Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Are we already living in a dictatorship?


Recommended Posts

This is a good example of living in a one party dictatorship.  Getting very little coverage.

https://www.theday.com/article/20210310/OP04/210319958

timeline as follows:

april 2020 governors announces no bid contract to Sema 4 which is owned by his wife’s Vc firm

june 2020 - governors office emails state ethics asking for ruling. They deem no conflict even though Lamont administration previously provided the 36 companies owned by Lamont wife firm would be on watch list forg any contracts.

march 2021 - state paid 36.0m already to sema 4, who is going public with shareholders already made 343.0 m. 

This is where covid slush funds are going...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. /thread

If the senate is controlled by the same party as the executive, and if the majority party of the senate is not willing to use checks and balances, there effectively are no checks and balances.  A

He hasn't gone full dictator yet. He's dictator-curious.

1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

Red flags laws... yeah, right Joe.  We’ll leave it up to Liberal judges, leaders and the police to draw that wonderfully blurry line as to who constitutes a clear and present danger.  Ask Ed Caniglia how well that system works.  😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Red flags laws... yeah, right Joe.  We’ll leave it up to Liberal judges, leaders and the police to draw that wonderfully blurry line as to who constitutes a clear and present danger.  Ask Ed Caniglia how well that system works.  😆

Red MAGA hat = Red Flag calling it now.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

 We’ll leave it up to Liberal judges, leaders and the police to draw that wonderfully blurry line as to who constitutes a clear and present danger.  

This is a very interesting take.

First, one of the real successes of Trump's presidency, from his perspective, was all the judicial vacancies he filled.  He and McConnell re-shaped the entire judiciary from top to bottom.

Second, I would never put the "police" into the "liberal" category - in fact, I would say most police officers and their leaders tend to be on the more conservative side.

 

I am not sure who the "leaders" are - but there are more local conservative leaders than "liberal" leaders.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tonydead said:

It's a distiction without a difference.  Do you know what that means? As someone's who has been obsessed with sources, even started threads about it, you would think you would understand that the vast majority of the time (other than live events or events the press has been invited to witness first hard) news reporting is sourced information, aka, telling us something that other people have said. Do you have the ability to grasp this concept?  So, when someone says "the news has been telling us" it doesnt actually mean Lester Holt telling us what he thinks. Young adolescent brains are usually developed enough to understand these subtle distinctions. 

No it isn't. If they are reporting on the dossier...that is not remotely the same as claiming it all happened.

If they are reporting Comet saying they could not verify it or that he briefed Trump on it, they are not, in fact, claiming the pee stuff happened.

Its an actual difference.

And stop the personal BS. Especially when you are just flat out wrong.

Reporting what is said by the dossier is not a claim the events happened. In no way at all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No it isn't. If they are reporting on the dossier...that is not remotely the same as claiming it all happened.

If they are reporting Comet saying they could not verify it or that he briefed Trump on it, they are not, in fact, claiming the pee stuff happened.

Its an actual difference.

And stop the personal BS. Especially when you are just flat out wrong.

Reporting what is said by the dossier is not a claim the events happened. In no way at all.  

So it’s okay to report what is in the dossier even though you are not sure the dossier is legitimate? Wouldn’t you just ignore the story - Kind of like Hunter’s laptop?

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

This is a good example of living in a one party dictatorship.  Getting very little coverage.

https://www.theday.com/article/20210310/OP04/210319958

timeline as follows:

april 2020 governors announces no bid contract to Sema 4 which is owned by his wife’s Vc firm

june 2020 - governors office emails state ethics asking for ruling. They deem no conflict even though Lamont administration previously provided the 36 companies owned by Lamont wife firm would be on watch list forg any contracts.

march 2021 - state paid 36.0m already to sema 4, who is going public with shareholders already made 343.0 m. 

This is where covid slush funds are going...

Holy crap that’s filthy. I don’t think it has anything to do with a one party dictatorship though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No it isn't. If they are reporting on the dossier...that is not remotely the same as claiming it all happened.

If they are reporting Comet saying they could not verify it or that he briefed Trump on it, they are not, in fact, claiming the pee stuff happened.

