Biden

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 10:26:45 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 9:36:33 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

A complete idiot can read statements emanating from Jordan, Comer, Boebert and the like and deduce rather quickly a couple of things: One, this is just trying to install Trump back in the White House. Comer said so himself in an interview. Two, their reporting of "facts" amounts to nothing more than strongly worded letters to DOJ because they have....nothing. They lied about Archer's testimony. They lied about the whistleblowers. And three, it's painfully obvious that they are just trying to promote division to distract from the growing sense that their idol is going to prison.

Put simply: If you had rock-solid, crystal clear evidence of a crime by the sitting president of the United States...you're not going to issue public statements on social media. You're going to use subpoena power. Buuuuuuuut....Archer wasn't even testifying under oath.

Gee, I wonder why?

PS: This is the furthest thing from a "challenge" in the universe because you've done nothing to advance your point for weeks. I'd welcome an actual challenge, but your level of understanding here is miles below where it would need to be in order to do so.

PS2: You know that Comer said that investigations of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump would be "politically unsustainable"?

You don't think both parties are trying to keep candidates out of office? Of course they are. Also, there have MANY cases in court that have proven guilty by circumstancial evidence and no smoking gun. If you don't think Biden has his hand in the cookie jar, then you've gone over the edge more so than you already have.


By the way, some issues are SO simple to deduce that nobody has to go on a diatribe to prove it. Some people just like to hear themselves talk, or in this case like look at what they typed/posted.

Keep candidates out of office? No. Why would I think that? The beauty of not having to both sides everything under the sun is great, try it sometime.

Now you just sound like a conspiracy theorist. You use Trump-like phrases constantly. "There are many cases." "There are a lot of people." Deal. With. Specifics.

Except...you can't. Because you don't have anything to refute basic facts. Unlike you, I don't need innuendo and it doesn't interest me. Because the *facts* matter here, as they always do.

Diatribes are sometimes required with complexity. Sorry if you can't understand that. Way too address any of the points I brought up, by the way. Like I said, not your thing.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 10:37:20 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 10:26:45 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

You don't think both parties are trying to keep candidates out of office? Of course they are. Also, there have MANY cases in court that have proven guilty by circumstancial evidence and no smoking gun. If you don't think Biden has his hand in the cookie jar, then you've gone over the edge more so than you already have.


By the way, some issues are SO simple to deduce that nobody has to go on a diatribe to prove it. Some people just like to hear themselves talk, or in this case like look at what they typed/posted.

Keep candidates out of office? No. Why would I think that? The beauty of not having to both sides everything under the sun is great, try it sometime.

Now you just sound like a conspiracy theorist. You use Trump-like phrases constantly. "There are many cases." "There are a lot of people." Deal. With. Specifics.

Except...you can't. Because you don't have anything to refute basic facts. Unlike you, I don't need innuendo and it doesn't interest me. Because the *facts* matter here, as they always do.

Diatribes are sometimes required with complexity. Sorry if you can't understand that. Way too address any of the points I brought up, by the way. Like I said, not your thing.

I understand diatribes are needed at times, but you go on them ad nauseum when it IS a simple issue.

Trump like phrases? Those are common phrases, period. Like I've said, he sure occupies a VERY large space in your head. Sheesh.

The difference is, you're NEVER bipartisan when it's an obvious bipartisan situation. You would NEVER allow yourself to say anything positive about the other side when it's warranted.

I think you actually KNOW Biden is guilty of corruption, but you could NEVER find yourself even insinuating that since it deflects from Trump's issues. Be. More. Rounded.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 11:30:17 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 10:37:20 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Keep candidates out of office? No. Why would I think that? The beauty of not having to both sides everything under the sun is great, try it sometime.

Now you just sound like a conspiracy theorist. You use Trump-like phrases constantly. "There are many cases." "There are a lot of people." Deal. With. Specifics.

Except...you can't. Because you don't have anything to refute basic facts. Unlike you, I don't need innuendo and it doesn't interest me. Because the *facts* matter here, as they always do.

Diatribes are sometimes required with complexity. Sorry if you can't understand that. Way too address any of the points I brought up, by the way. Like I said, not your thing.

I understand diatribes are needed at times, but you go on them ad nauseum when it IS a simple issue.

Trump like phrases? Those are common phrases, period. Like I've said, he sure occupies a VERY large space in your head. Sheesh.

The difference is, you're NEVER bipartisan when it's an obvious bipartisan situation. You would NEVER allow yourself to say anything positive about the other side when it's warranted.

