By that logic, when do Trump’s actions catch up to him, Good Christian?

Never. Because when he dies, he will ascend to Heaven and bump Jesus off his perch. It's been ordained.

Also, it’s one hell of a comeuppance for Harris. Rose to a level that, let’s see…um, zero other women brown or otherwise attained. And crapped out shorter than..yeah again, no other women.

(That’s if you even accept the premise that she had a relationship with Brown to get ahead, which I don’t. Though bitches never screw for anything else amirite??)

Why are you making the assumption that Harris's relationship with Willie Brown was to get ahead? I think that's unfair to assume. Also, if it was the case why aren't you placing blame on Brown too in which instance he would have used his position of power to take advantage of a much younger woman?

While that relationship may have helped Harris get her foot in the door, Harris has proven to be very qualified at everything she's done. Many people's first opportunity is because they knew someone.

Most people don't inherit incredible wealth like Trump did.


I think for the historical society reasons you mentioned and also because I think women would generally naturally gravitate towards other women to discuss their dating experiences.


Sexism and misogyny are still rampant in society.

The overturning of Roe was not to protect life. If Republicans were pro life they would be for free childcare, free Medicare for everyone 18 and under, pro contraception, paid national parental leave for at least 6 months after a child being born, and free healthcare for pregnant women. They aren't for any of that. The overturning of Roe was to control women.

I mostly agree with most of your posts. I just don't believe most men are inherently bad or at least don't think it's productive to have that mindset. I think there are definitely toxic norms in society that continue to exist. How you counteract these especially when right wing influencers are reinforcing to young men I do not know.

This Hegseth story looks really bad. She got a rape kit done the next morning.

I'm sure he prayed about it and it's ok now.

The right will just question why she signed the nda instead of pressing charges.

When asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration. Wouldn't hurt of have a video recording. Don't get overly dramatic and just follow orders.

No big deal (unless you are illegal). Happens all the time, every day.

Why are you assuming this is a garden variety traffic stop?

So you are OK with a LEO asking people for ID for no reasons other than appearance?

How Third Reich of you.

Good thing I asked him for a scenario and he said

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3445304) Could be a traffic stop could be like stop and frisk. Could be other people call her in as suspicious. Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

No problem in asking for DL, proof of insurance, and registration in a traffic stop. If she is doing something that people think is suspicious, no problem.

But tell you what, if/when his daughter is toss into a concentration camp through no fault of her own, com'on back with a "I told you so". Until, just chill until we better understand how this "roundup & deportation" will work.

To quote him again

Quote:

Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

Me, Third Reich? That is ironic coming from you

Way to cherry pick. He also used stop and frisk as an example which is a violation of civil liberties.

His quote is actually


... period. I guess you can read that as 2 separate incidents, but I read that as 1 incident where there is a traffic stop and then stop & frisk.

If that's the case, then I don't think it's a violation of civil liberties (or it needs to be more egregious). But hey, that's why she should be recording the incident, and the LEO should also have a video recording.

Doesn't say anything about requesting ID...

If you can't see why people are concerned that detention camps are in the planning process I don't know what to tell you

Huh?

If there is a traffic stop, the LEO can ask you for Drivers License, insurance and proof of registration, and you are required to provide it. Happens all the time, every day, perfectly legal.


Same.

If you don't see how Trump is targeting illegals and not legal naturalized citizens like his daughter ... then I don't know what to tell you.

There are legal immigrants, non-immigrants that should worry some (asylees, refugees, Dreamers and like). But a legal, non-fraudulent, naturalized citizen ... that is ridiculous.

But yeah, let's see what happens in the next 4 years.

Unheard of levels of bootlicking. You're describing a violation of constitutional rights.

Really? Is this your opinion or fact?

Please provide a link if fact.

Or are you one of those Sovereign Citizens idiots?

Again, a driver's license is not proof of citizenship. At that point do they say come back in a couple of weeks or do they detain? What happens if they detain? What legal process, if any, will play out?

True, DL is not proof of citizenship. We don't know the process of how something like this will play out ... other than default to the current process.

Like you say

So why assume your daughter will be tossed into a detention camp when she is unable to show proof of citizenship, when they haven't told us what the process is?