Its an actual difference.

And stop the personal BS. Especially when you are just flat out wrong.

Reporting what is said by the dossier is not a claim the events happened. In no way at all.  

:lmao:   You don't have to keep convincing me that you don't understand.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

This is a good example of living in a one party dictatorship. 

My father and grandparents lived under two actual dictatorships. First under the Nazis, and then under the Soviets. 
 

No offense but I don’t think you have the slightest idea what the word “dictatorship” actually means. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

My father and grandparents lived under two actual dictatorships. First under the Nazis, and then under the Soviets. 
 

No offense but I don’t think you have the slightest idea what the word “dictatorship” actually means. 

I was quoting the thread title??.  FYI -  I’m a history major with a concentration in Eastern Europe and Middle East.  

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, -jb- said:

Holy crap that’s filthy. I don’t think it has anything to do with a one party dictatorship though. 

We have one party rule in my state and governor is ruling by executive order since March 2019 with no checks or balances.  Call it what you want but it’s ripe for abuse.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stlrams said:

I was quoting the thread title??.  FYI -  I’m a history major with a concentration in Eastern Europe and Middle East.  

Then you should know better. The thread title is ridiculous. Using the term dictatorship to describe some local corruption (at worst) is ridiculous. It’s like when NFL players complain they’re being lynched because they get criticized in the media, or when AOC compared Trump’s refugee camps to concentration camps. These sorts of terrible analogies get in the way of justifiable complaints. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

So it’s okay to report what is in the dossier even though you are not sure the dossier is legitimate? Wouldn’t you just ignore the story - Kind of like Hunter’s laptop?

If you report it as unverified and are discussing what is in it. Yes... why would that not be ok to report about it?  Why would they not report on Comey’s words on it?

They knew it existed...they had it.  They knew the source of it.  It was news.

Most reported the existence of the story of the laptop.  And its source which was less credible as well.  But nice try at a gotcha there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:lmao:   You don't have to keep convincing me that you don't understand.

Ahh more laughs...the problem is I understand just fine as has been explained in detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

This is a very interesting take.

First, one of the real successes of Trump's presidency, from his perspective, was all the judicial vacancies he filled.  He and McConnell re-shaped the entire judiciary from top to bottom.

Second, I would never put the "police" into the "liberal" category - in fact, I would say most police officers and their leaders tend to be on the more conservative side.

 

I am not sure who the "leaders" are - but there are more local conservative leaders than "liberal" leaders.

Trump made a dent but there are still a lot of Liberal judges out there.  Same with the cops.  Read up on Edward Caniglia and you’ll understand my concerns on this issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Then you should know better. The thread title is ridiculous. Using the term dictatorship to describe some local corruption (at worst) is ridiculous. It’s like when NFL players complain they’re being lynched because they get criticized in the media, or when AOC compared Trump’s refugee camps to concentration camps. These sorts of terrible analogies get in the way of justifiable complaints. 

“I’ll take ‘Things Tim didn’t say in the Trump dictator thread’ for $500 Alex”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

“I’ll take ‘Things Tim didn’t say in the Trump dictator thread’ for $500 Alex”.

You sure about that? I don’t remember if I specifically posted in that thread, but I spent a LOT of time in this forum defending Trump from the charge of dictator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

So it’s okay to report what is in the dossier even though you are not sure the dossier is legitimate? Wouldn’t you just ignore the story - Kind of like Hunter’s laptop?

Mic drop

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

You sure about that? I don’t remember if I specifically posted in that thread, but I spent a LOT of time in this forum defending Trump from the charge of dictator. 

Just busting your stones.  I honestly don’t remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I think both parties' emphasis on critical theory, meaning that laws and institutions are created and run by the powerful for their own benefit at the expense of the dispossessed and marginalized, is a real problem. Both parties seem to view power for their policy preference as the ultimate end, without regard to their constituents' needs for freedom and justice properly understood. Abstract notions of freedom and justice are simply deemed by our governing parties to be remnants of the personal prejudices of those who perpetuate their dominance through laws and systems.

