I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Oh yeah, the rediculous hypothetical games...
Barr also said people take Trump too literally, and that he doesn't believe he would carry out those things. Trump was blowing off steam, he said.
You must have meant ridiculous.
Since when is it hypothetical to discuss what has actually been said? Hypothetical is when you don't discuss the actual to discuss, instead, the imagined or the possible... you know, like the conservative justices did the other day when considering the presidential immunity case argued before them.
Sure, Barr said that he doesn't believe that Trump would do those things today, but that's a direct contradiction of his previous opinion of Trump's fitness for office. Do you remember Barr saying that Trump was bat sh!t crazy if he believed the "rigged election" nonsense? Do you remember Barr saying that Trump would only deliver chaos, not conservative policy if elected again? Do you remember Barr saying that Trump engaged in wrong doing relative to January 6th?
Now Barr laughs that stuff off and says that he has to vote for the republican because of gas stoves, cars and other right wing nonsense.
This contadictory and subservient behavior seems common in Trumpian politics. I wonder what motivated Barr to come out of retirement to publicly humiliate himself like that. It seems like cultish behavior.
Barr also said people take Trump too literally, and that he doesn't believe he would carry out those things. Trump was blowing off steam, he said.
If a person can't control his thoughts or his speech, he shouldn't be president. I don't want to have to worry about some thing he might not do. He's a monkey with a gun. A real threat because we can't depend on him to think rationally. He is too inconsistent and vindictive to be dependable. It's like putting someone in office with Wernicke's disease. Yes, he can talk but he can't reason. Person, woman, man, camera, TV. Is this all we ask of a leader?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
subee said:
If a person can't control his thoughts or his speech, he shouldn't be president. I don't want to have to worry about some thing he might not do. He's a monkey with a gun. A real threat because we can't depend on him to think rationally. He is too inconsistent and vindictive to be dependable. It's like putting someone in office with Wernicke's disease. Yes, he can talk but he can't reason. Person, woman, man, camera, TV. Is this all we ask of a leader?
That's apparently all that republican voters ask from their leaders in the era of Trump. Just consider the characters that the MAGA voters have elevated since 2016.
Good guys with guns shot and killed by bad guy with guns.
Can a strict constitutional textualist tell me if this is what the founders had in mind?
The amendment addresses militias which it says are necessary for the defense of the nation. In my view the "bear arms" portion of the amendment attaches the weapons to the militia. In the absence of a well regulated militia, the right to bear arms can and most certainly should be limited and restricted. IMV
Maybe it's you who doesn't know. A figure of speech isn't normally intended to misrepresent reality.
You don't remember voting for Trump and "elevating" him to the presidency? That is an actual figure of speech, odd that you didn't recognize it after questioning someone else's ability to recognize a figure of speech.
You might of had someone convinced that you actually believe that Trump is appropriately being held to the rule of law until you shared that you don't necessarily want to call it the rule of law.
Of course they are saying the guy who tried to overturn election results should have blanket immunity that would even include political assassination, Trump wants that power. Bill Barr and other members of Team Trump have told us that Trump talks about killing people. Usually, lawyers bring legal arguments to court, not emotional arguments.
Trump supporters just don't want to say no to Trump. Maybe the well known supporters don't want to be publicly humiliated by the bully himself or threatened by the violent fringe of his cult. It's a real phenomenon.
I didn't say I voted for Trump. But will this time arround because the other choice has proven to be ineffective and cognitively unaware.
He is being held to the rule of law. Doesn't matter what I say. You suggested he wasn't being held to the rule of law because his defence lawyers are defending him. Which he is entitled to asper the law. Perhaps we shpuld charge his lawyers for defending him next?
I think ypur idea of a "Trump supporter" is severely distorted by left wing media and liberal echo chambers you most likely frequent.
Your assertion that Trump and his lawyers would want immunities for "political assassination " and members of Team Trump "say he talks about killing people" is ridiculous. It's a perfect example of the desperation of radical democrats and why people are distancing themselfs from today's democratic party.
Lawyers? What kind of lawyers take on Trump as a client? He's already accusing one of them of not being "aggressive" enough. He's just setting up the reaon not to pay him. As for SCOTUS, I doubt they have a majority of judges with enough integrity to uphold the rule of law. Look at the games they are playing now to avoid a decision before the election when they have made other major judgements in days.
The lawyers that are defending Trump are upholding his constitutional right to a defence. So Trump a US citizen is not entitled to a defence in a court of law? That type of talk sounds like actual attempt to destroy the constitution. Some people have constitutional right and some don't? Depending on their political affiliation?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
I didn't say I voted for Trump. But will this time arround because the other choice has proven to be ineffective and cognitively unaware.
He is being held to the rule of law. Doesn't matter what I say. You suggested he wasn't being held to the rule of law because his defence lawyers are defending him. Which he is entitled to asper the law. Perhaps we shpuld charge his lawyers for defending him next?
