that was ever ordered prior to the Capitol breach consisted of 340 troops requested by the mayor, through the commander of the DC National Guard, and approved by Secretary of Defense Miller. They were to be unarmed and deployed away from the Capitol. Trump was not involved in any way, as Miller neither asked nor required his authorization. There was a brief phone conversation on Jan. 5 in which Trump mentioned that they would need 10,000 troops, but there was no follow-up on either side, and no one else who was involved in any capacity thought it necessary. Miller apparently brushed it off as an exaggeration. So blame him for that if you want. At no point were there any troops at Pelosi's disposal, much less 10,000 of them.

---

Historical facts are quite clear: 1) Trump, the alleged insurrectionist, was more proactively seeking to defend process than anyone else on the stage at the moment, 2) his SecDef pre-approved (in writing) deployment of the DC National Guard QRF on 4 January 2021, 3) his SecDef told others he had Presidential authority to order thousands more, and 4) Pelosi neither requested more NG troops nor acceded to CapPO requests for more security measures.

you know, Biden is erecting a Department of Truth in the DHS to fight exactly the kind of misinformation you're spreading. Be very careful here.....

---

Pelosi had no more to do with any request from the Capitol Police than McConnell did. That request, if it was made, came from the Capitol Police chief and was rejected by the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms. All three men have resigned, and the facts have been disputed. In any case there is no evidence that Pelosi denied the request or that she even knew about it. Several requests were allegedly rejected by the Pentagon on the day of the riot as well. Again that had nothing to do with the legislators. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but your attempts at victim-blaming are as ineffective as they are shameful.

---

And Chairman Lofgren (and others) were formally briefed on requests & status, so it's simply not plausible to assert Pelosi was out of the loop.

---

There's a word for this kind of thing. It's called speculation. What it's not is "stone cold corroborated fact." And your central claim that 10K troops were "pre-approved" and waiting for Pelosi's request is simply false. No amount of diversion or rhetorical gymnastics will serve to obscure that truth.

---

Watch out, Whiterock, Sam has no tolerance for anyone or anything that might get in the way of damning Trump.

---

A priori reasoning. He needs for Trump to be responsible for what happened on 6 Jan, and everything flows from there.

We have multiple points of corroboration that Trump verbally ordered up to 10k National Guard troops for Inauguration Day.
We have written confirmation that SecDef approved NG troops prior to inauguration day, at a level lower than that authorized by POTUS.
We have multiple points of corroboration that CaPO requested more security, and that it was denied by the individuals appointed by Pelosi to be responsible for security.

Those are the facts.
That they happen to be inconvenient to Sam's argument is, well, inconvenient.
Also typical.....

---

These are telling remarks, as my argument has nothing to do with Trump's responsibility. That's a separate issue on which you've fixated in order to somehow link his conduct with Pelosi's. Even if everything you said were true, it wouldn't exonerate the rioters or their instigators any more than a woman's failure to carry a weapon would exonerate her rapist. It is at least good to see you've dropped your suggestion that 10K troops were authorized to protect the Capitol. It's clear from Miller's testimony that this never happened, and he explained why under oath. Yes, it is a fact that a much smaller number were authorized for a totally different purpose with no involvement of the House. That has nothing to do with your claim here, and only an extraordinarily inattentive reader would let it slip by as any sort of proof. Nice try, though.

BylrFan said:

---

****BREAKING NEWS****
👇👇👇 pic.twitter.com/WdJnPJyMwG

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 20, 2022

well this is funny

---

Does this mean Rupert Murdoch is done with Trump?

Stay tuned!

Sam must have some really good shoes. Every day he stamps his feet several times in a tantrum as shown above, yet the shoes hold up really well.