That these abstract notions are manifest in law and enforced by agents of the government makes them suspect in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans. Think of the Republicans' war with the Deep State over the past four years. It has been posited that the FBI and the CIA are large, federal institutions that are designed to keep power away from the most marginal in our society. It was suggested that they were corrupt, and that power must be stripped from them. The Republicans went to war with the institution of the press, claiming it 'fake' and 'corrupt,' only serving the elites on both coasts.

Democrats have also long done this, too, and in many ways that were and are more intrusive and varied than Republicans. From anything from the expansion of the executive to something like the ADA, Democrats have given themselves huge amounts of power over institutions formerly reserved for direct representative redress by voters themselves. The judiciary's role expanded under Democratic oversight under Earl Warren and his unelected brigade, and we see the aftershocks sixty years later.

Today, we see this with the Democratic acceptance of critical race theory in the courts and as a question of sociopolitical endeavors, queer theory against the familial unit, and an extension of bizarre rights to children regarding their own biological genitalia and normal the fruition thereof. It is highly intrusive and personal, these notions of justice and freedom for the dispossessed. One can look at any claim made by Democrats and find a whittling away of traditional Enlightenment theories of justice, law, parental exclusivity over the dominion of children, and right reason contained therein. 

Critical theory is a philosophy designed only for pluralism and tribalism. The center cannot hold under these conditions and competing concerns.

Edited by woodstock
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, woodstock said:

I think both parties' emphasis on critical theory, meaning that laws and institutions are created and run by the powerful for their own benefit at the expense of the dispossessed and marginalized, is a real problem. Both parties seem to view view power for their policy preference as the ultimate end, without regard to their constituents' needs for freedom and justice properly understood. Abstract notions of freedom and justice are simply deemed by our governing parties to be remnants of the personal prejudices of those who perpetuate their dominance through laws and systems.

That these abstract notions are manifest in law and enforced by agents of the government makes them suspect in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans. Think of the Republicans' war with the Deep State over the past four years. It has been posited that the FBI and the CIA are large, federal institutions that are designed to keep power away from the most marginal in our society. It was suggested that they were corrupt, and that power must be stripped from them. The Republicans went to war with the institution of the press, claiming it 'fake' and 'corrupt,' only serving the elites on both coasts.

Democrats have also long done this, too, and in many more ways more intrusive and varied than Republicans. From anything from the expansion of the executive to something like the ADA, Democrats have given themselves huge amounts of power over institutions formerly reserved for direct representative redress by voters themselves. The judiciary's role expanded under Democratic oversight under Earl Warren and his unelected brigade, and we see the aftershocks sixty years later.

Today, we see this with the Democratic acceptance of critical race theory in the courts and as a question of sociopolitical endeavors, queer theory against the familial unit, and an extension of bizarre rights to children regarding their own biological genitalia and normal fruition thereof. It is highly intrusive and personal, these notions of justice and freedom for the dispossessed. One can look at any claim made by Democrats and find a whittling away of traditional Enlightenment theories of justice, law, parental exclusivity over the dominion of children, and right reason contained therein. 

Critical theory is a philosophy designed only for pluralism and tribalism. The center cannot hold under these conditions and competing concerns.

:micdrop:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, FairWarning said:

I don't see how it ends, Woodstock.  

It ends with a few bold, yet learned people willing to step out of their dailies and contribute to the world of public service, slings and arrows be damned. In the recent past, it has taken a megalomaniacal person like Trump to stand up to the encroaching and almost violent hordes, but he's a corrupt one with dictator aspirations as far as I can tell. So we can only hope for someone articulate, well-spoken, and with a knowledge of history and the Constitution to step forward and stand firm in rejecting the circus that has become both parties' march toward something other than democracy. 

We need to pray for a benevolent force in the executive, and tons of people coming out of the woodwork at the local levels. I am not sure if that's realistic, but that's what I'm praying for. Otherwise, we will continue to see some of the same anti-democratic impulses pulling us further and ever more inexorably into the realm of things falling apart. I was hopeful that Biden would mitigate the excesses of the wing of his party that would march us into something less than our traditional notions of representative democracy -- he has not. There are circuses going on all around us. The theater has gone astray and roosts in our politics and daily lives. The treasury is being raided daily but bread is soon to be in scarce supply for many folks. What then? 