I think you actually KNOW Biden is guilty of corruption, but you could NEVER find yourself even insinuating that since it deflects from Trump's issues. Be. More. Rounded.

A couple things: If it's so obvious, why can't you point to one single thing to solidify your position? People who claim things are "obvious" are lazy and hide behind generalizations because they can't illustrate fact.

Regarding your phraseology, have you seen me utilize anything of the sort in all our interactions? Rarely. Because it serves no real purpose. None of those "many cases" have relevance here with regards to the specifics of what you're alleging. You're talking about an investigation into the president, not some randomn street crime.

Sorry, I don't feel the need to be wishy-washy and promote the other side that I don't agree with. Bizarre behavior, if we're being honest. You think it makes you better or something? No, it makes you blind to realities. And let's be real, your "bipartisan" stance is about as flimsy as it gets.

Let's boil that down briefly: A "weaponization" committee that's comprised of multiple people implicated in the events of January 6th is investigating a sitting president with the sole purpose of installing the former president back in office. You think I'm going to endorse that?

Lol?

More rounded? You mean "fake"? Pass. Authenticity matters. When you can actually show me evidence, I'll be here. I'm guessing I'll be waiting for a lifetime, though, given your track record here. By the way, I've said at least four or five times now: If there's real evidence of a crime, prosecute him.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 11:55:01 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 11:30:17 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

I understand diatribes are needed at times, but you go on them ad nauseum when it IS a simple issue.

Trump like phrases? Those are common phrases, period. Like I've said, he sure occupies a VERY large space in your head. Sheesh.

The difference is, you're NEVER bipartisan when it's an obvious bipartisan situation. You would NEVER allow yourself to say anything positive about the other side when it's warranted.

I think you actually KNOW Biden is guilty of corruption, but you could NEVER find yourself even insinuating that since it deflects from Trump's issues. Be. More. Rounded.

A couple things: If it's so obvious, why can't you point to one single thing to solidify your position? People who claim things are "obvious" are lazy and hide behind generalizations because they can't illustrate fact.

Regarding your phraseology, have you seen me utilize anything of the sort in all our interactions? Rarely. Because it serves no real purpose. None of those "many cases" have relevance here with regards to the specifics of what you're alleging. You're talking about an investigation into the president, not some randomn street crime.

Sorry, I don't feel the need to be wishy-washy and promote the other side that I don't agree with. Bizarre behavior, if we're being honest. You think it makes you better or something? No, it makes you blind to realities. And let's be real, your "bipartisan" stance is about as flimsy as it gets.

Let's boil that down briefly: A "weaponization" committee that's comprised of multiple people implicated in the events of January 6th is investigating a sitting president with the sole purpose of installing the former president back in office. You think I'm going to endorse that?

Lol?

More rounded? You mean "fake"? Pass. Authenticity matters. When you can actually show me evidence, I'll be here. I'm guessing I'll be waiting for a lifetime, though, given your track record here. By the way, I've said at least four or five times now: If there's real evidence of a crime, prosecute him.

Yes, fake. What's fake is when even if there's an obvious bipartisan issue, you try and twist it, manipulate it, or ignore it altogether. That's what's bizarre, but predictable from you.

It's not lazy when it's been repeated on here over and over and it's in all the news. You know what they have on Hunter and Joe. As others have pointed out, don't be so overly obtuse. Sheesh.

I think it makes me better??? Get a grip, again. There are bipartisan issues, and there are non bipartisan issues. Cut and dry. You disingenuously refuse to acknowledge the bipartisan issues, because you could not fathom giving ANY credence, or credit to the other side, period. That's what's fake about you, and stands out like a sore thumb.

Have you ever said on here that an individual is obviously guilty even though there's no real hard evidence to show that? Or ever in your life? Of course you have when it comes to people you don't like, etc.... Again, fake and predictable.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 13:08:56 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 11:55:01 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

A couple things: If it's so obvious, why can't you point to one single thing to solidify your position? People who claim things are "obvious" are lazy and hide behind generalizations because they can't illustrate fact.

Regarding your phraseology, have you seen me utilize anything of the sort in all our interactions? Rarely. Because it serves no real purpose. None of those "many cases" have relevance here with regards to the specifics of what you're alleging. You're talking about an investigation into the president, not some randomn street crime.

Sorry, I don't feel the need to be wishy-washy and promote the other side that I don't agree with. Bizarre behavior, if we're being honest. You think it makes you better or something? No, it makes you blind to realities. And let's be real, your "bipartisan" stance is about as flimsy as it gets.

Let's boil that down briefly: A "weaponization" committee that's comprised of multiple people implicated in the events of January 6th is investigating a sitting president with the sole purpose of installing the former president back in office. You think I'm going to endorse that?

