WrestlingRasta

Can you clarify where you read that he stated that's what they should be or shouldn't be doing? Because when I read, and then re-read his statement, what I am reading is his stating what they are doing. I don't see should be doing this or shouldn't be doing that anywhere in that statement regarding charges. And that should be is the central piece to your "I get a kick out of your circular argument".....argument, so it's kind of important whether or not that's what he said, or if that's just how you decided to accept it?

Ahhhh a new day, a new sunshine. Let us being.... 1. Never said they did...I said I agree with the law and they made a mistake. My point was it wasn't Trump walking in there saying he was going to take pictures and videos for political reasons...period. You can choose not to believe that but that is just your bias showing through. >> Can only assume that since you are taking such a hard and damning stance on that aspect, you must have been in the room and in the meetings prior to the visit where they were discussing their plans and intent for said visit, and then accompanied them on their visit, and therefore have first hand knowledge of intent and plas. And the fact that the Trump campaign released video of the gravesites almost immediately, but has not released video of the incident, that was verified by the Army and Pentagon, but would allegedly completely exonerate them from what they are accused. Is a person allowed critical thinking to factor that in, or is it just bias? 2. Again, your definition of losing their ducking minds and mine are different. I would, and apparently you would have too, handled the situation differently but to me it is just a case of he said she said and Trump and his team have every right to defend their position and story just as the woman does (again, I am not saying I agree with how they did it as again I wouldn't have done it that way, but it doesn't change the fact that maybe, just maybe their side of the story may be true. And again, is why I wish they would release the video of the incident. >> And since his definition is different that yours, it is just pure bias? As far as the video, I think we all would like it's release. Which begs three questions: 1) who took the video, 2) who has access and ability to release the video, 3) why have they not? 3. The same context I explained to Rasta...ex POTUS who just weeks early had an assassination attempt on his life...gee...maybe...just maybe his detail was a little more on edge, and rightfully so! If you think that that doesn't matter than once again, like him, it is pure bias and irrational mental gymnastics. >> If you truly believe that it is in any way excusable to shove an officer out of the way who is trying to forbid you from violating federal law, a law implemented solely for the respect of soldiers who were killed in battle, because you are an ex-president who got shot in the ear....and that anyone that thinks that is not excusable is nothing but bias and mental gymnastics........well we're just too far apart on what it means to be a decent human being to really cover this aspect any more. I'm still kind of shocked. If his detail is not able to conduct themselves in a professional manner, over something like a federal officer doing the right thing, then maybe they are not fit for that detail. 4. If that so called post on tikTok is in fact an ad (I don't have tikTok) than the Army should file an injunction to have it taken down as it violates federal law...and/or charge him and his campaign with a crime. >> This one is pretty interesting. This video has in fact been released, posted, and verified. But you don't have tikTok, so its "if so called video.... and if in fact", even though you don't have to have a tikTook account to very easily find it and watch it. I just don't get that, especially when your whole argument on anything about this situation that is counter to you, is nothing but pure bias.

Honest question....when considering the evolving state of the economy over the last four years, how much consideration are we giving to the pandemic significantly shutting the economic world down for a while, and the fact that while expenses have raised, those effects have been felt all over the world, not just America, and America has been and continues to recover at a better rate than the other first world countries across the globe. Sincerely asking how much that factors in to our thinking of the last four years, because that effort is an effort from both sides of the aisle.

Same. And music.

One view: more people turned out in 2020 than ever before because Trump “did what he said he was going to do” Another view: more people turned out than ever before because “cannot let Trump remain in the White House” For the noisiest of the populous, the correct answer is whichever side’s talking heads have gotten their claws into you. The “who do you trust” question isn’t really about trust. Just look around here, all kinds of people (both sides pretty much equally) talking about you can’t trust government, they’re all scum. But spend all day arguing in defense of your media outlets favorite government official. Talking about can’t trust the media, but fill the board with media clips like gotcha moments. If Trump wins (which I believe is very much a long shot at this point) I trust he’s going to do whatever he can to consolidate as much power he can and seek retribution. His speeches are less about policy and leadership and more about how unfair his life is. If Kamala wins I trust she’s going to do whatever she can to shore up complete support in the DEI realm, and her governing is going to be based on whatever can get her re-elected (which I guess is nothing new). I hope she realizes it’s the loudest, not the majority, that wants things like males in female sports and bathrooms, but I’m not confident. Don’t really trust either one of them…

If trans women are women, why the preclusion of “trans” or “identify as”?

That's a lot to type to be done with the discussion (yes it was same topic, an extension of that topic is not a different topic). Funny that Mr. Whackadoodle wants to talk about immature names.....and hypocrisy. This is how you end a conversation: Have a great weekend!!

Wait....I thought you no longer wanted to discuss. Well that didn't take long. Would you have been more comfortable if I said "whackadoodle", or one of those other terms, since you are so against name calling those who disagree with you. I just want to make sure I have the proper etiquette that keeps you comfortable.

Now that was a humorous post. I will respect your desire to no longer discuss.

To the select few nut swinging parrots.......yes. To the vast majority of the general public......

MAGA is not going to face any real issue, they are highly capable in throwing stones though, even when those same stones are landing on their side as well.

The voting public will say in a few weeks. Stay tuned. You might be surprised.

"Trap" you???? Poor guy. I feel for you but confident it will be okay. The fever will start to break shortly around the second, third week of November.

So it’s not what is actually said that matters, it’s how you (and others) feel about it…. Surprise surprise!

My point is you are incorrect, it’s not an opinion, you are wrong, and therefore I cannot agree with you. He came here in 10/22, for the direct purpose of helping us out after the hurricane. He fell in love. with how we come together in this community, so they moved here and got married shortly after.

I never mentioned Trump, before you brought him up…

If you were correct, I would agree with you.

You must have missed my very first sentence, into the friendly little chat, in which I stated, “they all need to be held accountable”, prior to saying any federal offense. OR, you did read that and knew it didn’t help your go go gadget reach, so you conveniently left it out. OR, you did read it but since I also said something about any federal charge should be held to account, and you immediately got Trump Triggered and it left you, so that you could hang on for your nut-swing. Whichever it is, pretty weak attempt.

Is this a question?

So just to be clear, you took this: As me declaring these are ‘my guys’ and I am siding with them. Wow, as I said in the other thread, you are in fact further gone than I realized. I hope the fever breaks soon.

You’re further gone than I realized.

Who are you cultivating into ‘my’ guys in this scenario, just so I’m clear.

The point is, not every topic of discussion is about Republicans vs Democrats. To take it even a step further, the topic of every discussion is not about the greatest country on Earth…America. A supplemental point is that to the obsessed, it is hard to imagine a topic that one cannot make about American politics, and their disdain for…..another political party. Interesting though that the very thing he is talking about….the point….literally spelled out….is still just very difficult for some to even see.