- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:40 pm to OldSouth
quote:
That’s insulting. They must think we’re all complete idiots who can’t see through their bullshite.
They know how dumb the average American is. And they know half are dumber than that.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:40 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
The entire power of the state at your disposal and you're scared of some average Joe's popping off.
To be fair, they've spent the past two years trying to convince everyone they were powerless to stop a bunch of mormons from burning cities.
ETA: Morons.....not Mormons. The Mormons haven't acted up in a while.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:41 pm to Deactived
All I have posted in this thread is the literal laws cited in the warrant which is underpinning the investigation and a link to how Trump strengthened the penalty for mishandling classified documents(which wasnt cited in the warrant but could be rolled into depending on the investigation)
So far, every response, including yours, only wants to talk about red herrings circulated in conservative news sites or make performative personal attacks to get some good boy points.
We'll see where the investigation goes, though I suspect no matter how little, or how much damning evidence comes out, many of you are going to have to the same concluding opinions, all that will change is how many facts or rationalizations need to be made up(or not) to get there.
So far, every response, including yours, only wants to talk about red herrings circulated in conservative news sites or make performative personal attacks to get some good boy points.
We'll see where the investigation goes, though I suspect no matter how little, or how much damning evidence comes out, many of you are going to have to the same concluding opinions, all that will change is how many facts or rationalizations need to be made up(or not) to get there.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:44 pm to Bronc
quote:so your deflection is that Hilary endured "years of failed impeachments, spygate, accusations of russian election tampering, being a KGB asset, and a myriad of other political hitjobs" and has "the entirety of DC, the media, hollywood, big tech, and roughly half the country" trying to get her?
Good to know you think Hillary Clinton is 100% innocent.
I can see how you attempted to equate those two situations, since they are not at all similar in any way.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:45 pm to Bronc
quote:
I'm open to the idea that Trump may be innocent,
Good one. You’d have no problem locking him up with zero evidence. Admit it
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:46 pm to goofball
People are freaking out about the investigation. They just wanted their shite back. Same thing is gonna be done with Hilary and say he should have been more careful with super classified documents. Then all will be right in the world and Biden will not be reelected.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:48 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The man has yet to be charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. If that's the case, every man on Earth should be deemed suspicious. But I guess that's the end result of your dystopian ideology.
I noticed you avoided answering the question.
Boxes that contained up to top secret information was taken from Trump's home after reportedly repeated attempts to get them back willfully, the FBI was told all of them had been returned but a raid retrieved additional boxes.
To any neutral person that is suspicious.
If this were Hillary you would(and did) call it suspicious.
I'm willing to say there's a possibility Trump is 100% innocent here, are you willing to even say this timeline is suspicious and there is the possibility of guilt?
So far, seems like you aren't, and have your mind made up one way.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:50 pm to Bronc
quote:
I'm open to the idea that Trump may be innocent
forget "innocent until proven guilty", comrade. He has to prove to me that he's innocent!
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:51 pm to Logician
quote:
so your deflection is that Hilary endured "years of failed impeachments, spygate, accusations of russian election tampering, being a KGB asset, and a myriad of other political hitjobs" and has "the entirety of DC, the media, hollywood, big tech, and roughly half the country" trying to get her?
I can see how you attempted to equate those two situations, since they are not at all similar in any way.
You mean like 13 Benghazi investigations, literal chants of lock her up from Trump and Republicans, "But her Emails," "but her servers"(ironic today)
And yet, no conviction. Must be 100% innocent amirite?
I'm just using your logic to see if you are consistent, or as a I suspect, arguing in bad faith.
Cause I think in both situations, both things can be true: Clinton and Trump were subject to political overreach, but both are corrupt and guilty of improprieties and leadership failures they went unpunished for, but should have been. Can you say the same?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:51 pm to goofball
quote:
Temporary barriers constructed around FBI HQ in Washington DC
OhNoAnyway.gif
Skeletonize the alphabet agencies.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:53 pm to Logician
quote:
forget "innocent until proven guilty", comrade. He has to prove to me that he's innocent!