I think ypur idea of a "Trump supporter" is severely distorted by left wing media and liberal echo chambers you most likely frequent.
Your assertion that Trump and his lawyers would want immunities for "political assassination " and members of Team Trump "say he talks about killing people" is ridiculous. It's a perfect example of the desperation of radical democrats and why people are distancing themselfs from today's democratic party.
I guess if you want to be affiliated with immoral and corrupt behavior that values power over our constitution, that's your right.
Similarly, you are entitled to your opinion about Biden's effectiveness and I'll base my opinion upon the actual record. I guess you didn't watch the White House Correspondent's Dinner the other night. That was definitely not the public conduct of a man in serious cognitive decline. Neither was the SOTU. I mean you can say that, but it just makes me wonder about your assessment skills and judgment.
My assertions about the arguments were based upon the actual arguments. I listened to the SCOTUS proceedings. I'm surprised that you haven't read or heard about it. That makes your comment about desperate and radical democrats appear foolish and ill informed.
The Bulwark, The Lincoln Project, Republicans for Rule of Law, and Americans for Prosperity are all conservative groups actively speaking against, funding ads against and campaigning against Trump and his sycophants. I see lots of evidence of people distancing themselves from Trump.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
The lawyers that are defending Trump are upholding his constitutional right to a defence. So Trump a US citizen is not entitled to a defence in a court of law? That type of talk sounds like actual attempt to destroy the constitution. Some people have constitutional right and some don't? Depending on their political affiliation?
Baloney.
No member implied Trump wasn't entitled to a defense. What went over your head (apparently) was the knowledge that; a) Trump has a history of not paying attorneys as they thought they would be paid (ask Giuliani) and b) Trump has a history of getting his attorneys in legal trouble (ask Giuliani). Or maybe it didn't go over your head so you pivoted to another strawman.
I think at least a dozen of Trump's attorneys are dealing with legal peril.
I guess if you want to be affiliated with immoral and corrupt behavior that values power over our constitution, that's your right.
Similarly, you are entitled to your opinion about Biden's effectiveness and I'll base my opinion upon the actual record. I guess you didn't watch the White House Correspondent's Dinner the other night. That was definitely not the public conduct of a man in serious cognitive decline. Neither was the SOTU. I mean you can say that, but it just makes me wonder about your assessment skills and judgment.
My assertions about the arguments were based upon the actual arguments. I listened to the SCOTUS proceedings. I'm surprised that you haven't read or heard about it. That makes your comment about desperate and radical democrats appear foolish and ill informed.
The Bulwark, The Lincoln Project, Republicans for Rule of Law, and Americans for Prosperity are all conservative groups actively speaking against, funding ads against and campaigning against Trump and his sycophants. I see lots of evidence of people distancing themselves from Trump.
Yes Trump is many despicable things. It may be worth pointing out that Trump and all his faults is still the better candidate over Biden.
Barr thinks so and so do many other Americans. It really sucks I know. Instead of just ranting about how terrible he is, you might have to reconize that terrible as he is, he may be better than Biden in November.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Yes Trump is many despicable things. It may be worth pointing out that Trump and all his faults is still the better candidate over Biden.
Barr thinks so and so do many other Americans. It really sucks I know. Instead of just ranting about how terrible he is, you might have to reconize that terrible as he is, he may be better than Biden in November.
Name the assumption that prompted your statement. Then you can quote any remark that gave you the idea that I'm offended that people vote or think that they shouldn't vote their own values and priorities. From my perspective, the first paragraph of your comment is simply a bunch of baloney.
I'm always interested in how an old man who tried to overturn election results and who mismanaged a pandemic is a better candidate than Biden. Explain it to me.
Tell me why it's not more important to protect our constitution than to get Biden out of office.
Break down the benefit or logic of re-electing the guy rated (by historians) at the bottom of all presidents versus the guy rated in the top third.
Explain it to me. Compare Trump and Biden from your point of view so that we can discuss what needs to be recognized.
I'm really interested in the comparisons that I mentioned, so please start with your reasoning in those issues first.
toomuchbaloney
16,037 Posts
You must have meant ridiculous.
Since when is it hypothetical to discuss what has actually been said? Hypothetical is when you don't discuss the actual to discuss, instead, the imagined or the possible... you know, like the conservative justices did the other day when considering the presidential immunity case argued before them.
Sure, Barr said that he doesn't believe that Trump would do those things today, but that's a direct contradiction of his previous opinion of Trump's fitness for office. Do you remember Barr saying that Trump was bat sh!t crazy if he believed the "rigged election" nonsense? Do you remember Barr saying that Trump would only deliver chaos, not conservative policy if elected again? Do you remember Barr saying that Trump engaged in wrong doing relative to January 6th?
Now Barr laughs that stuff off and says that he has to vote for the republican because of gas stoves, cars and other right wing nonsense.
This contadictory and subservient behavior seems common in Trumpian politics. I wonder what motivated Barr to come out of retirement to publicly humiliate himself like that. It seems like cultish behavior.