- 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
re: Newly Released Peter Strzok Doc
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Cling to it
He wanted a result regardless of facts.
He got the desired outcome.
It was leaked prior to being presented to Obama.
He spoke of it as fact prior to it being presented to him
He did it to damage the Presidency period.
He wanted a result regardless of facts.
He got the desired outcome.
It was leaked prior to being presented to Obama.
He spoke of it as fact prior to it being presented to him
He did it to damage the Presidency period.
1
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:13 pm to TD422
quote:
What about the rapid fire posts is inaccurate, Counselor?
Nothing on here "shakes me to my core" or "eats a hole in my gut"
Certainly not countering bad arguments/points.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:14 pm to Jbird
quote:
He wanted a result regardless of facts.
He got the desired outcome.
It was leaked prior to being presented to Obama.
He spoke of it as fact prior to it being presented to him
We can accept all of this as true, except correcting "facts" with the proper "opinions". It doesn't change the point of my argument.
All that can be true (with the proper correction reflecting reality) and it still ends up in the questions you won't answer.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
What answer your bullshite that he assessed it as credible?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your post count and history suggests otherwise. 
ETA - I notice you didn’t address the rapid fire post comment. Aren’t trial lawyers taught to redirect when the line of questioning doesn’t favor their argument?
ETA - I notice you didn’t address the rapid fire post comment. Aren’t trial lawyers taught to redirect when the line of questioning doesn’t favor their argument?
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:25 pm to TD422
quote:
I notice you didn’t address the rapid fire post comment.
It's not really an accurate comment so I let it be.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm saying there is not nearly enough to impute knowledge and mind reading. There's still a LOT of grey area/leeway for the admin.
Let's forget the concept of presenting this to a judge and jury
Let's put all the cards on the table and allow the actors on both sides make their arguments to the ELECTORATE for THEM to decide how to go forward.
FORGET the judge/jury scenario - KICK OUT all the word salad propaganda bullshite. Present an HONEST debate for the evaluation of the ELECTORATE
ONE side can argue with GENUINE conviction that the OTHER side -
- plotted to smear their opponent with purposefully made-up false allegations
- engaged the compliant media to support their plans and muzzle debate
- corrupted the judicial system to bring false charges
- employed congress critters to bring disingenious impeachments
- provided purposefully falsified information to a FISA court
- gave purposefully false and exaggerated 'leaks' to media outlets.
- etc
- etc
Let's settle this on the field of COMMON SENSE - as all political arguments should be.
Let's stage a LINCOLN - DOUGLAS debate
- carried on all broadcast media
- man to man with NO 'moderators'
Posted on 8/9/25 at 9:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When executive officers present their subjective, opinion-based analyses to POTUS, what commits him to adopting that as his subjective, opinion-based analysis?
This was not an assessment of circumstances or events where some conclusion is to be drawn. There was no analysis provided.
If Brennan’s own notes are to be believed this was a statement of fact …. sources have told him HRC is planning to tie trump to Russia to take the focus off her emails. Full stop.
What opinion or analysis exists in this statement? There’s no pondering to do…no conclusions to draw…other than a) this is true or b) this is false. How would surveilling Trump answer either of these questions?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 9:34 pm to ChineseBandit58
you just used the term common sense while replying to SFP.
This is the same guy who, after his side of the political spectrum turned prosecuting Trump into 24/7 reality TV to as wide an audience as they could reach........ now says this issue won't garner attention from anyone but political junky's.
There doesn't need to be a debate. There needs to be public hearings exposing who these scum bags were when they were scumbagging.
This is the same guy who, after his side of the political spectrum turned prosecuting Trump into 24/7 reality TV to as wide an audience as they could reach........ now says this issue won't garner attention from anyone but political junky's.
There doesn't need to be a debate. There needs to be public hearings exposing who these scum bags were when they were scumbagging.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:35 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
What opinion or analysis exists in this statement? There’s no pondering to do…no conclusions to draw…other than a) this is true or b) this is false. How would surveilling Trump answer either of these questions?
yeah but - you are not considering the importance of the 'narrative' the dems so desperately needed.
it's the narrative that's important - all else is noise.
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News