A good "catch" here w Ledgett. I don't know this, but I'm guessing most, if not all, of these people are Senior Executive Service.

🚨.@DNIGabbard JUST DROPPED A LIST OF NAMES WHO HAD THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES REVOKED... ONE STANDS OUT... WHO IS RICHARD H. LEDGETT?🚨

🔥 INTEL LOCK: NETANYAHU–TRUMP 2017 + PANW + LEDGETT + TOM ALEXANDROVICH 🔥

🧵 pic.twitter.com/089PBbSMCq

— SirOliverPollock(KAIZER)😎 🧐 🤫 (@SirCensorLot) August 20, 2025

Are nuclear missile silos in Venezuela?

“Casa de los Pinos”: el búnker fortificado en Fuerte Tiuna donde Maduro se resguarda tras amenazas de EEUU https://t.co/ZqZ9pmICjv

— Informe Orwell (@InformeOrwell) August 12, 2025

You don't think limiting visas in an industry that can't recruit American workers creates the problem of using illegal labor and paying them less?

And stop with the insults. I'm tired of that ***** If you and I were having a conversation in person, you wouldn't be insulting me to my face. So stop the tough guy act.

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know how history will regard DJT. But much of the animus towards him has to do with the fact that he "didn't pay his dues", I.e., come up through successive levels of office, becoming corrupted, and therefore controllable, along the way. First guy since Eisenhower to go to the White House without holding prior office.

---

That is such a good point…

What's coming will rock our world!

David Collum tells Tucker Carlson that if the contents of Anthony Weiner’s laptop were ever exposed, it would collapse the entire U.S. government.

He claims the laptop was rigged with ki*l switches and contained material so horrific that nine officers who viewed it kept leaving… pic.twitter.com/4NvvIe2MJG

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) August 21, 2025

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin. Preparing To Sack Kash Patel & Replace Him With Missouri AG Andrew Bailey, According To FBI Whistleblower Kyle Seraphin!@KyleSeraphin pic.twitter.com/5DSGXyXBTe

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) August 20, 2025

Oldsouljer said:

---

I don't know how history will regard DJT. But much of the animus towards him has to do with the fact that he "didn't pay his dues", I.e., come up through successive levels of office, becoming corrupted, and therefore controllable, along the way. First guy since Eisenhower to go to the White House without holding prior office.

---

Fascinating that given his mountain of trashy, abusive, norm-violating, Jan-6'ing, illegal behavior that you and others want to ascribe "much of the animus" towards him to some nebulous sense of him not having paid political dues.

Isn't a vastly more likely explanation for the animus towards him simply that his bad behavior warrants most of the animus?

This isn't a mellow, likable, professional chap like John Kasich suddenly becoming a pariah for reasons unclear. It's someone who behaves extraordinarily poorly and who represents the Presidency and our country in ways never before seen catching heat commensurately with his behavior.

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

packgrad said:

---

Civ and smapty would rather keep the child molesters and human traffickers so they can keep their cheap vegetable pickers.

But let's be honest, Dems have been moving toward making pedophiles legal anyways. They see a new mentally ill voting block.

---

LOLOL

You guys need some kind of fact-check filter.

Per capita, Americans commit 2.5x the drug crimes and 4x the property crimes that illegals do.

If you're profiling, deporting Americans would rid the country of more criminals than deporting illegals. Illegals commit crimes at a small fraction of the rate that Americans do. Legalized immigrants commit crimes at even lower rates than that.

As per usual, Trump's ICE goon squad approach is heavy on optics and light on substance. Squelching crossings is about 20% of the solution. The hard work is in the legislation reform.

Take the GWB approach - comprehensive immigration reform, address the status of undocumenteds, and strengthen border security. Establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increase border enforcement, and reform visa criteria for skilled workers.

It's way more fun to look strong than be buttoned-down and prudent though, and Congressional Republicans are toothlessly enraptured with the Trump cult of personality so I'm guessing not much or any of these things will happen.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ and smapty would rather keep the child molesters and human traffickers so they can keep their cheap vegetable pickers.

But let's be honest, Dems have been moving toward making pedophiles legal anyways. They see a new mentally ill voting block.

---

LOLOL

You guys need some kind of fact-check filter.

Per capita, Americans commit 2.5x the drug crimes and 4x the property crimes that illegals do.