Lol?

More rounded? You mean "fake"? Pass. Authenticity matters. When you can actually show me evidence, I'll be here. I'm guessing I'll be waiting for a lifetime, though, given your track record here. By the way, I've said at least four or five times now: If there's real evidence of a crime, prosecute him.

Yes, fake. What's fake is when even if there's an obvious bipartisan issue, you try and twist it, manipulate it, or ignore it altogether. That's what's bizarre, but predictable from you.

It's not lazy when it's been repeated on here over and over and it's in all the news. You know what they have on Hunter and Joe. As others have pointed out, don't be so overly obtuse. Sheesh.

I think it makes me better??? Get a grip, again. There are bipartisan issues, and there are non bipartisan issues. Cut and dry. You disingenuously refuse to acknowledge the bipartisan issues, because you could not fathom giving ANY credence, or credit to the other side, period. That's what's fake about you, and stands out like a sore thumb.

Have you ever said on here that an individual is obviously guilty even though there's no real hard evidence to show that? Of course you have when it comes to people you don't like, etc.... Again, fake and predictable.

Calling this a bipartisan issue is false. The investigation itself is highly partisan, as it's being driven by extremist folks who willingly turned a blind eye to far worse behavior (and even asked for presidential pardons for participating in it!) not that long ago.

So now I'm ignoring it? Earlier you said I was posting "left and right" about it. Hard to keep up your story, huh? I get it, as again, factual evidence is AWOL here and you don't really have much else to go with.

Why are you obsessed with giving credit to the other side? It's WEIRD. And blatantly hypocritical when you were willing to overlook transgressions from "your" side without really batting an eyelash. Fact: The Republican Party has been hijacked by MAGA extremists, who, quite frankly, are s#!++y human beings. When "that side" goes on TV and admits that this is more about Trump than it is about "justice"....miss me with that nonsense. Deplorable. Not something I'm giving any credence to, thankfully.

And no, I don't think I have. That's the point of being consistent and not a mindless sycophant. Prosecute Hunter Biden, if there is evidence of an actual crime. Ditto Joe Biden, after 2028. The law applies to everyone.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 13:24:30 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:08:56 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Yes, fake. What's fake is when even if there's an obvious bipartisan issue, you try and twist it, manipulate it, or ignore it altogether. That's what's bizarre, but predictable from you.

It's not lazy when it's been repeated on here over and over and it's in all the news. You know what they have on Hunter and Joe. As others have pointed out, don't be so overly obtuse. Sheesh.

I think it makes me better??? Get a grip, again. There are bipartisan issues, and there are non bipartisan issues. Cut and dry. You disingenuously refuse to acknowledge the bipartisan issues, because you could not fathom giving ANY credence, or credit to the other side, period. That's what's fake about you, and stands out like a sore thumb.

Have you ever said on here that an individual is obviously guilty even though there's no real hard evidence to show that? Of course you have when it comes to people you don't like, etc.... Again, fake and predictable.

Calling this a bipartisan issue is false. The investigation itself is highly partisan, as it's being driven by extremist folks who willingly turned a blind eye to far worse behavior (and even asked for presidential pardons for participating in it!) not that long ago.

So now I'm ignoring it? Earlier you said I was posting "left and right" about it. Hard to keep up your story, huh? I get it, as again, factual evidence is AWOL here and you don't really have much else to go with.

Why are you obsessed with giving credit to the other side? It's WEIRD. And blatantly hypocritical when you were willing to overlook transgressions from "your" side without really batting an eyelash. Fact: The Republican Party has been hijacked by MAGA extremists, who, quite frankly, are s#!++y human beings. When "that side" goes on TV and admits that this is more about Trump than it is about "justice"....miss me with that nonsense. Deplorable. Not something I'm giving any credence to, thankfully.

And no, I don't think I have. That's the point of being consistent and not a mindless sycophant. Prosecute Hunter Biden, if there is evidence of an actual crime. Ditto Joe Biden, after 2028. The law applies to everyone.

I didn't say you're ignoring THIS issue, because yeah, it isn't a bipartisan issue. I'm talking about other issues, such as when I just brought up you not being bipartisan when talking about how both sides are trying to keep each other's candidates from office, and other issues. So, nice try when you say it's hard for me to keep up with my story. I think that's you. Context is a thing.

I've ignored issues with Trump? Wrong. I've stayed over and over how I feel about Trump. Also, "my side" is the Conservative side that doesn't care for either leading candidate.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 13:38:49 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:24:30 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Calling this a bipartisan issue is false. The investigation itself is highly partisan, as it's being driven by extremist folks who willingly turned a blind eye to far worse behavior (and even asked for presidential pardons for participating in it!) not that long ago.

