╌>

All things are not equal

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  11 months ago  •  88 comments

All things are not equal
“You go back to Communist China or look at a third-world banana republic,” he said. “That’s what we’ve become between our borders, our elections, and the weaponization of law enforcement. Banana republic. That’s what we have become.”....Donald Trump

Link to Quote: Donald Trump Predicts America is ‘Doomed’ If He Doesn’t Win 2024 Election (ussanews.com)


I think it's time to dispel this unique view that "both sides do it" or that somehow "all things are equal." They seldom are and in the case of US politics or US law in 2023 they couldn't be much more unequal. Currently there are 4 cases pending against former President Donald Trump and none of them are based on law. The first to likely be presented is based on a prosecutor who ran against getting Trump putting his prime witness on the stand knowing that he will lie. There is no precedent for any such political prosecution in US history. Without a doubt if the defendant's name wasn't Donald Trump there wouldn't be any cases at all. This morning on "This Week," Maggie Haberman finally had to admit that it was her fellow democrats who have "broken all norms." Even Howard Stern has had enough of it.


Everywhere we look we see the obvious signs of what Donald Trump recently described as America being transformed into a third world banana republic. He is obviously right once again. We have a completely politicized & weaponized FBI that spied on a political campaign and launched investigations without pretext of a President based on opposition research from the dirty Clinton campaign as well as conducting a faux investigation of Hillary Clinton and the suppression of a real investigation of Hunter Biden. The highly politicized DOJ has brought all the forces of the FBI vs parents who attended school board meetings. The civil rights of American citizens have been flagrantly violated as big city DAs refuse to enforce the law against violent criminals. There is no precedent for any of it. There is nothing equal to it.

By the way, has anyone noticed the changes in our election laws since beginning in 2020?  How did we end up with massive mail-in balloting in battleground states?  How did Mark Zuckerberg get to use local election boards as DNC get out the vote organizations?  Has anyone heard from the women who suddenly came out with scandalous claims against Herschel Walker? It seems that they disappeared right after that very close election. How about the way our leftist media covered the highly partisan Jan 6th Committee? Or how they haven't covered the current House Committee investigations? How partisan and dishonest has the media been? This madness has come to fruition with the election of Donald Trump, but it has been going on in various forms since Ted Kennedy destroyed the character of Robert Bork. Since then, two other Conservatives Justices have had outrageous claims made against them. Where are the similar tactics being used by "the other side?"



This is a discussion group. There is nothing personal about questioning a strongly held belief. I have made my case, so if anyone thinks that what has been done to people such as Donald Trump or Brett Kavanaugh or Carter Page is somehow like the Clintons being investigated for Whitewater or the way the 2020 rioters, (who actually did commit murder) were treated, please make your case. Otherwise say nothing and I'll understand.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    11 months ago


It has now become obvious across the political spectrum. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    11 months ago

Oh well, you at least have 'obvious' Leonard Leo on the other side of the spectrum.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    11 months ago

No, that hardly equates to what was done to smear 3 Jurists or having a Senate leader openly threaten the SCOTUS.

Try again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    11 months ago

Truth isn't a smear and the latter isn't true.

Try again.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    11 months ago
Try again.

Why don't you and especially when it comes to linking to one of the furthest far-right 'news' organizations on the planet: ussanews. You are smart enough not to need linking to crap sites like that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.3    11 months ago
 one of the furthest far-right 'news' organizations on the planet:

Call it what you want, it's an allowed NEWS site.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    11 months ago

When you got nothing, blame the source!!!

LMAO!

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.1.6  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    11 months ago
it's an allowed NEWS site

as with far left sites, I'm not impressed by 'allowed'.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.1    11 months ago
Leonard Leo on the other side of the spectrum.

... that usually triggers a chorus or two from the george soros!!! choir.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    11 months ago

All lies.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    11 months ago

All lies.

You expected less?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    11 months ago
All lies.

Then prove them as such.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    11 months ago

It must be really hard to be a Republican.  Life is just sooo unfair to them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  author  Vic Eldred    11 months ago

'I don't understand why Bragg is putting such emphasis on this case,' Cuomo said. 

'A person breaks the law I get it, but on the state side this is a misdemeanor case. It's really a federal case because he needs it to be a campaign finance fraud case which is a federal case and that's what Bragg is going to have to do to get a felony out of this,' he explained.

'I think it's all politics and that's what I think the people of this country are saying,' Cuomo continued. 