If you're profiling, deporting Americans would rid the country of more criminals than deporting illegals. Illegals commit crimes at a small fraction of the rate that Americans do. Legalized immigrants commit crimes at even lower rates than that.

As per usual, Trump's ICE goon squad approach is heavy on optics and light on substance. Squelching crossings is about 20% of the solution. The hard work is in the legislation reform.

Take the GWB approach - comprehensive immigration reform, address the status of undocumenteds, and strengthen border security. Establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increase border enforcement, and reform visa criteria for skilled workers.

It's way more fun to look strong than be buttoned-down and prudent though, and Congressional Republicans are toothlessly enraptured with the Trump cult of personality so I'm guessing not much or any of these things will happen.

---

Civ, have you ever naturalized? Ever become a resident of a foreign country? Ever had to get work visas to work in a country you are not a citizen?

I could be wrong my guess is no and I bet you have lived within an hour maybe two of where you were born.

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ and smapty would rather keep the child molesters and human traffickers so they can keep their cheap vegetable pickers.

But let's be honest, Dems have been moving toward making pedophiles legal anyways. They see a new mentally ill voting block.

---

LOLOL

You guys need some kind of fact-check filter.

Per capita, Americans commit 2.5x the drug crimes and 4x the property crimes that illegals do.

If you're profiling, deporting Americans would rid the country of more criminals than deporting illegals. Illegals commit crimes at a small fraction of the rate that Americans do. Legalized immigrants commit crimes at even lower rates than that.

As per usual, Trump's ICE goon squad approach is heavy on optics and light on substance. Squelching crossings is about 20% of the solution. The hard work is in the legislation reform.

Take the GWB approach - comprehensive immigration reform, address the status of undocumenteds, and strengthen border security. Establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increase border enforcement, and reform visa criteria for skilled workers.

It's way more fun to look strong than be buttoned-down and prudent though, and Congressional Republicans are toothlessly enraptured with the Trump cult of personality so I'm guessing not much or any of these things will happen.

---

Civ, have you ever naturalized? Ever become a resident of a foreign country? Ever had to get work visas to work in a country you are not a citizen?

I could be wrong my guess is no and I bet you have lived within an hour maybe two of where you were born.

---

Most of the time when we're talking these issues, you ask if the person talking about them has participated in the process personally. You can't have an opinion on health care unless you've participated in a foreign health care system. You can't have an opinion on immigration unless you've had to immigrate or get a Visa.

You realize that if we governed that way, no legislator would be equipped to produce legislation about anything of consequence right?

Has Trump ever naturalized? He ever become a resident of a foreign country? Ever had to get a work Visa? Has Rubio? Has Cruz? Has MTG? Has Hawley? Has Graham?

See how shortsighted and pointless this analysis technique is?

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ and smapty would rather keep the child molesters and human traffickers so they can keep their cheap vegetable pickers.

But let's be honest, Dems have been moving toward making pedophiles legal anyways. They see a new mentally ill voting block.

---

LOLOL

You guys need some kind of fact-check filter.

Per capita, Americans commit 2.5x the drug crimes and 4x the property crimes that illegals do.

If you're profiling, deporting Americans would rid the country of more criminals than deporting illegals. Illegals commit crimes at a small fraction of the rate that Americans do. Legalized immigrants commit crimes at even lower rates than that.

As per usual, Trump's ICE goon squad approach is heavy on optics and light on substance. Squelching crossings is about 20% of the solution. The hard work is in the legislation reform.

Take the GWB approach - comprehensive immigration reform, address the status of undocumenteds, and strengthen border security. Establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, increase border enforcement, and reform visa criteria for skilled workers.

It's way more fun to look strong than be buttoned-down and prudent though, and Congressional Republicans are toothlessly enraptured with the Trump cult of personality so I'm guessing not much or any of these things will happen.

---

Civ, have you ever naturalized? Ever become a resident of a foreign country? Ever had to get work visas to work in a country you are not a citizen?

I could be wrong my guess is no and I bet you have lived within an hour maybe two of where you were born.

---

Most of the time when we're talking these issues, you ask if the person talking about them has participated in the process personally. You can't have an opinion on health care unless you've participated in a foreign health care system. You can't have an opinion on immigration unless you've had to immigrate or get a Visa.