Edited by woodstock
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 3:15 PM, woodstock said:

I think both parties' emphasis on critical theory, meaning that laws and institutions are created and run by the powerful for their own benefit at the expense of the dispossessed and marginalized, is a real problem. Both parties seem to view power for their policy preference as the ultimate end, without regard to their constituents' needs for freedom and justice properly understood. Abstract notions of freedom and justice are simply deemed by our governing parties to be remnants of the personal prejudices of those who perpetuate their dominance through laws and systems.

That these abstract notions are manifest in law and enforced by agents of the government makes them suspect in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans. Think of the Republicans' war with the Deep State over the past four years. It has been posited that the FBI and the CIA are large, federal institutions that are designed to keep power away from the most marginal in our society. It was suggested that they were corrupt, and that power must be stripped from them. The Republicans went to war with the institution of the press, claiming it 'fake' and 'corrupt,' only serving the elites on both coasts.

Democrats have also long done this, too, and in many ways that were and are more intrusive and varied than Republicans. From anything from the expansion of the executive to something like the ADA, Democrats have given themselves huge amounts of power over institutions formerly reserved for direct representative redress by voters themselves. The judiciary's role expanded under Democratic oversight under Earl Warren and his unelected brigade, and we see the aftershocks sixty years later.

Today, we see this with the Democratic acceptance of critical race theory in the courts and as a question of sociopolitical endeavors, queer theory against the familial unit, and an extension of bizarre rights to children regarding their own biological genitalia and normal the fruition thereof. It is highly intrusive and personal, these notions of justice and freedom for the dispossessed. One can look at any claim made by Democrats and find a whittling away of traditional Enlightenment theories of justice, law, parental exclusivity over the dominion of children, and right reason contained therein. 

Critical theory is a philosophy designed only for pluralism and tribalism. The center cannot hold under these conditions and competing concerns.

Most of this is total nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Most of this is total nonsense. 

Which parts? That's such a sweeping declarative, I don't think you've even read what I've said. Would you argue that critical theory hasn't been adopted by both parties? 

What about the specific criticisms are wrong about a shift in power away from the people and Congress, which is really their redress to government overreach? 

Go ahead and try and argue any of those points. I've got all night. 

Edited by woodstock
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Remind you, I'm no progressive that leans towards participatory democracy at all levels, but I'd like to see any shred of evidence that the people have retained power over the institution of government rather than an aristocratic form of governance or procedure taking the place of direct representation, or, the Congress. 

I'd really, really love to hear tim try and argue that point. 

Hint: He'll fail miserably. 

Edited by woodstock
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, does anyone think that in our nation's history, the localities and states that comprise our government have more power than they used to have over the federal government? 

Within the federal government, which branches are the most aristocratic in nature? Which branches have grown the most in power in the 20th and 21st Century? 

I'll hang up now. This is basic civics. This isn't about changing the nomenclature regarding illegal immigrants. This is actually something that requires a bit of thought instead of being superfluous. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, woodstock said:

Which parts? That's such a sweeping declarative, I don't think you've even read what I've said. Would you argue that critical theory hasn't been adopted by both parties? 

What about the specific criticisms are wrong about either a shift in power away from the people and Congress, which is really their redress to government overreach? 

Go ahead and try and argue any of those points. I've got all night. 

I don’t, sorry. But I would start with your attack against the Warren court; you sound like an unrepentant segregationalist from 1955. 
I also frankly don’t believe that the Democratic Party is out to attack or remove Enlightenment principles- I find that to be an absurd extremist point of view with no bearing in reality. I also don’t find the Americans Disability Act (though as a real estate guy there are certain parts I get annoyed by) to be an assault on American liberty. Like I wrote, nonsense. 
 

And now I must go to bed. If you post anything further in response I’ll try to reply in the morning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mention race once. Why would an attack on the Warren court sound like a segregationist lament aside from his role in Brown v. Board, which didn't factor into my thinking, nor did I mention it? Indeed, the CRA of '64 was passed by Congress. That would be by the branch of government I'm asserting has had power taken away or ceded to other branches. 

