Pam Bondi - new nom for AG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all going to wish it was still Gaetz.

Why? Honest question. I realize she is a Trump loyalist, but it seems that she is actually qualified for the job. I feel like extremely partisan politics can be reversed, as ling as our institutions aren’t dismantled. But these random, unqualified TV personalities leading the government scares me to death.

A competent and committed AG will be effective. An incompetent AG will be ineffective.

I presume you’d prefer Trumps AG to be ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she’ll be pretty incompetent, which is about the best we can hope for with this administration. I’m more concerned about the batshit crazies (Tulsi, RFK) or the smart and competent true believers (Stephen Miller). People like Bondi will just waste time chasing media coverage and mostly ignore what’s actually going on in their agencies.

She is competent and tough with an admirable work ethic. Is she a liberal? No.

No, she isn't competent. She's considered a joke in Never-Trump circles (who are conservative).

[Anonymous]

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.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

[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.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

A bunch of fine republicans here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

[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.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

A bunch of fine republicans here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

Just what I thought. Anyone who stands in the way of the left gaining power , you would smear
Thank God you lost in such a landslide.

[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.

No, that’s just a list of cheap attacks at Pam Bondi. Can you give the name of one Republican you would support or at least tolerate for AG? If not, that puts your attacks on Bondi in context.

Crickets

I knew you couldn’t provide a name. You would lob silly attacks at whomever Trump appoints.

A bunch of fine republicans here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign

Just what I thought. Anyone who stands in the way of the left gaining power , you would smear
Thank God you lost in such a landslide.

Oh please. I have never voted Democrat. I'm also smart enough to know that Trump & co is not good.

[Anonymous]

He had to switch to a woman because he does not now any men who have but been accused of sexual assault!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He had to switch to a woman because he does not now any men who have but been accused of sexual assault!

Oops, I spoke too soon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/us/linda-mcmahon-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-trump-education-secretary.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big sigh of relief at DOJ. Just happy we have someone who has practiced law

Agreed. Excellent pick!

How do you feel about her dropping the case against Trump university after he gave her a big donation?

Meh who cares.

Right. It is good to know that the biggest lawyer in the country is susceptible to bribery. Awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she’ll be pretty incompetent, which is about the best we can hope for with this administration. I’m more concerned about the batshit crazies (Tulsi, RFK) or the smart and competent true believers (Stephen Miller). People like Bondi will just waste time chasing media coverage and mostly ignore what’s actually going on in their agencies.

She is competent and tough with an admirable work ethic. Is she a liberal? No.

I have worked with her in the past. She is the face, and she has great PR presence and style. The work ethic comes from the workabees that surround her, and she receives the credit. But that's good management, which is required. Let's not confuse the two.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is making a mockery of this position. Two very unserious candidates whose main qualification is loyalty.

I’m not going to get anyone I actually like. But Bondi ran the Justice Department in a large state so she’s definitely qualified, and she hasn’t totally disrupted her workplace or been credibly accused of sexual misconduct with teenagers, so this is going to have to do.

She did a quid pro quo though. I’m not ready to settle.

So who would you like Trump to appoint?

Someone professional, ethical, and apolitical. Someone who isn’t interested in being on tv. Someone calm, thoughtful, and serious who takes public service and law and order seriously.

Well Biden put Merrick Garland in the position, and he fumbled the ball. If he had taken the job seriously in the beginning, Jack Smith would have a conviction, and Trump would not be number 47. He waited too long. I don't think Bondi will tarry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she’ll be pretty incompetent, which is about the best we can hope for with this administration. I’m more concerned about the batshit crazies (Tulsi, RFK) or the smart and competent true believers (Stephen Miller). People like Bondi will just waste time chasing media coverage and mostly ignore what’s actually going on in their agencies.

She is competent and tough with an admirable work ethic. Is she a liberal? No.

No, she isn't competent. She's considered a joke in Never-Trump circles (who are conservative).

And you know this how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well we already knew that she can be bought.