Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Could be any number of things. And IMO, if she came out and said, "I was 25 and about to be unemployed, so I needed a job," that would be understandable, too. It's a little like when a woman who has accused her boss of sexual misconduct is asked why she continued working for him, exchanged friendly emails, followed him to another job, etc. It's not ideal in terms of maintaining her credibility, and could suggest that she's lying, but it doesn't automatically mean so.
You say this, but then all of your factual descriptions of what happened seem kind of fringe, not shared by a wide consensus at all.
I kinda agree. The point of these hearings is to convince the public Trump committed sedition and treason, so there is enough support for DoJ to charge him.NorvilleBarnes said:
Is there any official record where she did ask to work at Mar o lago? Some fact checkers say that claim is falsejon_mx said:
dozer said:
Ricky Ricardo, "Oh Lindsey, you got some splaining to do."
He does drive a souped up golf cart. To arrive at the green ahead of whoever he's gambling with so he can kick their ball away and move his closer.
Yeah, they've asked all the Republican witnesses questions hard enough to risk their futures in the party. When you're questioning someone who has been a Republican their entire life, who campaigned for Trump, who wanted Trump to win, and who voted for Trump (twice for most of them), asking them to say bad things about Trump ARE the hard questions. They have not asked any Democrats hard questions, though. Of course that could be because there have been no Democrat witnesses.ZADO said:
The shooting at the parade in Highland Park yesterday where there were plenty of red flags they should have known it was going to happen. Let me know when Crimo walks and is found innocent JM.
All of her personal eye witness testimony is being ignored by some so that a story she testified under oath was told to her by a third party can be scrutinized.
I don’t even want to engage but …..
I'm, reminded of a quote about Dan Quayle: "Just because everyone calls him stupid, doesn't mean he's not."NorvilleBarnes said:
CNN Article:
When a side refuses to participate it makes it tough.
Because consensus is wrong on occasion doesn't make it wrong the majority of the time. Your examples and analysis are completely irrational and look extremely desperate.
He's said the same thing repeatedly throughout this entire thread. Honestly, what do you hope to accomplish by continuing to engage? Really screws up ignore for the rest of us.
It's easy to point to 1000 incidents of being "wrong" but when put into perspective that billions of times it was correct, it's rather insignificant. Though, with our media and how the algos work, it's really easy to lose site of it. You click on enough of the "wrongs" and you'll quickly believe that's all that exists completely losing the perspective of the entire body of work.
But to this point, that isn't even true....ALL the witnesses have been from the GOP "side" in this. And I will continue to ask who these folks would like to see testify that would make their perception begin to shift. So far, I have the two SS agents. Who else?
I mean, I don't find it acceptable.
Our media outlets continue to be absurd....stuff like this in damn near every single story. I don't know why people find it acceptable.
I don't think it's slant (cue the media bias whine), I think it's sloppy and lazy reporters.
I don't care what consensus is. Jon's right - consensus is often wrong, and a terrible reason to believe something.
Could be that too.
Well sure, but we don't believe Trump led the insurrection because that's consensus, we believe it because that's where the facts lead us.
