Pam Bondi - new nom for AG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

So Georgetown grads are smart legal eagles who happen to be Catholic zealots? What about Catholic University or Notre Dame? More people prioritizing religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

Stetson is not particularly religious like Liberty U.

It's not religious at all. It's a good local law school - nothing to be ashamed of, graduating from Stetson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

Stetson is not particularly religious like Liberty U.

It's not religious at all. It's a good local law school - nothing to be ashamed of, graduating from Stetson.

PP here i agree. (I grew up in Florida)

[Anonymous]

I have no issue with where she went to law school. I have huge issues with her ability to prosecute the law evenly and without favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She dropped the Trump University fraud case after he made a big donation to her campaign.

She’s qualified but corrupt.

Trump is corrupt and the only people who will work with him must be corrupt. She'll be gone in a year.

By then she will have turned a flamethrower on all the DOJ problem children. It will be glorious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no issue with where she went to law school. I have huge issues with her ability to prosecute the law evenly and without favor.

She won't have any more issues in that regard than any Democrat in that position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no issue with where she went to law school. I have huge issues with her ability to prosecute the law evenly and without favor.

She won't have any more issues in that regard than any Democrat in that position.

She has already accepted a bribe from him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She dropped the Trump University fraud case after he made a big donation to her campaign.

She’s qualified but corrupt.

Isn't corruption a prerequisite to be in trump's world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the qualifications for DOJ nominee need to be:
NOT from Florida
NOT having ever representing Trump in a legal matter. Isn't that as blatant a conflict of interest as it could possibly be? Not only that, it was in one of his impeachment trials (although of course she didn't have to actually do anything.)
NOT have skeletons pertaining to dogs or sex.
NOT have a law degree from the school ranked 98th.

Oh, come on. Stop being an elitist. That's ridiculous. She passed the same Florida Bar exam as anyone who graduated from Yale or Harvard. I don't like Trump, but I am glad he is getting outside this snobby, snooty, elitist bubble for all the people who paid $200k for a law degree and getting paid the same for those who paid $65k at the regional university.

I’d have less issue with it if she went to UF. She didn’t. She went to an expensive private law school that was not very good and was affiliated with the southern baptists. That suggests to me she didn’t do very well at UF as an undergrad and that she prioritizes her religion in her legal views.

So Georgetown grads are smart legal eagles who happen to be Catholic zealots? What about Catholic University or Notre Dame? More people prioritizing religion?

Agree.

Graduates of those schools are all forced birthers, christian nationalists, or both.

[Anonymous]

I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

There are plenty of white men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

In Barbie’s world they beat the patriarchy. These women will screw over women so they can have little p power. The paternalism is the point. Trump bribed her, so she caved. The others kissed the ring. These are not strong, independent thinkers with novel ideas. They’re toeing a party line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

In Barbie’s world they beat the patriarchy. These women will screw over women so they can have little p power. The paternalism is the point. Trump bribed her, so she caved. The others kissed the ring. These are not strong, independent thinkers with novel ideas. They’re toeing a party line.

You BETTER be right. And there better not be anymore women nominees, for the sake of your remaining shreds of credibility.

Add we better start seeing some concrete evidence of misogyny rolled out in the first hundred days. At the very minimum a ban on women voting, driving and wearing shoes while in the kitchen. Just like you assured us would happen.

Clock will be ticking soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

In Barbie’s world they beat the patriarchy. These women will screw over women so they can have little p power. The paternalism is the point. Trump bribed her, so she caved. The others kissed the ring. These are not strong, independent thinkers with novel ideas. They’re toeing a party line.

You BETTER be right. And there better not be anymore women nominees, for the sake of your remaining shreds of credibility.

Add we better start seeing some concrete evidence of misogyny rolled out in the first hundred days. At the very minimum a ban on women voting, driving and wearing shoes while in the kitchen. Just like you assured us would happen.

Clock will be ticking soon.

Look we know that we have upside down world right now, with Trumpsters saying they are the feminists, but the GOP has a woman problem. Where are they? You can Google it. You also can’t claim “I have a daughter, so I can’t be sexist.” Or, “I have a black friend, so can’t be racist.”

Also, I didn’t say they’d be rolling out the misogyny. I said they would be upholding the patriarchy, which they are doing by virtue of accepting these positions. They will help white men billionaires screw over the taxpayers. You might also ask yourself why these women aren’t billionaires themselves? 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m starting to regret my Trump vote.

I was promised - PROMISED! - there would be misogyny. What am I getting instead? Women getting nominated all over the damn place!!! DHS, COS, SG, and now AG!

Where is the misogyny I was assured would happen? Y’all said it would be like “Handmaid’s Tale”! But this is turning out more like “Barbie’s World”!

Y’all LIED!!!!!

In Barbie’s world they beat the patriarchy. These women will screw over women so they can have little p power. The paternalism is the point. Trump bribed her, so she caved. The others kissed the ring. These are not strong, independent thinkers with novel ideas. They’re toeing a party line.

You BETTER be right. And there better not be anymore women nominees, for the sake of your remaining shreds of credibility.

Add we better start seeing some concrete evidence of misogyny rolled out in the first hundred days. At the very minimum a ban on women voting, driving and wearing shoes while in the kitchen. Just like you assured us would happen.

Clock will be ticking soon.

Look we know that we have upside down world right now, with Trumpsters saying they are the feminists, but the GOP has a woman problem. Where are they? You can Google it. You also can’t claim “I have a daughter, so I can’t be sexist.” Or, “I have a black friend, so can’t be racist.”

Also, I didn’t say they’d be rolling out the misogyny. I said they would be upholding the patriarchy, which they are doing by virtue of accepting these positions. They will help white men billionaires screw over the taxpayers. You might also ask yourself why these women aren’t billionaires themselves? 🤔

You may have said patriarchy - but women were wearing handsmaid costumes to vote. Speaking of patriarchy - you must support Nancy Mace. Me too!