Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Quote

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer warns President Trump that reports of him considering pardoning his three eldest children would be would be "a gross abuse of the presidential pardon authority."

https://www.c-span.org/clip/us-senate/senator-schumer-says-president-pardoning-children-would-be-abuse-of-pardon-authority/4926929

There is a video associated with it at the link.

"Rules for thee, not for me." should be the Democratic Party motto.

So, when is Schumer going to say "enough already" with regard to Biden doing the exact same thing he condemned Trump over a rumor that he might do it?

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

There is a video associated with it at the link.

"Rules for thee, not for me." should be the Democratic Party motto.

So, when is Schumer going to say "enough already" with regard to Biden doing the exact same thing he condemned Trump over a rumor that he might do it?

Never. As far as the democrats are concerned any given action can be both horribly morally wrong and absolutely morally justified at the same moment. The same action can be virtuous and wonderful for the democrats while simultaneously being evil and nefarious for the republicans. Schrodinger's woke. 

  • Like 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Never. As far as the democrats are concerned any given action can be both horribly morally wrong and absolutely morally justified at the same moment. The same action can be virtuous and wonderful for the democrats while simultaneously being evil and nefarious for the republicans. Schrodinger's woke. 

If only there was a word for that. Hmmm....what would it be.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

There is a video associated with it at the link.

"Rules for thee, not for me." should be the Democratic Party motto.

So, when is Schumer going to say "enough already" with regard to Biden doing the exact same thing he condemned Trump over a rumor that he might do it?

It's NOT "the exact same thing" when Biden is out and powerless, while Trump is claiming total control of the DoJ and FBI. Duh

Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It's NOT "the exact same thing" when Biden is out and powerless, while Trump is claiming total control of the DoJ and FBI. Duh

He's so powerless that he just pardoned like 1,500 people plus all of his friends and family and everyone else who may have done something wrong in the last 4 years

That's after pardoning his son after he promised he never would
 

The most powerful powerless man in America :) 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It's NOT "the exact same thing" when Biden is out and powerless, while Trump is claiming total control of the DoJ and FBI. Duh

No. It is the EXACT same thing. That video is from Dec 2020. Trump was on the way out, Biden was on his way in. Just like yesterday. Trump was accused of planning to give blanket pardons to his friends and family because he was afraid Biden would turn the DOJ against him. Cuckyou Schumer attacked the act as unconstitutional and an abuse of power. Now that Biden did it, where's the outrage? There is none. Zero. Zilch.  Just the @robosmith 's of the world making excuses.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted

What's next for the Demonrats?

  • "I hereby pardon myself for all the nasty sh1t that I'm about to do to some peons."

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. It is the EXACT same thing. That video is from Dec 2020. Trump was on the way out, Biden was on his way in. Just like yesterday. Trump was accused of planning to give blanket pardons to his friends and family because he was afraid Biden would turn the DOJ against him. Cuckyou Schumer attacked the act as unconstitutional and an abuse of power. Now that Biden did it, where's the outrage? There is none. Zero. Zilch.  Just the @robosmith 's of the world making excuses.

Biden never said he planned to prosecute anyone in Trump's family like Trump has RECENTLY.

IN FACT Biden has never stated he would make prosecution decisions, period. Duh

Posted
2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What's next for the Demonrats?

  • "I hereby pardon myself for all the nasty sh1t that I'm about to do to some peons."

It's Trump who's been talking about unprecedented self-pardons NOT Biden. Duh

Sep 14, 2023  Former President Donald Trump said Thursday that he discussed pardoning himself in the final days of his presidency but decided against it.
Posted
5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Biden never said he planned to prosecute anyone in Trump's family like Trump has RECENTLY.

IN FACT Biden has never stated he would make prosecution decisions, period. Duh

Joe Biden was literally the first person to propose using lawfare against Trump:

Biden raised ‘Logan Act’ in Oval Office discussion about Flynn, Peter Strzok notes show

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
17 hours ago, robosmith said:

Biden never said he planned to prosecute anyone in Trump's family like Trump has RECENTLY.

It was Joe Biden that actually presided over the biggest weaponization of the DOJ against his political opponents. Duh.