When they tell us what the process is (e.g. a new ID card), and she refuses to show it, then that'll be a problem.

Wingate vs Fulford. Google stuff and stop being the board dummy.

I'm not assuming that will happen, I'm preparing her for the possibility. It would be negligent to assume there is no possibility for abuse.

I'll remind you that during Trump's first term he deported Korean adoptees who were not made citizens.

Thanks for the link.

In fact, I did google on "can leos ask for dl, registration, proof of insurance" and it came back with


I read more about the case, see below. Asking for a DL is not a violation of the constitution. The issue was the reason/suspicion for the ask was not legit per the second quote.

Page not found - Reason.com.

I agree

I agree also. The vast number of stops I've seen on YT were for legit reasons, done by professional LEOs. But I've seen others that were bad for sure.

Yes, I can easily admit that some legal immigrants (not yet citizens) are at risk such as refugees, asylees, Dreamers.

There is no indication that Trump wants to deport legally, naturalized citizens other than for those specific A-D de-naturalization situation I linked previously.

I don't know if it helps to reassure you, but I've watch several Holman interviews, and not once has he said/implied naturalized citizens were at risk. I would encourage you to do the same. You may not like his politics, but he says what he means.

They can ask you for your DL on a legal traffic stop if you are the driver. Your DL is not proof of citizenship and the traffic stop has nothing to do with your immigration status.

JPhillips is clearly not talking about his daughter being pulled over for rolling through a stopnsign and having to show ID.

I'll just quote him again

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips View Post Could be a traffic stop could be like stop and frisk. Could be other people call her in as suspicious. Again, there are no details so we don't know what might happen.

Okay, happy to see you've corrected yourself from your all-encompassing statement below and you now really don't believe it's a violation of constitutional rights for a LEO to ask for a DL, registration and proof of insurance. Yup, always ask if its opinion or fact/source when debating you.

You do not have to provide proof of citizenship to an officer during a traffic stop. It would be a violation of civil rights to arrest someone for failing to do so. They can ask for a drivers license if you were driving but that has nothing to do with citizenship status.

He is clearly concerned with people like you who view anyone who isn't white as a potential illegal immigrants. That she will have her constitutional rights violated over her skin color.

Back for more?

Refer back to where you jumped into the conversation for the specific quotes Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

I did not say had to provide proof of citizenship. Read what I said.

I did not say her daughter would be arrested for failing to provide proof of citizenship. I have said I can see where she would be detained at the car stop and she would be investigated further. But I have never said she would be arrested, in fact I my point is he has little to worry about

On DL nothing to do with citizenship, I agree. So? How does that prove your point below? Is it possible that you jumped into a middle of a discussion and tossed your par-for-the-course insults without first reading the prior posts?

The government doesn't have a list of citizens. It's up to citizens to be able to provide the documents that prove they are citizens. Given that, there's no way to do mass deportations without at least initially rounding up people who are citizens but are unable to prove so at the time of detention.

I don't want my daughter caught up in that, but I'd recommend that everybody carry proof of citizenship if Trump goes forward with mass deportations.

In addition to what you said in your post, I am also worried there will be an increase in harassment and violence against non white people living in the United States.

Trump really brings out the worst in some people in this country.

Non white men yes, there will be 100%

Thats a given and already happening. Black people being targeted with texts about reporting to plantations, kids yelling your body my choice, etc...

😂 pic.twitter.com/hUahjdrAJP

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) November 18, 2024

Why would she be detained and investigated further?


You literally said the solution to this was handing over your drivers license. Make up your mind.

I don't know what you mean by "solution to this". If you mean to "prove citizenship", I did not say that. If you mean to "comply with officer" and "chill", I did say this.

Assuming you mean if driver does not provide DL, registration or proof of insurance? Because in a traffic stop (e.g. speeding, busted lights, looks to be drunk etc.), a LEO can legitimately as for DL, registration and proof of insurance. And unlike what you claim, there is no constitutional violation.

If the driver refuses, the LEO can legitimately detain (not arrest) the driver and conduct further investigation. Further investigation may calling a supervisor/sergeant to come to talk the driver; asking driver if car can be searched; peering into car to see what is in plain sight; run the DUI test if driver okays it; talking to any other witnesses etc.