'It just feeds that anger and that cynicism and the partisanship. It's a coincidence that Bragg goes after Trump and Tish James goes after Trump and Georgia goes after Trump? That's all a coincidence? I think it feeds the cynicism and that's the cancer in our body politic right now.'

Former Empire State Governor Andrew Cuomo says rumored indictment is 'all politics' | Daily Mail Online

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    11 months ago
It's a coincidence that Bragg goes after Trump

The notion that a political adversary would bring charges is not too surprising.   What matters is if there is a legitimate and relevant case.   I personally would prefer the Stormy Daniels case go away and have the focus be on Trump's Big Lie actions while PotUS.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    11 months ago
The notion that a political adversary would bring charges is not too surprising.

Really?  I can remember when that wasn't so. Left-wing democrats did that.


 What matters is if there is a legitimate and relevant case.

At this point, it may not mean much. So much has been unleashed against Trump. Between Trump, the FBI and the Soros DAs the justice system has lost credibility.


 I personally would prefer the Stormy Daniels case go away and have the focus be on Trump's Big Lie actions while PotUS.

We both had hopes of him taken out of the coming election, though for different reasons.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    11 months ago
Left-wing democrats did that.

Like Ken Starr?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.2    11 months ago

Do you want to take on that argument?

What was the Whitewater investigation about?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    11 months ago
Really?

Yeah, Vic, really.   People have been using whatever means at their disposal to achieve political ends for as long as politics has been around (and that is as long as societies have been around).

We both had hopes of him taken out of the coming election, though for different reasons.

My reason for wanting Trump detached from the GOP is to allow general voters a choice and to start the process of the GOP healing itself from the infection.

My reason for wanting the DoJ case is to hold Trump accountable for his action/inaction as PotUS regarding the Big Lie campaign since he has set a historic and terrible precedent that will stand until he is held accountable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    11 months ago

Since there is no answer, I'll answer myself.

"The key witness against President Clinton in Starr's Whitewater investigation, was banker David Hale who alleged in November 1992 that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, pressured him to provide an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the partner of the Clintons in the Whitewater deal."

Whitewater controversy - Wikipedia

And if you think it was bogus:

"These records, including a computer printout of her billings performed on behalf of Guaranty, were under subpoena by both Congress and the independent counsel. They mysteriously materialized on a hallway table in the White House residence in January 1996  — conveniently after the statute of limitations in the case had expired."

Clinton 'Destroyed' Whitewater Records Long Before Benghazi | Investor's Business Daily (investors.com)

So much for the idea that the Clintons were persecuted!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    11 months ago

Look, I know you'd rather everyone forget about Republicans doing exactly what you accuse Democrats of doing, just like you conveniently forgot it, but tough beans.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    11 months ago
  People have been using whatever means at their disposal to achieve political ends for as long as politics has been around (and that is as long as societies have been around).

Clearly, nowhere to the extent the radical left has used and abused American law in the past few years.


My reason for wanting Trump detached from the GOP is to allow general voters a choice and to start the process of the GOP healing itself from the infection.

You are worried about the GOP?  Ok, I'll accept that. 


My reason for wanting the DoJ case is to hold Trump accountable for his action/inaction as PotUS regarding the Big Lie campaign since he has set a historic and terrible precedent that will stand until he is held accountable.

You need a direct line to him inciting a riot and his very words that day contradict that. If Hillary Clinton got to say the 2016 election was stollen, so can Trump.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    11 months ago

You forgot a bit from your link:

David Hale , the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal. [3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons. [4]

...

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel , Republican Kenneth Starr . The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000. [6]

Starr couldn't pin anything on the Clintons, so he went after a non-criminal consensual affair, instead.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.6    11 months ago
My reason for wanting the DoJ case is to hold Trump accountable for his action/inaction as PotUS regarding the Big Lie campaign since he has set a historic and terrible precedent that will stand until he is held accountable.

I'm using my article above for the examples. Can you show equality of deed by both sides?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.6    11 months ago

Ultimately people are basically the same.   Rabid partisans operate on "ends justifies means" philosophy and it does not matter what party they belong to.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.8    11 months ago
You forgot a bit from your link:

And you ignored my second link.

You see, that is where our little Hillary first learned the benefits of destroying evidence.

They also had people in their orbit who were willing to go to jail for them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.12  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    11 months ago
Ultimately people are basically the same.

That won't do. Can you equate anything "the other side has done" to the egregious acts I have outlined?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    11 months ago
Clearly, nowhere to the extent the radical left has used and abused American law in the past few years.

