Comments by "Auntie M" (@auntiem873) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. 45
  2. 11
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. When people are accusing you of something and your guilty the best defense is to deflect. Fox News was a big supporter of Trump and now they are saying whoa, let’s back up, something doesn’t add up, he had slogans that belonged to a lot of parties they can’t say party he favors. Mentioning all but one political party makes that party look suspect, by omission, too lame. The security detail is for the government official, not their spouse/family. That’s why they were not there. The cameras are only good if you are watching them at the time of the event. The glass Is safety glass, there is a barrier between panes. Glass will fall to the side the damaged happen. If it glass is broken on the outside the majority of the glass will be on the outside. There is glass On the inside, the larger pieces. They do not show up as well on camera like the smaller ones do. The police come and the door opens both men are there standing, with hammers. Could it be the Paul was fighting off his attacker when the cops knocked, him knowing they were in their way ran to open the door to let them in and save him? Just because the cops do not tell the press every little detail like what they were wearing or that both were bloody, doesn’t mean it they were not wearing clothes or that no one was hurt. This sounds more like desperate people trying throw shade in a different direction to get others looking away from them (Republican party). As for the “Where’s Nancy?” Comment. The police do not have audio of that cause that is what Paul told the police the man was saying to him. It was not something that he said to the police. So the cops would not have it on their body cams. They were not there when he said it! I do agree that tying it all to January 6th is a bit much unless they have proof that they can share with the public. Otherwise, it is best not to mention it till the trial. Where they can produce that evidence without compromising the case.
    1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. I agree that schools are not teaching civics anymore. I got just a taste of it in the 80’s. Not anything like my parents did. I am told by my son and husband that I am wrong in my thinking when I say that’s illegal. I’m told that the President has discretionary powers and that allows them to do these things. I say No, that’s why each branch does not have to answer to the president. They are there to make sure the office does not over step it’s boundaries just like the other branches check each other. They say No, the parties take over and that it’s what the party wants. Our government no longer does what it was designed to do but what the founding fathers feared. It’s political party not the people that run the system. The president is the leader of his party and so that party gets their agenda through not what the people want or need. We are more the British system than ever before. Which may explain how people think that the government has the power to take out guns away. Because the parties say they can and if the party is in charge then that’s what they will do. Totally opposite of what our constitution says. These people do not understand the reason behind putting the right to bare arms in the constitution. How the government is not allowed to take them because the don’t want the people to have them. This really does sound like the government wants them and then once gone that party will have absolute power. The people will have no say or ability to stop them. History says that the Red Coats came in taking people’s weapons so that they could not be used against them. Then they came in and seized peoples property. We had a war to say no more. I see that same pattern happening now.
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1