So now I'm ignoring it? Earlier you said I was posting "left and right" about it. Hard to keep up your story, huh? I get it, as again, factual evidence is AWOL here and you don't really have much else to go with.

Why are you obsessed with giving credit to the other side? It's WEIRD. And blatantly hypocritical when you were willing to overlook transgressions from "your" side without really batting an eyelash. Fact: The Republican Party has been hijacked by MAGA extremists, who, quite frankly, are s#!++y human beings. When "that side" goes on TV and admits that this is more about Trump than it is about "justice"....miss me with that nonsense. Deplorable. Not something I'm giving any credence to, thankfully.

And no, I don't think I have. That's the point of being consistent and not a mindless sycophant. Prosecute Hunter Biden, if there is evidence of an actual crime. Ditto Joe Biden, after 2028. The law applies to everyone.

I didn't say you're ignoring THIS issue, because yeah, it isn't a bipartisan issue. I'm talking about other issues, such as when I just brought up you not being bipartisan when talking about how both sides are trying to keep each other's candidates from office, and other issues. So, nice try when you say it's hard for me to keep up with my story. I think that's you. Context is a thing.

I've ignored issues with Trump? Wrong. I've stayed over and over how I feel about Trump. Also, "my side" is the Conservative side that doesn't care for either leading candidate.

Because that's not what is happening. I don't endorse or even care to talk about conspiracy theories like that. That's right-wing paranoia and shows me how far away from neutral you really are here.

Let's get some more facts: Trump declared early for the specific purpose of trying to avoid prosecution. Point blank.

The investigations into Trump were ongoing for months prior to when he declared his candidacy.

The evidence (actual, real, verified evidence) is overwhelming. It's in his own words and actions. Reminder: He created this mess himself. He made the improper handling of classified materials a felony offense. He took the files to MAL and elsewhere AFTER multiple individuals told him not to.

And you're going to lecture ME on context? Lol. You're a walking generality who doesn't believe in any layer of detail or nuance....ever. Remember "it's obvious?" Remember "Other people have brought it up?"

Give me a break. Every answer you provide is lazy whataboutism that doesn't address anything in the post I actually make. You haven't touched on any part of the investigation. You haven't touched on any committee members who are implicated traitors to this country. You haven't touched on anything except repeating general statements that don't address what you're actually railing on about.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 14:07:57 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 13:38:49 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

I didn't say you're ignoring THIS issue, because yeah, it isn't a bipartisan issue. I'm talking about other issues, such as when I just brought up you not being bipartisan when talking about how both sides are trying to keep each other's candidates from office, and other issues. So, nice try when you say it's hard for me to keep up with my story. I think that's you. Context is a thing.

I've ignored issues with Trump? Wrong. I've stayed over and over how I feel about Trump. Also, "my side" is the Conservative side that doesn't care for either leading candidate.

Because that's not what is happening. I don't endorse or even care to talk about conspiracy theories like that. That's right-wing paranoia and shows me how far away from neutral you really are here.

Let's get some more facts: Trump declared early for the specific purpose of trying to avoid prosecution. Point blank.

The investigations into Trump were ongoing for months prior to when he declared his candidacy.

The evidence (actual, real, verified evidence) is overwhelming. It's in his own words and actions. Reminder: He created this mess himself. He made the improper handling of classified materials a felony offense. He took the files to MAL and elsewhere AFTER multiple individuals told him not to.

And you're going to lecture ME on context? Lol. You're a walking generality who doesn't believe in any layer of detail or nuance....ever. Remember "it's obvious?" Remember "Other people have brought it up?"

Give me a break. Every answer you provide is lazy whataboutism that doesn't address anything in the post I actually make. You haven't touched on any part of the investigation. You haven't touched on any committee members who are implicated traitors to this country. You haven't touched on anything except repeating general statements that don't address what you're actually railing on about.

I don't need to be repetitive. At times, I have come into the conversation on this topic, and PTDSTHOR and others have already brought up the facts about what makes Biden OBVIOUSLY guilty. So there's that.

YOU know what the facts are for why he's obviously guilty of corruption, but you'll never admit it. That's sad.

I don't need to talk about other committee members. I happen to be only interested in the Biden and Trump core issues. Period. If I need to get ONE side of it, I'll come on here and read your posts and then I'll look into what the other side is saying.

You post enough for the one side and it's not always factual. You cherry pick and take snippets of things to TRY and deflect, and diminish what you want to.