I'm not a court of law and never said I was, and once again, taking your logic and hitting it back to you, do you think Hillary is innocent? Afterall, no convictions amirite?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:56 pm to goofball
Is this how far we have fallen? fricking barricades and insta-fences(™?) serving as security for a government building? Let alone a FBI HQ building in Washington fricking DC?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 5:57 pm to Bronc
quote:
Boxes that contained up to top secret information was taken from Trump's home after reportedly repeated attempts to get them back willfully
Based on what, you being told that by CNN and MSNBC? This is the insanity of "classified" documents to begin with. How do we even know Trump had classified documents to begin with when any and all attempts to verify this will be met with a refusal to produce said evidence?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 6:03 pm to Chief Hinge
quote:
Is this how far we have fallen? fricking barricades and insta-fences(™?) serving as security for a government building? Let alone a FBI HQ building in Washington fricking DC?
You think they need more? They didn't even afford the hundreds of businesses that burned to the ground a couple years ago that little bit of "protection".
Posted on 8/15/22 at 6:09 pm to Bronc
quote:I can, but I don't think you can.
Can you say the same?
quote:I believe you're doing just that.
if you are consistent, or as a I suspect, arguing in bad faith.
Hilary had the FBI and DOJ so deeply entrenched in her pocket that the FBI director went on national TV to run interference for her and tell the world that she had "no intent" to commit a crime, therefore you can't pursue a conviction.
But you're pretending to not understand that the FBI is CERTAINLY NOT in Trump's pocket, and they are very much heavily incentivized to keep him out of the oval office, in the exact opposite way they were heavily incentivized to publicly exonerate Hilary and attempt to get her into the oval office.
The entire premise of whatever assertions you're trying to make are based on a make-believe level playing field that you're pretending Trump has been afforded.
quote:Except for the Benghazi investigations, which is laughable if you think that shouldn't have been investigated, everything you mentioned are from the public. They did NOT originate from on overreaching government retaliating against a political enemy, like my examples. Who cares if people wear "but her email" hats and mouth off? We're talking about a government agency with an unaccountable police force trying to entrap people with opposing views, and you're pretending "but her email" hats are a danger to anyone.
You mean like 13 Benghazi investigations, literal chants of lock her up from Trump and Republicans, "But her Emails," "but her servers"(ironic today)
So yes, I'd definitely say you're
quote:
arguing in bad faith.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 6:13 pm to Chief Hinge
quote:remember when walls and fences were first and foremost racist and unacceptable, but they didn't really work anyway so why build them?
fricking barricades and insta-fences(™?) serving as security for a government building? Let alone a FBI HQ building in Washington fricking DC?
now, not only do the most rinky-dink fences work, but they can protect you from bombs, too.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 6:56 pm to goofball
has Oweo posted his 1500 word TDS essay in this thread yet? Don’t have time to read through Bronc deflecting for 4 pages
Posted on 8/15/22 at 7:01 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Based on what, you being told that by CNN and MSNBC? This is the insanity of "classified" documents to begin with. How do we even know Trump had classified documents to begin with when any and all attempts to verify this will be met with a refusal to produce said evidence?
Based on the warrant and receipt issued by the FBI. Page 5 and on is the receipt of items collected.
LINK
Like I said, I'm willing to not draw any firm conclusions and accept the possibility that all of this smoke is just a big confusion, or less insidious than the evidence currently looks, but this will be now the third time you have refused to answer my question, can you say the same? So far all you have indicated is your mind is made up, is that the case?
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 7:16 pm to Logician
quote:
Hilary had the FBI and DOJ so deeply entrenched in her pocket that the FBI director went on national TV to run interference for her and tell the world that she had "no intent" to commit a crime, therefore you can't pursue a conviction.
So Hilary, according to you, was not prosecuted because the FBI was in her pocket. Thats nonsense, but we can pretend(though next up you are going to have to explain why Hilary should be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents via her server but not Trump, or family members that also used public email addresses to do official business while int he White House)
Now, on the counter, Trump was only not convicted of soliciting political dirt in exchange for foreign aid and inciting Jan 6 because his party, that is in his pocket, held enough seats to deny a conviction.
So once again, we are back to the situation where even on your premises, you are unwilling to be consistent in your logic. If political favoritism washes away the lack of a conviction for one and means they are still guilty, then you need to be consistent.
Or, are you finally going to just admit that guilt and innocence from a court of law or body of prosecutorial authority is not always a 1 for 1 for actual guilt or innocence, that guilty people, especially in politics, often go unprosecuted or unpunished for crimes and improprieties, and so claiming lack of conviction for Trump doesn't make him an innocent person or these charges bullshite.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 7:24 pm
Page 6 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News