If the driver still refuses to cooperate, the LEO can take the driver back to the station, get driver fingerprinted to be ID'd, offer a breath analyzer (and if refused, believe the driver can be locked up for X hours) and stuff like that.

One way or another, if it's a legit stop, the LEO will get the ID either at the incident or back at the police station ... and there's no constitutional violation. Yeah, you may find some exceptional situations here and there because of X or Y, but no constitutional violation as a whole.

But let's get back to the original accusation you made below. I'm okay with talking about other things, but let's put the original to bed first. Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below.

Quote:

When asked by a LEO, just hand over DL, proof of insurance, and registration. Wouldn't hurt of have a video recording. Don't get overly dramatic and just follow orders.

He's not worried about his daughter getting a speeding ticket. He's worried about his daughter being detained and imprisoned because she can't prove her citizenship during any sort of interaction with law enforcement.

And you know this is what he meant. And you know why he is concerned over his daughter's situation as opposed to the situation you or I would be in if we were to interact with law enforcement. You're purposely being obtuse because it's a question you can't answer without sounding racist.

So again, he brought up a perfectly realistic scenario where his daughter is asked to prove citizenship and your response was to hand over a driver's license and her Geico insurance card.

Okay, so I'll take this as your typical "but's" after being challenged on a wildly incorrect statement. I'll add this to "Philippines is not a democracy" and "US is not decoupling from China".

When you made the claim about violation of constitutional rights, and I challenged it, the first thing you brought up was Wingate vs Fulford. After I showed you were full of BS, then you tried to clarify your statement about "worried about this or that". I'll call BS on that also because if that's really what you meant, you would have brought that up instead of Wingate vs Fulford.

And of course, let's not forget this completely hilarious exchange which goes to your lack of reading comprehension.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2


Oh, I'll just ask the question again for the 3rd (?) time?

Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below.

It literally doesn't matter if it's a traffic stop or coming up to her on the street. A driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Neither is your vehicle registration or insurance card (which you only have to show during a traffic stop when you are suspected of a traffic violation and the one actually driving).



Now you're doing the dumb guy thing of going off on tangents because you can't answer his question. What is his daughter supposed to do when an officer demands she prove she's a citizen?

I will answer this question when you answer mine. I mean, I asked first, right? So, who is avoiding answering the question?

Let me ask again for the 4th time (and so others can see for context, see below for his original assertion & rebuttal)


QUESTION - Do you still contend it is a violation of constitutional rights below?



Original assertion

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

When challenged on this assertion, supposedly Wingate vs Fulford proved his contention, and my rebuttal

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

Trump saying this morning his plans are to declare a national emergency so he can use the military for his deportation plans.

You don't do that if the plan is orderly and centered around a legal process.

Everything in his life is a reality show. I suspect Trump wants images of the military rounding up migrants shown on a loop for the world to see to send a message.

So the boys that didn't yell should be lumped in with those that did? I guess in your world those boys were thinking it deep down inside and just not saying it?

And again, from where I came into the discussion, the answer from liberal women is to stop having sex, with those terrible men, yes the ones that voted for Harris too, and producing babies that would be raised in a liberal home?

I wouldn't doubt that somewhere in the cesspool of thinkers that came up with Project 2025 someone was trying to figure out a way to "breed out" liberals. With these women taking a stance against the terrible men, it looks like they won't have to bother.

This is just the same "not all men" argument all over again.

There is a reason why most women chose the bear

Wow.

I'm sorry, I'm missing how it is substantively different?

Another project 2025 guy tabbed to run the FCC. This country is so fucked.

I'm sure they'll try something, but I'm not sure what the FCC can do (or rather, should be able to do) against the networks. The locals that carry them, perhaps. But the networks themselves I would think would be protected much the same way Fox is.

(Even there, I'm not entirely sure how the whole local station setup hasn't...well, not collapsed, per se, but just transformed. Other than Jim and his antenna setup, who is getting these stations OTA anymore? I've gotten my locals via DirecTV or YouTube, I'd think these delivery mechanisms would be clear of the FCC.)

I’ve no idea how it works regarding broadcast licenses but you know the project 2025 guys would like nothing more than state controlled media given how successfully FOX News has brainwashed people.