  • Like 2

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
3 hours ago, ironstone said:

It was Joe Biden that actually presided over the biggest weaponization of the DOJ against his political opponents. Duh.

NO EVIDENCE Joe was involved AT ALL. Nor that there was ANY "weaponization."

The EVIDENCE against Trump et al speaks for itself.

Until you make yourself AWARE of the EVIDENCE, your OPINIONS on the matter are worthless.

  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NO EVIDENCE Joe was involved AT ALL. Nor that there was ANY "weaponization."

The EVIDENCE against Trump et al speaks for itself.

Until you make yourself AWARE of the EVIDENCE, your OPINIONS on the matter are worthless.

Where's the evidence that there was no weaponisation?

Evidently you don't have it. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Legato said:

Where's the evidence that there was no weaponisation?

Evidently you don't have it. 

Prove the evidence exists and I'll show you why YOU'RE WRONG.

Apparently you don't understand that proving something doesn't exist is nearly impossible.

Quote

It is generally considered true that proving something doesn't exist is nearly impossible because to definitively state non-existence, one would need to search every possible location and circumstance, which is practically impossible; this is often referred to as the "burden of proof" for negative claims in logic. 

 

Posted
38 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NO EVIDENCE Joe was involved AT ALL. Nor that there was ANY "weaponization."

The EVIDENCE against Trump et al speaks for itself.

Until you make yourself AWARE of the EVIDENCE, your OPINIONS on the matter are worthless.

Joe Biden (more aptly, his handlers) had the prosecutors from Georgia to the White House:

Quote

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/nathan-wade-white-house-meetings-trump-georgia-probe-transcript

Pressed again on whether the reference to White House counsel meant he billed for a conference with such an official, Wade said, "Yes."

So Wade went and talked to WH counsel. That's weird. And he did it twice from the time he was selected to the time he indicted Trump. Also weird. But, I'm sure the fact that he says he can't remember makes it all perfectly innocent...right?

I toured the WH once and remember everything about it. It's weird that Wade had a meeting with prestigious WH Counsel and some how he just doesn't know who he talked to or what they talked about? But he did remember to get paid for it.

I don't think he forgot.

‐-------------------

Now, here is a man that left the #3 in charge job at the DOJ to be a prosecuter in NY. Oh...and look....he just happened to be assigned to Trump's case. Oh...and he just happened to go after Trump before. What a weird coincidence!

Quote

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Manhattan district attorney has hired a former senior U.S. Department of Justice official who has investigated Donald Trump, and who may be again be called on to investigate the former U.S. president's activities.

Matthew Colangelo will serve as senior counsel to the district attorney Alvin Bragg, following two years helping oversee the Justice Department's antitrust, civil, civil rights, environmental and tax divisions, as well as some hate crimes.The first specific agenda item in the cable: stopping illegal immigration and securing the U.S. border. Rubio called tackling this issue, a Trump hallmark, “the most consequential issue of our time” and told his staff the world over that, effective immediately, “this department will no longer undertake any activities that facilitate or encourage it.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan-district-attorney-hires-senior-192357762.html

Why, do you suppose, that a guy that has a bad as job in the federal government would leave that job for one of the lowest of low level jobs, state prosecuter? And to be clear, he wasn't fired. He quit to take the NY job. Even if you can come up with something lame excuse (and you will, you always do) how do you explain away the fact that he had gone after Trump in the past?

All just inconvenient coincidences? No. K.I.S.S. that that takes the least assumption is most likely true. It is not likely that all these coincidences just happened to line up without some outside force directing these people.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, Legato said:

Apparently you have no evidence as evidently stated.

download.jpg.3dab7f672d4671e58f415c94198a3a61.jpg

I don't have to disprove anything for which you cannot POST EVIDENCE.

Until you do, it's just your TROLLING OPINION and my saying you're wrong is all the proof needed to refute it. 

Posted
2 hours ago, robosmith said:

I don't have to disprove anything for which you cannot POST EVIDENCE.

Until you do, it's just your TROLLING OPINION and my saying you're wrong is all the proof needed to refute it. 

So what you're saying is you can't prove that what you said is true or that he's wrong?

Sounds like you're just trolling.

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
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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