Pretty much the one-sided view I expected from you.

You are worried about the GOP?  Ok, I'll accept that. 

How many times have I stated that in this forum?    It would be a disaster if our nation had, in effect, a single dominant party.   We need variety and real competition.   Either we rid ourselves of all political parties (my preference, but that has never been the case) or we get diversity (at least three major and relevant parties).

You need a direct line to him inciting a riot and his very words that day contradict that.

Now that is an example of extreme confirmation bias if I ever saw it.   You take one tiny sliver ... a claim that Trump incited the insurrection ... and then argue that since he said peaceful words along with his incendiary words that all is well.    You ignore all the other factors where Trump attempted to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.12    11 months ago
That won't do.

Nothing will 'do' to persuade you, Vic.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    11 months ago
Pretty much the one-sided view I expected from you.

Am I being partisan again?  It's right up there in the article.


You ignore all the other factors where Trump attempted to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:

Good luck with it. We both want him out. The worse it all looks the better.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    11 months ago
We both want him out.

Then why do you make excuses for him?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    11 months ago

You wrote the article.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.18  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    11 months ago
Then why do you make excuses for him?

I'm not making excuses. I'm defending the equal justice principle in the law!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    11 months ago

No you are making excuses and defending the indefensible.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    11 months ago
destroying evidence.

You missed the "scare quotes", didn't you?

She didn't destroy evidence.  That's why the words are in quotes.

The author of your second link also conveniently forgets (there seems to be a lot of that going around) that the loan they mentioned, by Hale to the McDougalls, was made without him mentioning pressure by Bill Clinton, which he conveniently only remembered when he was under indictment, himself.

The author also tries to link Hillary Clinton with Webster Hubbell, when she was one of the victims of his actions.

The first of those pieces appeared in February 1994, alleging a wide variety of criminal offenses by the Clintons and others, including  Webster Hubbell . These allegations led to the discovery that Hubbell, a friend and former Rose Law Firm partner of Hillary Clinton, had committed multiple frauds, mostly against his own firm. Hillary Clinton, instead of being complicit in Hubbell's crimes, had been among his victims.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    11 months ago
They mysteriously materialized on a hallway table in the White House residence in January 1996  — conveniently after the statute of limitations in the case had expired."

Mysteriously?

Hardly if the Clinton were involved!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.20    11 months ago
hich he conveniently only remembered when he was under indictment, himself.

Unlike the lynchpin of Braggs' case, right? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.23  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    11 months ago

" have the focus be on Trump's Big Lie actions while PotUS".

What actions are you referring to. Be specific

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.24  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.23    11 months ago
What actions are you referring to. Be specific

Uh oh...

Here comes the cut and paste again.

The ones that he wants you to agree to or you are a Trump defender.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.1.24    11 months ago
Here comes the cut and paste again.

Given the request, what should be the response other than provide my list?

See this is the feeble game you, et.al. play.   You ask questions, ignore the answers and then ask the same question.

Who do you think you are fooling?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.22    11 months ago

Who, Michael Cohen?  The guy who has already plead guilty and completed his sentence?

Yeah, unlike him.  One was under investigation at the time he tried to roll.  The other no longer is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.26    11 months ago
hen?  The guy who has already plead guilty and completed his sentence?

Yeah, the guy who changed his story to receive a favorable sentence.  You understand Cohen was under indictment when his story changed, right?  Or weren't you aware that what's happened?

Also you  conveniently forgot (there seems to be a lot of that going around) that Jim McDougal was willing to corroborate Hale's testimony, but died first. 

But by all means, make Michael Cohen's integrity and honesty the hill you want to die on. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.27    11 months ago

I don't think Michael Cohen has integrity.  I think if he did, he wouldn't have broken the law on Trump's behalf to begin with.

But Bragg is depending on Cohen's testimony NOW about crimes in which Cohen already participated, and for which he has already served sentence.

Hale, at the time, was under investigation and had not been either convicted or sentenced.

So, yeah, "all things are not equal", but not the way you and Vic would have everyone believe.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.29  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    11 months ago
Do you want to take on that argument?

Oh yes please. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.28    11 months ago

time, was under investigation and had not been either convicted or sentenced.

Exactly like Cohen, he plead guilty and offered to testify for leniency in sentencing.  He was literally the first person convicted and then testified against others.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.30    11 months ago

So, you are aware that Cohen is testifying NOW about crimes to which he has already confessed, and has served sentence?