If the roles were reversed and Trump had Biden's current corruption issues, you'd be all over it, bringing up the same things that myself and others are bringing up. Get real.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 14:59:28 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 14:07:57 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Because that's not what is happening. I don't endorse or even care to talk about conspiracy theories like that. That's right-wing paranoia and shows me how far away from neutral you really are here.

Let's get some more facts: Trump declared early for the specific purpose of trying to avoid prosecution. Point blank.

The investigations into Trump were ongoing for months prior to when he declared his candidacy.

The evidence (actual, real, verified evidence) is overwhelming. It's in his own words and actions. Reminder: He created this mess himself. He made the improper handling of classified materials a felony offense. He took the files to MAL and elsewhere AFTER multiple individuals told him not to.

And you're going to lecture ME on context? Lol. You're a walking generality who doesn't believe in any layer of detail or nuance....ever. Remember "it's obvious?" Remember "Other people have brought it up?"

Give me a break. Every answer you provide is lazy whataboutism that doesn't address anything in the post I actually make. You haven't touched on any part of the investigation. You haven't touched on any committee members who are implicated traitors to this country. You haven't touched on anything except repeating general statements that don't address what you're actually railing on about.

I don't need to be repetitive. At times, I have come into the conversation on this topic, and PTDSTHOR and others have already brought up the facts about what makes Biden OBVIOUSLY guilty. So there's that.

YOU know what the facts are for why he's obviously guilty of corruption, but you'll never admit it. That's sad.

I don't need to talk about other committee members. I happen to be only interested in the Biden and Trump core issues. Period. If I need to get ONE side of it, I'll come on here and read your posts and then I'll look into what the other side is saying.

You post enough for the one side and it's not always factual. You cherry pick and take snippets of things to TRY and deflect, and diminish what you want to.

If the roles were reversed and Trump had Biden's current corruption issues, you'd be all over it, bringing up the same things that myself and others are bringing up. Get real.

....A ringing endorsement of a known right-wing propagandist (again, with no sourced evidence anywhere) isn't the flex you think it is. The fact is you know nothing, have nothing and are capable of nothing here. That's the problem. But, yes, you are good at latching on to other unoriginal and already debunked narratives, so credit to you there.

Of course you don't need to talk about members of the committee...it would destroy your lazy argument to do so. But those facts matter in the public sphere, unfortunately. When they outright say "WE DON'T CARE IF THE CHARGES ARE ACCURATE"....I mean, believe them?

The rest of your post is just dumb nonsense. I post "snippets" because the person that those come from uses a program that costs money to record full-length programming. It doesn't detract from the truth or the point. Sorry that you can't argue reality?


By the way, where's the evidence? You use the term corruption (a very generic accusation) like it's meaningful. What is Joe Biden actually guilty of?

It's hard to be interested in the core issues if you're already regurgitating myths like "election interference" or "preventing Trump from being in office." Both are not only false, they are easily fact checked with a simple search.

[uwphoto]

Aug 11, 2023 14:59:28 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 14:07:57 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Because that's not what is happening. I don't endorse or even care to talk about conspiracy theories like that. That's right-wing paranoia and shows me how far away from neutral you really are here.

Let's get some more facts: Trump declared early for the specific purpose of trying to avoid prosecution. Point blank.

The investigations into Trump were ongoing for months prior to when he declared his candidacy.

The evidence (actual, real, verified evidence) is overwhelming. It's in his own words and actions. Reminder: He created this mess himself. He made the improper handling of classified materials a felony offense. He took the files to MAL and elsewhere AFTER multiple individuals told him not to.

And you're going to lecture ME on context? Lol. You're a walking generality who doesn't believe in any layer of detail or nuance....ever. Remember "it's obvious?" Remember "Other people have brought it up?"

Give me a break. Every answer you provide is lazy whataboutism that doesn't address anything in the post I actually make. You haven't touched on any part of the investigation. You haven't touched on any committee members who are implicated traitors to this country. You haven't touched on anything except repeating general statements that don't address what you're actually railing on about.

I don't need to be repetitive. At times, I have come into the conversation on this topic, and PTDSTHOR and others have already brought up the facts about what makes Biden OBVIOUSLY guilty. So there's that.

YOU know what the facts are for why he's obviously guilty of corruption, but you'll never admit it. That's sad.

I don't need to talk about other committee members. I happen to be only interested in the Biden and Trump core issues. Period. If I need to get ONE side of it, I'll come on here and read your posts and then I'll look into what the other side is saying.

You post enough for the one side and it's not always factual. You cherry pick and take snippets of things to TRY and deflect, and diminish what you want to.