I just read that Project 2025 wants to get rid of federal flood insurance. That will really go over well in FL.

I think he's already on the commission. Seems like most of his focus is on online stuff. Removing Section 230 protections from social media companies seems like the big one. He also supports the banning of TikTok which is already the current Democrat position. Not really sure what he could possibly do with network TV in that position, it's just not that powerful.

But doesn't federal flood insurance basically favor the rich? Sounds like a good program to get rid of.

IIRC section 230 is what protects social media companies from liability for whats posted on their platforms.

I'm sure that would go over well with Musk.

They obviously won't be enforcing it on companies that are friendly to the administration.

In dollar terms, yes, but lots of people have mandated flood insurance. It may just be a plan to funnel federal subsidies to private insurance plans, but if they really cut it that will fuck thousands during the next Gulf hurricane.

Happy that Morning Joe reached out and tried to reconcile.

Morning Joe was my morning show of choice when I was travelling and living in hotel rooms. They had good guests, insights and "both sides". And then 2016 happened and IMO they became way too partisan and the Fox equivalent.

I'll let things settle down some and then give them another shot.

OTA is pretty stable for the past few years, believed to be around 14.5% nationally. Some markets it's around 1/3rd, other markets are in single digits.

But the delivery method doesn't matter in terms of the station's legal ability to exist _as currently constituted_. Loose the broadcast license, there's nothing to send via those digital outlets. Now could you reconfigure it? Sure.

The big "however" is what's known as the must-carry provision.

I'll let Google AI summarize that "Local television stations are "guaranteed" cable access due to a regulation called "must-carry," which means cable providers are required by law to carry all locally licensed broadcast stations on their systems, essentially providing access to them on the cable lineup.


Did you spot the key phrase there: "locally licensed"

When the license goes away, so does the must-carry provision. And at that point you're talking about individual stations needing to negotiate terms, and cable providers having 100% of the leverage.

I don't know, you think it's ok to group all men or boys together because some did a bad thing? How does that fly when applied to other groups?

"This is just the same "not all Muslims" argument all over again."

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong? If so I apologize.

"not all men."



I'm curious, cuerv. What percentage of men would you say fit the profile that Lathum has described?

I think there are more than most of us know or would care to know.

This is getting a little OT, but here is one example.

I read a story in my local paper yesterday about the rise of illegal massage parlors aka brothels, in Jersey and nationwide.

Investigation finds illicit massage parlors are rampant in New Jersey

It may be behind a paywall, but the article says there are over 13,000 of these nationwide. The girls almost exclusively are human trafficked from China and Korea. You can imagine how many men paying for sex it takes to keep these operational. Each one of those men are complicit in human trafficking, questionable rape, many cheating on a spouse, tax evasion, and just shitty human behavior in general.

I'm going to laugh, loudly, the next time the people promoting this point of view talk about how sexist this or that segment of society is, given how enthusiastically they promoting a blatantly sexist point of view.

Not really sure. I think there are plenty of cases where guys start out as seeming fine, and then are found...to not be. Even "liberal" ones -- the whole "nice guy" phenomenon from the "not all men" argument. But what percentage makes the gamble just not worth it? 10%? 25%? 50%?

Especially in the current information ecosystem. Many young men are influenced by the Joe Rogans of the world. (Even my own son, who may not listen to Rogan, I am pretty sure was influenced by "gamergate" types, holds conservative views, and has been known to produce a number of invectives that I'm not proud to hear.) If you're a liberal-leaning woman, would you feel comfortable around these guys? Even if you were, would you feel like you matched them? I don't know if I would.

One other factor...it seems like many more young women are identifying as queer now -- or at least bisexual. If that's the case -- if you really don't care if you are with a man or a woman -- why not go with the option which seems, well, "safer?" No, maybe not totally safe, but I'd say your chances of rape/abuse are certainly lower, and there's no risk of pregnancy. If you change your mind later on when you're ready for kids, then fine. (Of course, with adoption, you can have kids in a same sex coupling anyway.) If kids are even feasible financially.

I meant that "not all men" has been a thing for a while now, and this seems like a rehash of it. Since at least 2014. This isn't just me coming up with the premise.

