Jump to content

George Santos was a Brazilian Drag Queen


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Whataboutism isn't always counter-productive. It's actually quite important to keep things in perspective, and the only way to do that is to compare "the new thing" to "things that happened in the past, and what the reaction was".

If you knew more about the legal system than "what it feels like to compile a rap sheet", you'd know that legal precedents are an integral part of a fair and balanced system, and have been for centuries.

 When something bad happens, they're actually bound to follow the legal precedents that were set when the same thing happened two weeks ago, twelve years ago, 62 years ago, etc. The only way to break that cycle is by changing existing legislation via an elected body. 

You mean like when the SCOTUS completely BROKE from a PRECEDENT set 50 years ago? LMAO.

Got news for YOU, precedent is NOT STRONG NOR BINDING HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

But you figure it out for yourself based on the information and data that is available.  From the media. 

The same media that was given advance knowledge of the raid on Trump’s home.  And photos were released of the classified documents/envelopes all nicely fanned out.

And this same media was fine with not being told of Biden’s classified document stash(apparently more found just yesterday) when they were discovered just before the mid term election.  if the same scenario had happened to Trump it would have been leaked and covered 24/7.

This glaring lack of integrity in news reporting is lost on you because you’re brainwashed.  By that media who has been cheer leading the liberal side of things since at least the 90’s.  So you have no discernment in these matters because just like Pavlov’s dog, as soon as you hear that bell(or the name Trump in this case), you start drooling.

To prove my point, this thread is not about Trump, and I listed his name in a group of politicians to make a point about lying.  And your Trump Derangement Syndrome, conditioned by the media, has been acting up ever since.

Do you STILL not understand the DIFFERENCE between stealing documents with the INTENT of KEEPING them and LYING ABOUT NOT KNOWING YOU HAVE THEM when they're in YOUR DESK and giving them back as soon as they're discovered?

Clue for you Canadians: INTENT is VERY IMPORTANT in US LAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

Do you STILL not understand the DIFFERENCE between stealing documents with the INTENT of KEEPING them and LYING ABOUT NOT KNOWING YOU HAVE THEM when they're in YOUR DESK and giving them back as soon as they're discovered?

Clue for you Canadians: INTENT is VERY IMPORTANT in US LAW.

How do you know there was no intent? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're freaking out about a small-time congressman who told less lies about himself than the leader of the Democrat party did. That's the epitome of hypocrisy and stupidity.

Do you know another recently elected Demmie who's an even bigger liar? John Fetterman. He didn't just lie about himself a bunch of times, he also lied about his own election policies.

His about-face on fracking was an actual election issue. He basically told two different lies about it, one to each half of the population. As important as it is for candidates to be honest about their own lives, being honest about their intentions is even more important.

Fetterman also lied about his mental health. He's almost a vegetable ffs, there's no way he has the mental faculties to represent the people of Pennsylvania to the extent they deserve. (well, I guess they do deserve it, but not in a good way)

Alt-left CrakHoJethros like you support both Biden and Fetterman, and then when a single GOPer does it "OMG LYING IS UNACCEPTABLE!"

Like I sad earlier, your posts, along with those of every other leftard in this thread, are the epitome of hypocrisy and stupidity.

He also told less LIES than YOU, but that whataboutism means NOTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, West said:

Well Joe lied about beating up a black guy yet here you are still lighting your hair on fire whenever someone criticizes him

The FACT is, Joe never said he beat up Corn Pop and someone (Fox?) LIED to you.

YOUTUBE starting ~4:25 Joe tells the story of APOLOGIZING to Corn Pop and not fighting him because he apologized. 

Now it's your turn to apologize for LYING about Joe. Bet you don't have as much class as Joe.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The FACT is, Joe never said he beat up Corn Pop and someone (Fox?) LIED to you.

YOUTUBE starting ~4:25 Joe tells the story of APOLOGIZING to Corn Pop and not fighting him because he apologized. 

Now it's your turn to apologize for LYING about Joe. Bet you don't have as much class as Joe.

Do you think the story is true?? Was there really a bad dude name Corn Pop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, West said:

Do you think the story is true?? Was there really a bad dude name Corn Pop?

Don't know, don't care. The point is YOU got the story WRONG and have not apologized like Joe said HE did.

AFAIK, Joe's story is the ONLY reason YOU'RE talking about "Corn Pop."

You know it says something good about Joe AND not good about YOU, that you have to go to a story from 60 years ago to TRY to tar Joe.

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE Joe's story was not accurate? Maybe you can dig up some witness from 60 years ago if it's that important to you. LMAO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Don't know, don't care. The point is YOU got the story WRONG and have not apologized like Joe said HE did.

AFAIK, Joe's story is the ONLY reason YOU'RE talking about "Corn Pop."

You know it says something good about Joe AND not good about YOU, that you have to go to a story from 60 years ago to TRY to tar Joe.

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE Joe's story was not accurate? Maybe you can dig up some witness from 60 years ago if it's that important to you. LMAO 

I was only asking whether or not it was real. He's the one who brought it up. 

Either way, doesn't make it less pathetic. Reminds me of those low t types embellishing stories about their prime

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Do you STILL not understand the DIFFERENCE between stealing documents with the INTENT of KEEPING them and LYING ABOUT NOT KNOWING YOU HAVE THEM when they're in YOUR DESK and giving them back as soon as they're discovered?

Clue for you Canadians: INTENT is VERY IMPORTANT in US LAW.

My point is that a president can declassify documents.  A vice president can not.  But that all said, I believe you are correct.  Biden will not face any legal or otherwise consequences.  But in the court of public opinion this will hurt him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, West said:

I was only asking whether or not it was real. He's the one who brought it up. 

Either way, doesn't make it less pathetic. Reminds me of those low t types embellishing stories about their prime

YOU brought it up HERE (from HOW LONG AGO?).

What's pathetic is YOU misrepresenting an anecdote about 60 years ago to TRY to tar Joe.

But I guess that's the BEST YOU GOT. :applause:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sharkman said:

My point is that a president can declassify documents.  A vice president can not.  But that all said, I believe you are correct.  Biden will not face any legal or otherwise consequences.  But in the court of public opinion this will hurt him. 

Probably only among the Trump CULT MEMBERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, West said:

You are about 10 seconds from getting the cuckoo clock 

All the videos of Joe that "resurfaced" 2 years ago are the SAME ORIGINAL VIDEO I CITED. Duh. 

Maybe your slang makes sense in Canada, but it just makes you look stupid to us Americans.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, West said:

How do you know there was no intent? 

I ONLY know that you've presented NO EVIDENCE, and legal standards HERE are "innocent until PROVEN guilty."

AKA, the BURDEN is ON YOU.

All the reports support the FACT that Joe had NO INTENT to keep the documents nor steal them in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...