You realize that if we governed that way, no legislator would be equipped to produce legislation about anything of consequence right?

Has Trump ever naturalized? He ever become a resident of a foreign country? Ever had to get a work Visa? Has Rubio? Has Cruz? Has MTG? Has Hawley? Has Graham?

See how shortsighted and pointless this analysis technique is?

---

It was a simple question Civ. But I am correct.

I never once said someone cannot have their opinion.

I am just going to point out when it is incorrect. And I have done that to both sides. GP was way wrong about crime in the UK and I pointed that out to him.

Someone with first hand experience typically has a better understanding of the situation. Would you not agree?

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

---

This is golden, in your post above you attack me by saying I am being short sighted instead of talking about the subject. Then you post this about not talking about the poster. Haha.

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

---

This is golden, in your post above you attack me by saying I am being short sighted instead of talking about the subject. Then you post this about not talking about the poster. Haha.

---

You can't possibly be serious.

Saying someone's view is "shortsighted" is a perfectly respectful, above-board rhetorical criticism.

Calling some one a "mentall ill sheep" like packgrad does every other post is not.

See the completely obvious difference?

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

---

This is golden, in your post above you attack me by saying I am being short sighted instead of talking about the subject. Then you post this about not talking about the poster. Haha.

---

You can't possibly be serious.

Saying someone's view is "shortsighted" is a perfectly respectful, above-board rhetorical criticism.

Calling some one a "mentall ill sheep" like packgrad does every other post is not.

See the completely obvious difference?

---

I agree there are degrees of "name calling" but you clearly attacked me, not the topic being posted. You went directly after what I do and how you find it not to your liking. Again, your response was pointing out what you see as a fallacy in me.

So yes a level of difference but the same approach.

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

---

This is golden, in your post above you attack me by saying I am being short sighted instead of talking about the subject. Then you post this about not talking about the poster. Haha.

---

You can't possibly be serious.

Saying someone's view is "shortsighted" is a perfectly respectful, above-board rhetorical criticism.

Calling some one a "mentall ill sheep" like packgrad does every other post is not.

See the completely obvious difference?

---

I agree there are degrees of "name calling" but you clearly attacked me, not the topic being posted. You went directly after what I do and how you find it not to your liking. Again, your response was pointing out what you see as a fallacy in me.

So yes a level of difference but the same approach.

---

That's called debating man. You (respectfully) criticise and critique and go after someone else's view that you disagree with. That's exactly what happens in a debate tournament or a political debate.

Saying someone's view is "shortsighted" isn't name calling.

Would you hear "shortsighted" at a debate tournament or in a political candidate debate? Yes.

Would you hear "you're a mentally ill sheep"?

Obviously not.

I really can't believe you're arguing this and trying to make it seem like "shortsighted" is some sort of personal attack. That's a wildly asymmetrical lens to look at conversation on here through.

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Civ hated John Kasich, Mike Pence, John McCain, George Bush, etc before too. Pretending like he has moral reasoning for his mental illness towards Trump is absolute nonsense. He hates anyone with an R beside their name when his cult leaders tell him to hate them.

Sheep.

---

"I can't think of a way to refute what you're saying so I'll call you a mentally ill Republican-hater sheep."

Do I ever talk about you on here? Do I ever call you names? Do I ever call you mentally ill? Do I ever make up things that you say, and then argue against your made-up stances?

Why don't you try not talking about posters and just talk about what they say and their ideas, and yours.

---

This is golden, in your post above you attack me by saying I am being short sighted instead of talking about the subject. Then you post this about not talking about the poster. Haha.

---

You can't possibly be serious.

Saying someone's view is "shortsighted" is a perfectly respectful, above-board rhetorical criticism.

Calling some one a "mentall ill sheep" like packgrad does every other post is not.

See the completely obvious difference?

---

I agree there are degrees of "name calling" but you clearly attacked me, not the topic being posted. You went directly after what I do and how you find it not to your liking. Again, your response was pointing out what you see as a fallacy in me.

So yes a level of difference but the same approach.

---

No one is going to now pile on this post about how you are just looking for attention, or your a dumbass, or you live in your parents basement, etc. So, I disagree with your premise. You are awarded gravitas here because you agree more with the posters dictating decorum on the Water Cooler.