Rules for thee but not for me (Read 10545 times)

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2022, 09:32:48 PM »
Please show what law was broken.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You seem to have a mistaken belief that I have inside information on what the FBI knows and the content of the documents recovered.

ren

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2022, 09:41:40 PM »
You seem to have a mistaken belief that I have inside information on what the FBI knows and the content of the documents recovered.

Translation: I don't know
Deeds Not Words

changemyoil66

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2022, 09:42:23 PM »
Translation: I don't know
Further translation: no laws broken.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2022, 09:53:42 PM »
It’s because the people who are accusing Trump of wrongdoing are not applying their same standards with Democrat politicians that they support. 

Why should they be trusted with their multiple false accusations against Trump when they have shown that they will lie to achieve their objective which is his removal?

How many times do they have to keep lying and making stuff up, before they lose all credibility? 

This is not so much about Trump.  It is more about the people that oppose Trump and see his supporters as a threat.  They have shown that they cannot be trusted.

I don't dispute that trust was lost by the FBI but like I pointed out, do they gain credibility by turning a blind eye towards the allegations against Trump? Repairing trust is going to be a long road but I don't see any benefit in them deciding not to investigate if there is credible allegations. I think the only real course of action is to do a real thorough and proper investigation, documenting every step with as much transparency as possible.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2022, 09:54:33 PM »
Translation: I don't know

Duh.

My not knowing does not validate or invalidate the FBI search warrant. As if crimes only occurred if I have personal knowledge about them.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #45 on: August 15, 2022, 09:56:26 PM »
What boggles my mind is that folks who rail on Trump are blind to see that same crap happening with Biden et al. . .

No, because can't be media bias. . . #notprovenincourt  ::)

Such people exist on both sides so yes there are ones who do the same for Biden.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2022, 10:04:22 PM »
(1) The Democrats are ABUSING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.  Even though impeachment is more of a political vs. criminal process, there has never been as brazen nor transparent an attempt to use that power to oust a sitting president when no actual crimes or actions against the interest of the American people have actually happened.  The charges were vague, based on hearsay or circumstantial "evidence", and largely without any merit at all.

We have discussed this before and we disagree so I don't see any point in going back over it again.


Quote
(2) Your opinion (and that's only an opinion) about Trump supporters is 100% wrong.  We are completely open to accepting any validated evidence that Trump committed crimes, but after the longest investigation against a President is our nation's history, we find it was the investigator, not Trump, who broke the law.

Again I would disagree. They say they would accept evidence against Trump but then bend over backwards to find a reason to claim the evidence isn't any good.


Quote
(3)  When people like Adam Schiff go on TV non-stop to claim the evidence Trump did whatever is in the public domain, but he's so far produced nothing, how can anyone with half a brain continue to believe these liars?

Schiff is a turd, you will find no defense of him from me.

Quote
(4)  What's more likely?

     A.  Trump is a genius -- a criminal mastermind who cleverly conducts all his illegal business leaving not one shred of evidence worthy of convicting him, or

     B.  The Democrats exaggerate whatever straw they can find into impeachable offenses in order to get rid of him regardless of the damage it does to this nation?


Maybe both, except that Trump isn't that good at not leaving any evidence behind so....

ren

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2022, 10:35:06 PM »
Duh.

My not knowing does not validate or invalidate the FBI search warrant. As if crimes only occurred if I have personal knowledge about them.

So why not just say it in three words?
Deeds Not Words

drck1000

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2022, 10:39:59 PM »
So why not just say it in three words?

RSN172

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2022, 09:07:00 PM »
Guess what?   You have just earned yourself a 1 month ban.
Wow, you no fool around. It's ok. I like it.
Happily living in Puna

MassConfusion

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2022, 10:37:07 PM »
Wow, you no fool around. It's ok. I like it.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 “The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.” ― Mark Twain

Jl808

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2022, 06:16:04 AM »
Wow, you no fool around. It's ok. I like it.
Thanks. I actually was being lenient.
I think, therefore I am armed.
NRA Life Patron member, HRA Life member, HiFiCo Life Member, HDF member

The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #52 on: August 18, 2022, 09:08:24 PM »
So why not just say it in three words?

I didn't make a claim to knowledge. I didn't claim some law was broken.

Pointing out that I don't know something is entirely irrelevant to my comment. In fact, there are others here who need to be saying "I don't know", like the ones who say the search warrant is unfounded because they are the ones making a claim of something they don't know.

changemyoil66

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #53 on: August 18, 2022, 10:50:26 PM »
What boggles my mind is that no matter how many people allege witnessing something negative about Trump, no matter how many resign out of protest, no matter how many claim Trump did something wrong, it always ends up being that they had TDS and are just out to get him. No way Trump could have ever broken the law, it must be someone framing him.

Jesus could come down from Heaven and scold Trump for something and people would find a way to say Jesus was wrong.
This statement is why i asked for proof. U are implying that he did break the law which is why u stated those with TDS are viewed as incorrect. So show me the law that was broken that u are implying.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

aletheuo137

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2022, 07:17:45 AM »
 

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

eyeeatingfish

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2022, 11:11:10 PM »
This statement is why i asked for proof. U are implying that he did break the law which is why u stated those with TDS are viewed as incorrect. So show me the law that was broken that u are implying.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I think you misunderstand, perhaps I didn't word it clearly enough. What I was saying is that even if ample evidence of a legal violation was found his die hard supporters are going to find a way to not have to face it.

Maybe I am wrong though but if I could put money on it I would bet that they will defend Trump even if it turns out he had a bunch of classified documents in violation of the law.

According to one official government statement from the Archivist they already stated that 300 classified documents were recovered and that was ones that were voluntarily turned over. According to the search warrant return at least 11 sets of classified documents were recovered in the search of his Mar-a-lago home. I am not going to jump ahead of a judicial process and claim he broke the law but this evidence so far looks like he did. If he did have a large amount of classified documents then should he be charged? It is a pretty serious charge.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2022, 11:26:31 PM by eyeeatingfish »

robtmc

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2022, 10:18:00 AM »
This statement is why i asked for proof. U are implying that he did break the law which is why u stated those with TDS are viewed as incorrect. So show me the law that was broken that u are implying.

hvybarrels

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2022, 10:48:55 AM »
The Democrats have clearly embraced Stalinism by weaponizing the justice department to go after their political opponents just before an election. I used to have a thing for Soviet kitch because I figured the Cold War was over and we were safe from communism, but now the Democratic Party has become our Communist Party and their violent street militant wing Antifa is waving Soviet flags and marching around chanting communist slogans I have deep regret for not reading the Gulag Archipelago sooner and finding our what the hammer and sickle truly represented.

Pretending to be offended does not make you a good person.

MauiAxis

Re: Rules for thee but not for me
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2022, 02:10:30 PM »
Rudy will Do a fine job as special master, sorting out the top secret nuclear secrets from everything else