Sorry, haven't had a chance to watch the video you posted.I'd really like @colton to weigh in on this. Being a reasonable republican, what are your thoughts?
Sorry, haven't had a chance to watch the video you posted.I'd really like @colton to weigh in on this. Being a reasonable republican, what are your thoughts?
Agreed.
wonder if y’all seen this?
so Orwellian.
I think option B is most likely, also.From the very same OIG report he's using as validation of his claim:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf
"C. Absence of FBI CHSs Inside the Trump Campaign
All of the witnesses we interviewed told the OIG that the FBI did not try to recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, did not send CHSs to collect information in Trump campaign headquarters or Trump campaign spaces, and did not ask CHSs to join the Trump campaign or otherwise attend campaign related events as part of the investigation. Using the methodology described above, we found no information indicating otherwise."
McCarthy is either an idiot who didn't bother to read the report, or a lying sack of wet garbage that is deliberately misleading his constituents, whom he knows full well will never read it. I'm betting the latter.
Conservatives, this is fake news; this is a hoax.
This is Trump's best tweet.
This is Trump's best tweet.
Ever mindful of his desire to be a unifier, not a divider, Trump's administration created a handy online guide to help his followers own the libs during Christmas dinner with their families. How thoughtful! How in the spirit of the holidays! What's Christmas without Donald Trump at the center of the holiday universe? Thank you, Mr. President. Fighting with the family during Christmas dinner. What a great idea!
https://ijr.com/trump-campaign-christmas-relatives-argument/
LMAO that's hillarious. On a serious note tho, I don't know why anyone would argue with their relatives on xmas over Trump. Even if they did there wouldn't be any valid response to there being no quid pro quo, and even if there was, asking for investigation into corruption is something we should expect to be tied to foreign aid. So why would you need talking points?
Your arguments are so ridiculous. Trump chose to get himself impeached? The anti-Trump crowd has been salivating over a way to impeach him since the moment he got elected. Once the Dems took the House impeachment was a near certainty. The only thing that was stopping it for a little while was that Pelosi temporarily had the sanity to determine that it wasn't going to go anywhere in the Senate and might cause her party more harm than good. AOC eventually proved who really leads the party, though. Given the way this fiasco has played out it shouldn't surprise anyone if some of the recently Blue House seats don't go Red again in November.By getting himself impeached? Well it makes sense given how stupid Trump is I guess. Good point Joe
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Did I say that he was giving them the middle finger for being liberal? He is giving them the middle finger for their tactic of attempting to reinterpret every single thing he does or says in the worst possible way.The more the years tick on, the more it is apparent that this is the entirety of Trump's appeal. It is fun to give liberals the finger.
That's the impulse that decides policy in this country, affects the lives of millions of people, and instills slavish devotion roughly 60 million people. It's one big "**** you."
Yes I have, but I'm not going to bother going back over your posts to prove my point.Not for nothing, but might as well point out that "extremely frequently" is a rather awkward use of the English language. Perhaps it reflected a desire on your part to exaggerate your point. That desire on your part to overstate or exaggerate, led to poor phrasing, actually. You might consider "very frequently" instead. And before you answer, no, you have not seen me misuse the words in question "very frequently".
Not true. I can say that you keep reinterpreting my points in an effort to make them fit with your narrative and then suggesting that I need to argue to defend the position that you created. I'm not interested in playing your game.All Joe can really say is just that we don't see things the same. Offering no defense of his position or rebuttal of mine.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
LMAO that's hillarious. On a serious note tho, I don't know why anyone would argue with their relatives on xmas over Trump. Even if they did there wouldn't be any valid response to there being no quid pro quo, and even if there was, asking for investigation into corruption is something we should expect to be tied to foreign aid. ?
Did I say that he was giving them the middle finger for being liberal? He is giving them the middle finger for their tactic of attempting to reinterpret every single thing he does or says in the worst possible way.
Well he could have easily prevented the impeachment. He didn't though for some reasonYour arguments are so ridiculous. Trump chose to get himself impeached? The anti-Trump crowd has been salivating over a way to impeach him since the moment he got elected. Once the Dems took the House impeachment was a near certainty. The only thing that was stopping it for a little while was that Pelosi temporarily had the sanity to determine that it wasn't going to go anywhere in the Senate and might cause her party more harm than good. AOC eventually proved who really leads the party, though. Given the way this fiasco has played out it shouldn't surprise anyone if some of the recently Blue House seats don't go Red again in November.
You had a stupid point. I pointed it out. You got nothingNot true. I can say that you keep reinterpreting my points in an effort to make them fit with your narrative and then suggesting that I need to argue to defend the position that you created. I'm not interested in playing your game.