If the roles were reversed and Trump had Biden's current corruption issues, you'd be all over it, bringing up the same things that myself and others are bringing up. Get real.

come on John....you went ptsdthor?? Conspiracy theorist and troll? you've put yourself in a hole on this one...with all due respect.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 16:50:55 GMT -8 uwphoto said:

Aug 11, 2023 14:59:28 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

I don't need to be repetitive. At times, I have come into the conversation on this topic, and PTDSTHOR and others have already brought up the facts about what makes Biden OBVIOUSLY guilty. So there's that.

YOU know what the facts are for why he's obviously guilty of corruption, but you'll never admit it. That's sad.

I don't need to talk about other committee members. I happen to be only interested in the Biden and Trump core issues. Period. If I need to get ONE side of it, I'll come on here and read your posts and then I'll look into what the other side is saying.

You post enough for the one side and it's not always factual. You cherry pick and take snippets of things to TRY and deflect, and diminish what you want to.

If the roles were reversed and Trump had Biden's current corruption issues, you'd be all over it, bringing up the same things that myself and others are bringing up. Get real.

come on John....you went ptsdthor?? Conspiracy theorist and troll? you've put yourself in a hole on this one...with all due respect.

Incoming backpedal in 3...2...1...

"Other people have mentioned the same thing (no examples)"

"It's obvious."

"It's really obvious."

I find it humorous that the insinuation is that "if Trump had Biden's corruption issues" I'd be all over it....as if one guy has been charged with 78 felonies already or something. The comparison is foolish.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 16:24:37 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 14:59:28 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

I don't need to be repetitive. At times, I have come into the conversation on this topic, and PTDSTHOR and others have already brought up the facts about what makes Biden OBVIOUSLY guilty. So there's that.

YOU know what the facts are for why he's obviously guilty of corruption, but you'll never admit it. That's sad.

I don't need to talk about other committee members. I happen to be only interested in the Biden and Trump core issues. Period. If I need to get ONE side of it, I'll come on here and read your posts and then I'll look into what the other side is saying.

You post enough for the one side and it's not always factual. You cherry pick and take snippets of things to TRY and deflect, and diminish what you want to.

If the roles were reversed and Trump had Biden's current corruption issues, you'd be all over it, bringing up the same things that myself and others are bringing up. Get real.

....A ringing endorsement of a known right-wing propagandist (again, with no sourced evidence anywhere) isn't the flex you think it is. The fact is you know nothing, have nothing and are capable of nothing here. That's the problem. But, yes, you are good at latching on to other unoriginal and already debunked narratives, so credit to you there.

Of course you don't need to talk about members of the committee...it would destroy your lazy argument to do so. But those facts matter in the public sphere, unfortunately. When they outright say "WE DON'T CARE IF THE CHARGES ARE ACCURATE"....I mean, believe them?

The rest of your post is just dumb nonsense. I post "snippets" because the person that those come from uses a program that costs money to record full-length programming. It doesn't detract from the truth or the point. Sorry that you can't argue reality.


By the way, where's the evidence?

Too funny. Who do you think you're fooling on here? I'll answer it for you, nobody. I've routinely gone on the internet and found whole interviews of your proposed snippets that only shows your biased view.

What the real facts are is that you will ways have only ONE view, and will never admit any guilt against anybody that may ruin your premise, or deflect from Trump who is all inside your head, big time.

You have all the OBVIOUS evidence you want, right in front of you, but you'll continue to play dumb. It's for all to see. I'm not going to repeat myself, and it's been given to you by MANY others who have given the facts for why Biden's OBVIOUSLY corrupt.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 16:56:02 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 16:50:55 GMT -8 uwphoto said:

come on John....you went ptsdthor?? Conspiracy theorist and troll? you've put yourself in a hole on this one...with all due respect.

Incoming backpedal in 3...2...1...

"Other people have mentioned the same thing (no examples)"

"It's obvious."

"It's really obvious."

I find it humorous that the insinuation is that "if Trump had Biden's corruption issues" I'd be all over it....as if one guy has been charged with 78 felonies already or something. The comparison is foolish.

Back peddle? No need to.
Actually, what's hilarious is you saying that you WOULDN'T be all over it. ROTFL. You need to hit the comedy circuit.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 17:16:36 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 16:24:37 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

....A ringing endorsement of a known right-wing propagandist (again, with no sourced evidence anywhere) isn't the flex you think it is. The fact is you know nothing, have nothing and are capable of nothing here. That's the problem. But, yes, you are good at latching on to other unoriginal and already debunked narratives, so credit to you there.