That there is no legal benefit to him from testifying now?  I mean, they're not going to send him to jail again, right?

Also, you've painted yourself in a bit of a corner here.  If Cohen is not a credible witness due to his past crimes, well, we all know on whose behalf those crimes were committed, don't we?  Those crimes that lots of folks say didn't happen.  The investigations with no "basis in law".  If they didn't happen, Cohen would have had nothing to which to confess.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.32  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.20    11 months ago
She didn't destroy evidence.

Not that time. Later she did with the server. The fact that Hillary did work for Guaranty turned up later after the statute of limitations had expired.

The point is not whether the Clintons were guilty, but that there was a predicate to the investigation, which there never was in the case of Trump. Right now, we have no less than 5 Grand Juries assembled during a Presidential election all aimed squarely at Trump. There is no comparison to it and Whitewater.

I appreciate both you and TiG giving it the old college try, but you just can't say they are the same.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.1.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.32    11 months ago
you just can't say they are the same.

No, and we don't try.  Trump is much worse than the Clintons were even ever accused of being.  They didn't attempt to overturn an election.  They didn't foment attempted insurrection.

And saying that there is no predicate for an investigation into Trump is just, at best, wishful thinking.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.34  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    11 months ago

Because everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. Not just Democrats who seem to think they can pick and choose not just what laws to enforce and when; but what the definition of those very laws are.

There is one set of laws for Democrats; and those they favor. And as second set for everyone else.

Some seem to think it is your fault if you run afoul of Democrats; so everything that happens is justified.

I want Trump to go away. But not by the current two tier justice system being run by the Brandon Administration, the most partisan POS AG ever Garland, and the FBI who has become an arm of the Democrat party.

At the same time I want Brandon, the Clintons, and the Obamas held to the exact same standards under the law. They haven't been, period. No amount of "But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!" will ever change it. Just like the Summer of Love rioters and Jan 6th rioters have been held to different standards under the law.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.34    11 months ago

Not even  going to bother to read your emotional rantings.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    11 months ago
Currently there are 4 cases pending against former President Donald Trump and none of them are based on law.

How can you justify claiming that none of these cases are based on law?  

I presume the four cases are:

  • Stormy Daniels
  • Trump Organization inflating/deflating value of assets
  • Georgia on Trump's attempt to cheat on election results
  • DoJ case on classified documents and Trump's Big Lie actions and inaction

What special meaning do you ascribe to the phrase "based on law"?   Are you suggesting that these are all frivolous lawsuits that will be tossed out since they lack legal standing (i.e. no legal charge is filed, no credible evidence/argument to support charge, ...) or are you misusing that phrase to simply mean that these lawsuits come from political adversaries of Trump?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3    11 months ago

That's why my first comment is/was 'all lies'.

These opinion pieces are all lies and made up nonsense.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3    11 months ago
How can you justify claiming that none of these cases are based on law?  

Wishful thinking.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3    11 months ago
Stormy Daniels 

Has no basis in law because paying hush money is not illegal.

Trump Organization inflating/deflating value of assets

Like most if not all businesses and organizations do?

Georgia on Trump's attempt to cheat on election results 

Like the democrats do in almost every election ,especially the close ones. Even Hillary tried. 

DoJ case on classified documents

The DoJ claimed it could find no crime committed by Hillary for doing the same thing (even though Comey said she did at the beginning of his news conference). Biden has also has been found to have classified material from when he was VP should he be prosecuted and imprisoned to

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3    11 months ago

There you go again defending Trump at every turn.

You even play the "they do it so Trump can do it too" card without even caring about what is right or wrong.  

It is sickening to see people like you excuse wrongdoing because it suits your partisan desires.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3.2  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.1    11 months ago
It is sickening to see people like you excuse wrongdoing because it suits your partisan desires 

But it is ok for you to excuse wrong doing because it suits your partisan desires. And don't try to give me you are not partisan. I don't buy that crap anymore. I have never once seen you do anything else but take the liberals/ democrat side. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.3.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.2    11 months ago
But it is ok for you to excuse wrong doing because it suits your partisan desires.

Quotes of TiG doing so?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.2    11 months ago
But it is ok for you to excuse wrong doing because it suits your partisan desires.

More childish taunts.

 I have never once seen you do anything else but take the liberals/ democrat side. 

Then you do indeed do not know what you are talking about.    I definitely am more critical of the GOP and conservatives nowadays because of their insane support for Trump.   But if you have not seen me make critical comments about Biden and have not seen me argue that he is too old and that the Ds need to give us a better option, then I suggest you just keep your ignorance to yourself.