The Warren Court, according to both liberal and conservative critique, severely curtailed what localities and states could do legislatively with respect to many issues. The liberal side would argue that these things are just and necessary. The conservative side would argue that they are overreach and a departure from the appropriate reading of the Constitution. But what is not debated is that the Court found expansive new rights never previously found in the Constitution. Nor is it argued that they strengthened the judiciary at the expense of the legislatures. Nor is it argued they did not further the concept of incorporation, which extended particular amendments to actions taken by states, which were now under purview of the federal judiciary.

From the right of privacy to Miranda rights, there are things that were "found" in Amendments never before thought to exist. These rights prevented states, localities, and the federal Congress from passing legislation that contravened what the Court declared was acceptable. From newly found forms of process to establish and inhere government benefits as rights, from the expansion of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding state and local entanglements and public displays regarding religion, to the Katz trilogy of cases that found people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons, not in things, the Warren Court consistently usurped legislative authority from all three federalist modes of popular redress. Very few people would argue differently. I'd actually like to see you attempt it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, woodstock said:

I didn't mention race once. Why would an attack on the Warren court sound like a segregationist lament aside from his role in Brown v. Board, which didn't factor into my thinking, nor did I mention it? Indeed, the CRA of '64 was passed by Congress. That would be by the branch of government I'm asserting has had power taken away or ceded to other branches. 

The Warren Court, according to both liberal and conservative critique, severely curtailed what localities and states could do legislatively with respect to many issues. The liberal side would argue that these things are just and necessary. The conservative side would argue that they are overreach and a departure from the appropriate reading of the Constitution. But what is not debated is that the Court found expansive new rights never previously found in the Constitution. Nor is it argued that they strengthened the judiciary at the expense of the legislatures. Nor is it argued they did not further the concept of incorporation, which extended particular amendments to actions taken by states, which were now under purview of the federal judiciary.

From the right of privacy to Miranda rights, there are things that were "found" in Amendments never before thought to exist. These rights prevented states, localities, and the federal Congress from passing legislation that contravened what the Court declared was acceptable. From newly found forms of process to establish and inhere government benefits as rights, from the expansion of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding state and local entanglements and public displays regarding religion, to the Katz trilogy of cases that found people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons, not in things, the Warren Court consistently usurped legislative authority from all three federalist modes of popular redress. Very few people would argue differently. I'd actually like to see you attempt it. 

I wouldn’t argue it differently. You stated it correctly. It’s the context that makes it ridiculous. We’re in a thread with the title “Are we already living in a dictatorship?”- already an absurd question. And you offer the Warren Court and Democratic Party as evidence? It’s laughable. Get the #### out of here with this stuff. 

You may hate the fact that there’s desperate folks at our southern border trying to get into this country any way they can, but many of them are fleeing from ACTUAL dictatorships. You should warn them about how it’s just as oppressive here, what with the Warren Court and the schemes of the Democratic Party. 

Edited by timschochet
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I wouldn’t argue it differently. You stated it correctly. It’s the context that makes it ridiculous. We’re in a thread with the title “Are we already living in a dictatorship?”- already an absurd question. And you offer the Warren Court and Democratic Party as evidence? It’s laughable. Get the #### out of here with this stuff. 

You may hate the fact that there’s desperate folks at our southern border trying to get into this country any way they can, but many of them are fleeing from ACTUAL dictatorships. You should warn them about how it’s just as oppressive here, what with the Warren Court and the schemes of the Democratic Party. 

I said democracy was in decline in America in both parties. You're singling out my assertions by asserting a love of democracy that the Democratic Party has, a party whose nomination was almost won by a socialist who garnered more votes than ever before for that framework of government. Indeed, a large number of registered Democrats now see other forms of government such as socialism as simply a preference, and are more open to declaring themselves socialists. That would seem like poor proof of that party's movement towards democratic institutions. In addition, the woman who is the face and spirit of the party in the more democratic house of Congress is also an avowed socialist. (No, not Nancy Pelosi.) Given those two political realities, and the trend in identification of party members as socialist, it would hardly seem a reach for me to say that the Democratic politicians and those they represent are increasingly indebted to either the philosophy and history of materialism, or, more likely, are adopters of critical theory. Not the Enlightenment political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke that we modeled our government on. 