This is all a great discussion for here, among mostly men. Obviously the statement "not all men" is factually true. Why that statement raises hackles among women is because it usually used by men to down play and even justify abuses of men on women.

A residence cruise line - based in FL no less - is offering anti-Trump Americans the opportunity to skip his Presidency on a cruise around the world for up to 4 years.

The kicker is that the only people who can afford this either (a) voted for Trump or (b) are liberal elites mostly responsible for his election in the first place.

Laugh away buddy but sexism and gender inequality are very real things and women have every right to point them out. Old white men get so fragile when the shoe is on the other foot.

Where do I sign.

Women: "This is how we feel."
Men: "No, you're wrong."

Clearly a cover for kidnapping and slavery.

Not all Skittles

I don't really know what the point of the "all men" stuff is. Obviously there are good and bad people in every demographic. But it's also worth pointing out that the President will be a man who has been found liable for rape and has bragged about sexually assaulting women. One of his largest financial supporters and right hand man has had to settle multiple sexual harassment suits and repeatedly talks about impregnating women he doesn't know. The new AG is a pedophile who paid minors for sex. The new Secretary of Defense paid off women for violent sexual assaults.

Both parties have leaders that were intimately tied to Jeffrey Epstein and helped not only cover up his crimes, but suppress any evidence from coming out. Sexual assault runs rampant in our military and our largest religious institutions have been criminal enterprises for child molestation for generations. Police departments have immense backlogs of rape kits despite massive budgets. And none of that even touches on the loss of civil rights in the past few years.

So it's not "all men" by any means, but this country isn't all that kind to women.

Women don’t know which is which. Let’s say a woman has a flat tire on a rural road and is approached by a man. She instantly is on guard because she doesn’t know if he’s there to help her or assault her. There is a reason women alone in an elevator with a man will get off on a different floor and certainly not go to her room.

Men don’t have to worry about this stuff and have never had to.

Dr. Oz in charge of Medicare & Medicaid.

No idea what his policies will be. Pretty sure Medicare is safe from cuts (a Trump promise) but there may be some cuts in Medicaid.

I guess now we know why Dr. Phil turned on him. Passed up for a cabinet position.

What a fucking joke.

There are going to be deep cuts in Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.

Not sure they realize how many people in nursing homes are on Medicaid.

Gaetz
Hegseth
Oz
RFK Jr.
Tulsi

Absolutely sad and hilarious that this is what 49% of the country voted for. They're mostly troll nominations so Trump can establish that Senate will cave and do whatever he wants. If they don't then he has a public list of people within his own party to force out of office.

Dr. Oz is, at least qualified, for something like this. He has an MD, and MBA from an Ivy League school, and many years in clinical and academic medicine. I work in healthcare and there is a ton of fraud and savings to be had if it were ever to be managed well. Beyond just health insurance, things like nursing homes, residential placements, and foster care are heavily impacted by Medicaid/Medicare. I will be interested to see what, if any changes, they may be interested in making.

It is a joke to think that he is the best choice available for something like this, but I don't think he makes the top 5 list of most inappropriate upcoming appointments. Kind of like the Sean "Real World" Duffy pick for Sec of Transportation - he got the job because he is a pseudo celebrity, handsome, and good on TV, but he is reasonably well qualified with his education and work history.

Oz has done nothing but promote quack medicine for however long he was on TV. He may have credentials but he has pissed away any semblance of credibility. So yes, his nomination is a joke. He's RFK with credentials.

The Cantor Fitzgerald guy got the Commerce job which means a crypto bailout is happening.

The Bulwark had an eye-opening article today about the DJT org - a money-losing enterprise with a multi-billion dollar market cap thanks to Trump supporters and others seeking influence - buying a failing crypto exchange majority-owned by Loeffler's husband as a means to both keep the SEC from regulating crypto and giving people seeking influence with Trump another vehicle in which to enrich Trump in exchange for favors. And then you've got Musk and Dogecoin to factor in as well.

All of this in broad daylight and nobody batting an eyelash.

What does a crypto bailout even mean? Isn’t Bitcoin at an all time high?

