Debates
18 Mar 23
20 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidEasy. They want to nail him so that he cannot become a president again. That means he is a target. So what they have done is identify a target, and are now drumming up anything that will get him into a court room with handcuffs. I think this may be too simple for liberals who are so creative and glib and facetious with their comments, that they get lost in it.
No you called it political persecution. If you don't know the charges or evidence then - Why?
So just stand back for a moment and look at the simple enterprise. You try to make it so complicated. How about Marauder, who says we should totally forget about the dossier. geez
@AverageJoe1
You are all aware that the election was legally stolen, I am sure? The election laws were changed (was that legal). Which, in fact , cleared the landscape to steal the election.
20 Mar 23
@no1marauder saidIn other words, you don't want to admit you are supporting a double standard.
LMAO! Your "whataboutism" is an utter failure by your own admission, even if it was inadvertent.
It's also an off-topic waste of time that I won't respond to further in this thread.
"whataboutism"is an admission to hypocrisy. "whataboutism" is debate failure. You cannot justify the double standard, so you cop out and call it "whataboutism".
Familiar failure. Better luck next lie.
20 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidIf it was legal it wasn’t stolen
@AverageJoe1
You are all aware that the election was legally stolen, I am sure? The election laws were changed (was that legal). Which, in fact , cleared the landscape to steal the election.
20 Mar 23
@athousandyoung saidSo it was legally stolen?
If it was legal it wasn’t stolen
Did someone change the definition of stolen?
20 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidThere's that elusive "they" popping up again.
Easy. They want to nail him so that he cannot become a president again. That means he is a target. So what they have done is identify a target, and are now drumming up anything that will get him into a court room with handcuffs. I think this may be too simple for liberals who are so creative and glib and facetious with their comments, that they get lost in it.
So j ...[text shortened]... ke it so complicated. How about Marauder, who says we should totally forget about the dossier. geez
A few years back trump argued over and over again that someone under investigation by the FBI is not eligible to run for president. He seems to have changed his mind. It seems it all depends on who the they are.
20 Mar 23
@athousandyoung saidYeah, it does sound like an oxymoron of sorts, but I think that the thinking is that the scramble to change the election rules, just before the election, was a legal process technically speaking, but it obvious intent, which succeeded, was a bit questionable.
If it was legal it wasn’t stolen
Did it not change what might have been another outcome ?
20 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidI agree, sorry that my 'they' was not obvious. Suzianne and Sounhouse definitely have different theys than I do.
There's that elusive "they" popping up again.
A few years back trump argued over and over again that someone under investigation by the FBI is not eligible to run for president. He seems to have changed his mind. It seems it all depends on who the they are.
But,a forum problem is that you libs pretend to not know who a they is in post. You feign ignorance, when you know full well. So it is laborious to post your posts, like this very one I am typing.
Y'all can be durn tiring . Do you truly not know who a 'they' is when a lib and conservative are conversing.?? You cant kid a kidder, Wildgrass.
20 Mar 23
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo. It's still not obvious even after your clarification in which you didn't say who they are. Using they without a qualifier implies you have no idea what you're talking about. Or maybe you swiped the phrase from some cable news talking head who wanted to froth up their viewers
I agree, sorry that my 'they' was not obvious. Suzianne and Sounhouse definitely have different theys than I do.
But,a forum problem is that you libs pretend to not know who a they is in post. You feign ignorance, when you know full well. So it is laborious to post your posts, like this very one I am typing.
Y'all can be durn tiring . Do you truly not know who a 'they' is when a lib and conservative are conversing.?? You cant kid a kidder, Wildgrass.
If they is law enforcement then we are discussing whether it's ok to ignore potential crimes just because the criminal is a politician?
They all want you to think they don't know what they are thinking. Smarty pants.
20 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidWell, let's start at ground zero. If someone says 'they want your stuff'., it is a given that we are talking about liberals, and democrats. Are we good so far, or are you going to feign ignorance?
No. It's still not obvious even after your clarification in which you didn't say who they are. Using they without a qualifier implies you have no idea what you're talking about. Or maybe you swiped the phrase from some cable news talking head who wanted to froth up their viewers
If they is law enforcement then we are discussing whether it's ok to ignore potential crimes ...[text shortened]... is a politician?
They all want you to think they don't know what they are thinking. Smarty pants.
20 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidNo..what's taking peoples stuff got to do with trump's arrest? Is that a euphemism for bribery using campaign funds?
Well, let's start at ground zero. If someone says 'they want your stuff'., it is a given that we are talking about liberals, and democrats. Are we good so far, or are you going to feign ignorance?
I'm not feigning anything here. If you think that law enforcement is a liberal thing then you can just say that instead of "they" and we don't need all the cryptic posts and can much more easily see whether you're right or not.
They could be aliens.
21 Mar 23
@metal-brain saidNO. You miss the pint. The election laws were legally changed. Since Trump lost under the new law, it can reasonably be said,,,"Dayum, the legal law took away what we had in our hands".
So it was legally stolen?
Did someone change the definition of stolen?
The definition of stolen is like, you took something from me. So, the Trump win was taken from him, by a legal law.
Next question, please.
21 Mar 23
@wildgrass saidA fun joust, I did chuckle.\.
No..what's taking peoples stuff got to do with trump's arrest? Is that a euphemism for bribery using campaign funds?
I'm not feigning anything here. If you think that law enforcement is a liberal thing then you can just say that instead of "they" and we don't need all the cryptic posts and can much more easily see whether you're right or not.
They could be aliens.
Hey, do you libs know that regarding Stormy Daniels, that Trump committed no crime?
Anyway, tomorrow will be huge (like their nasty DA is huge...love his little manicured beard. People who do that are gay somewhere in their psyche). The fabrications will be great fodder. As the days wear on, the DA creature will have to fold his tents, as a new Folk Hero (Trump) emerges, and the populace will hate the DA. 80% of New Yorkers voted against Trump!
21 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidWhat legal law?
NO. You miss the pint. The election laws were legally changed. Since Trump lost under the new law, it can reasonably be said,,,"Dayum, the legal law took away what we had in our hands".
The definition of stolen is like, you took something from me. So, the Trump win was taken from him, by a legal law.
Next question, please.
21 Mar 23
@averagejoe1 saidI guess we will find out.
A fun joust, I did chuckle.\.
Hey, do you libs know that regarding Stormy Daniels, that Trump committed no crime?
Anyway, tomorrow will be huge (like their nasty DA is huge...love his little manicured beard. People who do that are gay somewhere in their psyche). The fabrications will be great fodder. As the days wear on, the DA creature will have to fold ...[text shortened]... lk Hero (Trump) emerges, and the populace will hate the DA. 80% of New Yorkers voted against Trump!
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
Duhn. Duhn.