You've said nothing about the expansion of power away from the people by that same party. You don't even argue it. You agree with what I've written. You've simply declared, "We're not El Salvador!" Bravo! You can ignore the writing on the wall of the movement away from democratic institutions all you want; I'm not going on that trip. 

The last paragraph sounds an awful lot in spirit and proof like the jingoistic "love it or leave it" rejoinders the right used to answer its critics with. That you are a foot soldier for the Democratic Party should give one pause, then. Perhaps the right and the left aren't so separate in lots of ways anymore. The king of totalitarianism and proponent of the no-rights, general will subset of social contract theory, Rousseau, was indeed king of exile or death (much like in the Batman movie!) and he certainly influenced the socialists in thought. Perhaps our Democrats and their Democrat underpinnings are now similar to him.   

Edited by woodstock
  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, woodstock said:

 The king of totalitarianism and proponent of the no-rights, general will subset of social contract theory, Rousseau, was indeed king of exile or death (much like in the Batman movie!) and he certainly influenced the socialists in thought. Perhaps our Democrats and their Democrat underpinnings are now similar to him.   

Now this is the first thing you wrote that is a little interesting to me, because it sounds like you’re a fan of Paul Johnson (he also called Rousseau in intellectuals the father of totalitarianism. I myself don’t see it; but it’s an interesting subject anyhow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

Cool.  Can I dig up some of your posts on Barr and RUSSIA?

 

Yes...please do.  Not sure what that has to do with Arizona and the crapfest that is right now.  But you go ahead and deflect with claims of what I said all you want.  Just bring all the context.

Some seem to still spin Russia, what was actually said by people here, what the actual Mueller investigation was, and what the conclusions were that "he" made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Yes...please do.  Not sure what that has to do with Arizona and the crapfest that is right now.  But you go ahead and deflect with claims of what I said all you want.  Just bring all the context.

Some seem to still spin Russia, what was actually said by people here, what the actual Mueller investigation was, and what the conclusions were that "he" made.

Fact. Trump let the RUSSIA snipe hunt run its course for years. Letting conspiracy theorists undermine his Presidency for years. Ultimately, no collusion was found.  He could have killed it but he played the long game knowing he would be exonerated.  
 

Biden appears to not want anyone looking into the 2020 election.  Why?  This only gives credence to the Big Lie.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, knowledge dropper said:

Fact. Trump let the RUSSIA snipe hunt run its course for years. Letting conspiracy theorists undermine his Presidency for years. Ultimately, no collusion was found.  He could have killed it but he played the long game knowing he would be exonerated.  
 

Biden appears to not want anyone looking into the 2020 election.  Why?  This only gives credence to the Big Lie.  

Trump had no actual control of the investigation.  It should have gone on because it wasn't a snipe hunt...it led to a long report (that so many ignore what it actually said) and several arrests (which then required Trump to pardon his buddies).

The big lie is what Trump has been spewing.  Biden hasn't done a thing with it...and the election has been looked into.

To try and compare the joke that is Cyber Ninja's partisan work in AZ to the Mueller investigation is laughable...and I think you know that (I hope so).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Fact. Trump let the RUSSIA snipe hunt run its course for years. Letting conspiracy theorists undermine his Presidency for years. Ultimately, no collusion was found.  He could have killed it but he played the long game knowing he would be exonerated.  
 

Biden appears to not want anyone looking into the 2020 election.  Why?  This only gives credence to the Big Lie.  

This is a good reminder that if you shout "no collusion!" loud enough and often enough, people will believe it.  Maybe Biden should try that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

Fact. Trump let the RUSSIA snipe hunt run its course for years. Letting conspiracy theorists undermine his Presidency for years. Ultimately, no collusion was found.  He could have killed it but he played the long game knowing he would be exonerated.  
 

Actually none of this is fact. And it’s looking more and more like there was collusion: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4952659001

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...