Some of Dr. Oz's claims:

Apple Juice may have unsafe levels of arsenic for children, hydroxychloroquine is a cure for Covid, cellphones can cause breast cancer, that reopening schools would "only" result in the deaths of about 2-3% of the population, backed a psuedo science weight loss pill that the manufacturer ended up paying fines for, said that selenium is the "holy grail of cancer prevention", said that sleeping with a bar of lavender soap would prevent RLS symptoms, that red onions reduce ovarian cancer risk by up to 75%, and many, many more.

He admitted in a Senate hearing that most of his recommendations have zero scientific backing.

Cantor Fitzgerald is heavily tied to Tether. They claim that it's fully backed by USD (like $80+ billion). Almost no one believes they are telling the truth and they've provided no tangible evidence that those reserves exist. They've refused any kind of independent audit. If it comes out that those reserves don't exist, the crypto market goes kaput.

So a lot of crypto people have been pushing him because they think he'll bailout Tether. The hope was he'd be Treasury Secretary so he could do some fuckery, but Commerce isn't bad either. In any event, there's a reason the crypto folks wanted him in bad and they'll get their huge bailout.

As for the price of BTC, it's largely based on Trump winning. If your fake currency is now backed by the government and too big to fail, it's not a risky investment.

A crypto bailout bill would largely deregulate crypto and put any enforcement of the few remaining regulations in the hand of the CFTC, which is massively understaffed and underfunded to do much of anything.

The entire FTX mess, for example, would have seen no penalties and would have questionable, but not necessarily illegal. Hell, Sam Bankman-Fried is essentially the author of one of the crypto bills that's been floated around.

And Bitcoin continues to do well in the markets but nearly all other cryptos are trash. Even Bitcoin is really just speculative at this point. It hasn't caught on with much of anyone outside the crypto bros that keep it propped up.

That's part of it but the other is them creating a "strategic reserve" which they've talked about. Basically using the U.S. Government as a way to prop up pricing. Lets say Bitcoin dips to $50k, the Treasury can step in and buy billions in Bitcoin to prop the price back up and save investors.


The price is high because the game is now rigged. They'll never let it drop.

It's one thing to say that Sallie Mae or whoever is too big to fail, but I don't get the crypto thing. Why we would ever want to bail people out who are involved in that speculative venture is beyond me.

Especially when it was something that should have never been allowed to carry on in the first place.

Who's "we"? Once you figure that out, you have your answer.

Democrats should have done a better job getting their own talent in order.

Who America thought was going to be in Kamela’s cabinet:

JLO
Eminem
The cast of the Avengers
Robert DeNiro
George Clooney
Whoopie Goldberg
The lady that sang WAP
And for a couple of hundred bucks more maybe she could throw in the Solid Gold dancers.

(Pretty solid lineup, but even better than that, maybe they should have secured our border and made damned sure they knew how to run the economy (and not run it into the ground for most Americans), but yeah, people were definitely willing to take their chances here.)

Nobody thought that was going to be Kamala's cabinet, don't be ridiculous.

It's funny that you had to make up a list of random celebrities to make something as ridiculous as Trumos cabinet. A pedophile, a rapist that supports war criminals, a quack doctor, a guy that said a worm ate his brain to get out of payments to his wife and drove her to suicide, and a Russian asset.

Keep supporting them, though, and tell us some more about how God got back at Kamala for dating a 60 year old.

Call me crazy but I don't think the AG should have been paying women for sex.

If the nominee for AG is arguing before Senate that she was 18 and not 17 something has gone horribly wrong.

Linda MacMahon (I'm not actually going to look up how to spell her name) for Department of Education.

dola, because why not

Let's be real, if low-information voters actually gave this thought (and I doubt it, very much) they probably thought Kamala's (note correct spelling, Doutche) cabinet would be a mixture of nerdy limp-wristed coastal intellectuals and shrill types like AOC (I would also say Warren, but I doubt most low-information voters actually know who Warren is).

Some people thought that the Clintons were trafficking children in the basement of a pizza place. One cowboy decided take his assault rifle and go investigate.

Don't underestimate what people will think!

Her husband is a rapist so it checks out.

I mean, he’s just trolling at this point.

Linda McMahon already served in his last cabinet, fwiw.

I hope one Dem takes the WWE angle and asks her about Owen Hart's death, steroids, Vince's sex abuse, etc. She was in upper management and all of that falls on her to some degree.