Of course you don't need to talk about members of the committee...it would destroy your lazy argument to do so. But those facts matter in the public sphere, unfortunately. When they outright say "WE DON'T CARE IF THE CHARGES ARE ACCURATE"....I mean, believe them?

The rest of your post is just dumb nonsense. I post "snippets" because the person that those come from uses a program that costs money to record full-length programming. It doesn't detract from the truth or the point. Sorry that you can't argue reality.


By the way, where's the evidence?

Too funny. Who do you think you're fooling on here? I'll answer it for you, nobody. I've routinely gone on the internet and found whole interviews of your proposed snippets that only shows your biased view.

What the real facts are is that you will ways have only ONE view, and will never admit any guilt against anybody that may ruin your premise, or deflect from Trump who is all inside your head, big time.

You have all the OBVIOUS evidence you want, right in front of you, but you'll continue to play dumb. It's for all to see. I'm not going to repeat myself, and it's been given to you by MANY others who have given the facts for why Biden's OBVIOUSLY corrupt.

Yep. You have nothing. "I've routinely gone on the Internet...." So...produce one that you've found? (You can't...because you haven't.) The program is called Snapstream. It costs money. The OP, Acyn, posts clips. The context of those clips is clear and it doesn't change based on the length of the interview.

Many others. It's obvious. I'm not going to repeat myself. Insult. Insult. Insult. Red herring. Strawman. Rinse and repeat. Just say you have nothing and stop wasting our time.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 17:19:16 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 16:56:02 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Incoming backpedal in 3...2...1...

"Other people have mentioned the same thing (no examples)"

"It's obvious."

"It's really obvious."

I find it humorous that the insinuation is that "if Trump had Biden's corruption issues" I'd be all over it....as if one guy has been charged with 78 felonies already or something. The comparison is foolish.

Actually, what's hilarious is you saying that you WOULDN'T be all over it. ROTFL. You need to hit the comedy circuit.

And you need to get a dose of truth serum because your lame attempts at lying here are about as transparent as it gets. You can't even explain what Biden is supposedly guilty of and you actually thought the backing of a troll was a good thing. Lol.

Here's another clip for you, from Trump golfing buddy Lindsey Graham.

Here's another one of Comer lying through his ass, remember the FD-1023 and the bank records they said they had weeks ago?

Not fun being exposed, is it?

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 17:28:43 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 17:16:36 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Too funny. Who do you think you're fooling on here? I'll answer it for you, nobody. I've routinely gone on the internet and found whole interviews of your proposed snippets that only shows your biased view.

What the real facts are is that you will ways have only ONE view, and will never admit any guilt against anybody that may ruin your premise, or deflect from Trump who is all inside your head, big time.

You have all the OBVIOUS evidence you want, right in front of you, but you'll continue to play dumb. It's for all to see. I'm not going to repeat myself, and it's been given to you by MANY others who have given the facts for why Biden's OBVIOUSLY corrupt.

Yep. You have nothing. "I've routinely gone on the Internet...." So...produce one that you've found? (You can't...because you haven't.) The program is called Snapstream. It costs money. The OP, Acyn, posts clips. The context of those clips is clear and it doesn't change based on the length of the interview.

Many others. It's obvious. I'm not going to repeat myself. Insult. Insult. Insult. Red herring. Strawman. Rinse and repeat. Just say you have nothing and stop wasting our time.

What YOU need to do is once and for all admit that you would NEVER acknowledge any wrong doing by anyone that would take away from Trumps situation. You could never say that BOTH are corrupt. You're very, very predictable.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 17:31:17 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 17:19:16 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Actually, what's hilarious is you saying that you WOULDN'T be all over it. ROTFL. You need to hit the comedy circuit.

And you need to get a dose of truth serum because your lame attempts at lying here are about as transparent as it gets. You can't even explain what Biden is supposedly guilty of and you actually thought the backing of a troll was a good thing. Lol.

Here's another clip for you, from Trump golfing buddy Lindsey Graham.

Here's another one of Comer lying through his ass, remember the FD-1023 and the bank records they said they had weeks ago?

Not fun being exposed, is it?

You throw around the lie word very irresponsibly, especially in my case. Do I call you a liar when I feel you're wrong? No. Shows your character. Horrible.

Exposed? Ha!!! You're either really gullible, or like I said, I'm sure you just like to play dumb when you need to. Bad attribute.