In short, you do not know what you are yapping about.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3.5  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.3    11 months ago

I am not going back through every comment he/she ever made. 

BTW he/she is a big enough boy/girl to defend his or her self. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.3    11 months ago
Quotes of TiG doing so?

A certain set of members have no problem just inventing 'facts' in lieu of an actual argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.5    11 months ago
I am not going back through every comment he/she ever made. 

Just cease making claims when you have no clue WTF you are talking about.   And in this case (my positions) you most definitely are clueless.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.3.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.5    11 months ago

So, you made an accusation you can't back up?  That's not very honest.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3.9  arkpdx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.3.8    11 months ago

I have my memory which is why I said 

. I have never once seen you do anything else but take the liberals/ democrat side. 

I don't see him or her providing anything other than claiming he or she said that Biden was too old and provides no proof of that either. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.3.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.9    11 months ago
So, you made an accusation you can't back up?  That's not very honest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.9    11 months ago
I don't see him or her providing anything other than claiming he or she said that Biden was too old and provides no proof of that either. 

What you want me to prove one of the positions that I just stated in a comment?    You think I would simply invent something that I do not hold to be true just to satisfy you?   Think!

I suggest you pay attention in the future before making claims out of ignorance.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3.12  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.1    11 months ago
You even play the "they do it so Trump can do it too" card without even caring about what is right or wrong.  

Are now going to try and tell us that Hillary did not unlawfully keep classified documents and that she also destroyed many of those same documents? Are you going to say that shy did not compromise classified documents by having her lawyers sift three them?

Are you going to tell me that Biden did not retain classified documents from his days as VP?  Are you going to say he is not complicit in the wrongs committed by his son?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    11 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @3.3.12    11 months ago
Are now going to try and tell us that Hillary did not unlawfully keep classified documents and that she also destroyed many of those same documents?

Again you demonstrate that you are absolutely clueless on my positions.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.3.15  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.14    11 months ago

[removed]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    11 months ago

This little corner of Newstalkers is a fantasyland, similar to the content on Newsmax or OAN. Its too bad there is no end in sight either. 

They lose the argument every single time, and then double or triple down. That is the state of "conservatism" in 2023. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4    11 months ago

I call it CONservatism nowadays.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4    11 months ago
They lose the argument every single time, and then double or triple down.

Hilarious coming from someone that has posted literally hundreds of "we got him now" Trump seeds, none with any evidence of the allegations in that day's accusations.

When the argument is lost, doubling and tripling down is only the beginning of more "we got him now" Trump seeds.

That is the state of the TDS riddled leftists that can't let Trump go.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
4.2.1  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @4.2    11 months ago

The only person who has 'TDS' is Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.2    11 months ago
TDS

Is that anything like the ODS we saw for 8 YEARS when Obama was in office?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.3  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.2    11 months ago

No, the T in TDS stands for Trump, not Obama.

Your deflection that went nowhere is odd.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.4  bugsy  replied to  Hallux @4.2.1    11 months ago

Well, the term has his name in it, so.............

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
4.2.5  Hallux  replied to  bugsy @4.2.4    11 months ago

Are you Cliff or Norm? Or is Tex Norm or Cliff? I'd ask Vera but she's still scraping pie off her face.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @4.2.5    11 months ago

Why do you need to know?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.7  JBB  replied to  Hallux @4.2.5    11 months ago

original

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
4.2.8  Hallux  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.6    11 months ago

It's a really pretentious partisan seed ... just trying to lighten it up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @4.2.8    11 months ago

Right.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.2.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @4.2.7    11 months ago

I thought that you believed Trump supporters to dislike postal workers, not be one.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Hallux @4.2.8    11 months ago

That's a polite way of putting it. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @4.2.5    11 months ago

LOL!!!!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hallux @4.2.1    11 months ago

What is ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ – and do you have it?

Many of you are at Stage 3.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
4.2.14  Hallux  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.13    11 months ago
Stage 3.

Pshaw, I reached stage E=mc2 the first time 'The Apprentice' aired. The man has not stopped dribbling drivel since.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.2.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @4.2.14    11 months ago
the first time 'The Apprentice' aired

I never saw it.  Did it reveal how the media helped to enable and give rise to Trump, the politician?

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
4.2.16  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.2.15    11 months ago

@!@

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2
MrFrost
zuksam


68 visitors