Backing of a troll, not going well? How? Hilarious. You may think he's a troll, but in the post I was referencing, he simply stated some of the points that show Biden is corrupt as all get go.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 17:35:25 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 17:28:43 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Yep. You have nothing. "I've routinely gone on the Internet...." So...produce one that you've found? (You can't...because you haven't.) The program is called Snapstream. It costs money. The OP, Acyn, posts clips. The context of those clips is clear and it doesn't change based on the length of the interview.

Many others. It's obvious. I'm not going to repeat myself. Insult. Insult. Insult. Red herring. Strawman. Rinse and repeat. Just say you have nothing and stop wasting our time.

What YOU need to do is once and for all admit that you would NEVER acknowledge any wrong doing by anyone that would take away from Trumps situation. You could never say that BOTH are corrupt. You're very, very predictable.

Lame. Boring. Predictable. Unoriginal.

I'll repeat it again for you.

If there is tangible, actual, clear-cut evidence of Joe Biden involved in an actual, clear-cut, prosecutable crime....prosecute him. Point blank. I don't care about "corruption" because I'm not a naive child. Almost every politician is owned by corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists, foreign entities. You're not changing that and there are DEGREES of MAGNITUDE to the seriousness of that. We aren't taking about stock tips and insider trading. We're not talking about NRA donations and gun lobbyists stalling out common sense gun control legislation.

I'm not you, so I don't feel the need to disingenuously illustrate things that aren't remotely similar in magnitude or importance. Also, there's that pesky evidence (that you still can't produce, mind you) to connect dots. Fact: As of this moment, there is nothing tying to Joe Biden to an actual crime that can be prosecuted. Nothing. I'm sorry that offends your sensibilities, but it's just the truth.

[johneaztec]

Aug 11, 2023 17:46:24 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Aug 11, 2023 17:35:25 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

What YOU need to do is once and for all admit that you would NEVER acknowledge any wrong doing by anyone that would take away from Trumps situation. You could never say that BOTH are corrupt. You're very, very predictable.

Lame. Boring. Predictable. Unoriginal.

I'll repeat it again for you.

If there is tangible, actual, clear-cut evidence of Joe Biden involved in an actual, clear-cut, prosecutable crime....prosecute him. Point blank. I don't care about "corruption" because I'm not a naive child. Almost every politician is owned by corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists, foreign entities. You're not changing that and there are DEGREES of MAGNITUDE to the seriousness of that. We aren't taking about stock tips and insider trading. We're not talking about NRA donations and gun lobbyists stalling out common sense gun control legislation.

I'm not you, so I don't feel the need to disingenuously illustrate things that aren't remotely similar in magnitude or importance. Also, there's that pesky evidence (that you still can't produce, mind you) to connect dots. Fact: As of this moment, there is nothing tying to Joe Biden to an actual crime that can be prosecuted. Nothing. I'm sorry that offends your sensibilities, but it's just the truth.

Come on Ryan. Ok, if you want to loosely use the word lie. Talk about lying, and yours is a HUGE one, when you say that you wouldn't be tearing Trump apart if he was in Joe Biden's situation and the same evidence is presented. Again, thanks for a great EARLY EVENING laugh, this time.

[aztecryan]

Aug 11, 2023 17:53:42 GMT -8 johneaztec said:

Aug 11, 2023 17:46:24 GMT -8 aztecryan said:

Lame. Boring. Predictable. Unoriginal.

I'll repeat it again for you.

If there is tangible, actual, clear-cut evidence of Joe Biden involved in an actual, clear-cut, prosecutable crime....prosecute him. Point blank. I don't care about "corruption" because I'm not a naive child. Almost every politician is owned by corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists, foreign entities. You're not changing that and there are DEGREES of MAGNITUDE to the seriousness of that. We aren't taking about stock tips and insider trading. We're not talking about NRA donations and gun lobbyists stalling out common sense gun control legislation.

I'm not you, so I don't feel the need to disingenuously illustrate things that aren't remotely similar in magnitude or importance. Also, there's that pesky evidence (that you still can't produce, mind you) to connect dots. Fact: As of this moment, there is nothing tying to Joe Biden to an actual crime that can be prosecuted. Nothing. I'm sorry that offends your sensibilities, but it's just the truth.

Come on Ryan. Ok, if you want to loosely use the word lie. Talk about lying, and yours is a HUGE one, when you say that you wouldn't be tearing Trump apart if he was in Joe Biden's situation and the same evidence is presented. Again, thanks for a great EARLY EVENING laugh, this time.

I would laugh, too. Just out of sadness at your inability to sustain any kind of debate, honestly. I didn't even answer that, because it's not really relevant. But you're right, I probably would be, given what we *actually KNOW* about Trump's vast criminal activities in all those very real indictments.