Post deleted by User.
Random Politics & Religion #39: Guac Is Extra
Random Politics & Religion #39: Guac is extra
Most of the rules they are using were set in 2015 by the GOP.
Viciouss said: »
Most of the rules they are using were set in 2015 by the GOP.
Portions, but obviously not all of it. I would be careful bragging too much about that, because the rules you guys set gave us some lovely Supreme Court picks. The rules we set up will give you a failed coup.
Thats why I said "most." Not too worried, especially since the allegations of a "coup" are completely fake.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Viciouss said: »
Most of the rules they are using were set in 2015 by the GOP.
Portions, but obviously not all of it. I would be careful bragging too much about that, because the rules you guys set gave us some lovely Supreme Court picks. The rules we set up will give you a failed coup.
[+]
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
[+]
It's true that nausi has not explained anything accurate about the transcript, we know how it was created, there is no inside knowledge that nausi has that changed what is public knowledge.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Viciouss said: »
Most of the rules they are using were set in 2015 by the GOP.
Portions, but obviously not all of it. I would be careful bragging too much about that, because the rules you guys set gave us some lovely Supreme Court picks. The rules we set up will give you a failed coup.
Man these lefties are delusional.
[+]
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
Vindman Nausi, it's been discussed over several pages of this thread.
Nausi said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Viciouss said: »
Most of the rules they are using were set in 2015 by the GOP.
Portions, but obviously not all of it. I would be careful bragging too much about that, because the rules you guys set gave us some lovely Supreme Court picks. The rules we set up will give you a failed coup.
Man these lefties are delusional.
Didn't even come close to doing this. Nausi just being an idiot.
[+]
Well, I assume his point is that nothing we set in place had anything to do with impeachment. What the Democrats are doing now is completely unprecedented and cannot be blamed on the Republicans. The only reason the Dems are not following standard procedure is because it would not benefit their cause, which is 100% political and has nothing to do with "finding the truth".
The Dems are following the procedures that the GOP laid out for their 2 year Benghazi "investigation." They are also following the exact same procedures that Nunes set out for his Russian investigation.
So yes, they are following standard procedures for an investigation. Once the impeachment trial actually starts, you might have a case that what they are doing is "unprecedented." Until then, this is just like any other investigation we have seen in the last 4 years. It has closed door testimoney, and soon we will have public testimony.
So yes, they are following standard procedures for an investigation. Once the impeachment trial actually starts, you might have a case that what they are doing is "unprecedented." Until then, this is just like any other investigation we have seen in the last 4 years. It has closed door testimoney, and soon we will have public testimony.
Do the Democrats have their talking points all figured out for when Trump isn't indicted in the Senate? I mean, Clinton actually committed a crime (and everyone knew it) and he was let off the hook. Trump's situation is far more grey and vastly composed of partisan hearsay.
[+]
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
Vindman Nausi, it's been discussed over several pages of this thread.
Quote:
The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call...
And totally blew your desperate conspiracy theory away.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Do the Democrats have their talking points all figured out for when Trump isn't indicted in the Senate? I mean, Clinton actually committed a crime (and everyone knew it) and he was let off the hook. Trump's situation is far more grey and vastly composed of partisan hearsay.
Uh, you know the House indicts him right?
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
Vindman Nausi, it's been discussed over several pages of this thread.
Quote:
The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call...
And totally blew your desperate conspiracy theory away.
That line does nothing to change how the transcript was formulated. Next.
[+]
Viciouss said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Do the Democrats have their talking points all figured out for when Trump isn't indicted in the Senate? I mean, Clinton actually committed a crime (and everyone knew it) and he was let off the hook. Trump's situation is far more grey and vastly composed of partisan hearsay.
Uh, you know the House indicts him right?
Convicted, you know what I meant.
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
Vindman Nausi, it's been discussed over several pages of this thread.
Quote:
The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call...
And totally blew your desperate conspiracy theory away.
Read it again in its context, you are not comprehending the comment. The lawmakers still understand the call, and the phrases do not change that. What the missing phrases do is provide further evidence of Trump's crime, and also his lawyer's obstruction (once again).
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Do the Democrats have their talking points all figured out for when Trump isn't indicted in the Senate? I mean, Clinton actually committed a crime (and everyone knew it) and he was let off the hook. Trump's situation is far more grey and vastly composed of partisan hearsay.
The indictment will come in the house, the TRIAL will be in the senate. Trump is already bribing GOP senators.
[+]
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Do the Democrats have their talking points all figured out for when Trump isn't indicted in the Senate? I mean, Clinton actually committed a crime (and everyone knew it) and he was let off the hook. Trump's situation is far more grey and vastly composed of partisan hearsay.
The indictment will come in the house, the TRIAL will be in the senate. Trump is already bribing GOP senators.
I corrected myself more than thirty minutes before you posted, but thanks. And to your link, /eyeroll.
Viciouss said: »
It's true that nausi has not explained anything accurate about the transcript, we know how it was created, there is no inside knowledge that nausi has that changed what is public knowledge.
Dude you say he doesn't know of the accuracy but *** amn neither do you..none of do.
We got 1 guy saying that things were omitted... 1 guy out of like at least 12 that has been reported that were on call..and we have all seen the transcript..
Do you think for a second of there was a secret transcript that it wouldn't have been leaked yet? seriously man.
You know no more than the rest of us but talk like you got some inside knowledge. 2 whistleblowers that knew of call never even made a claim things were omitted but for some reason you know for sure.. gtfo man.
[+]
Odin.Slore said: »
Viciouss said: »
It's true that nausi has not explained anything accurate about the transcript, we know how it was created, there is no inside knowledge that nausi has that changed what is public knowledge.
Dude you say he doesn't know of the accuracy but *** amn neither do you..none of do.
We got 1 guy saying that things were omitted... 1 guy out of like at least 12 that has been reported that were on call..and we have all seen the transcript..
Do you think for a second of there was a secret transcript that it wouldn't have been leaked yet? seriously man.
You know no more than the rest of us but talk like you got some inside knowledge. 2 whistleblowers that knew of call never even made a claim things were omitted but for some reason you know for sure.. gtfo man.
This is so incoherent its ridiculous. You have been struggling lately Slore.
We all know how the transcript was created, its public knowledge. Vindman was part of the process. He says he made recommendations and some of them were put in and some were left out. He doesn't know what happened. We knew the ellipsis were questionable, and the WH even had to put out a statement that tried to explain them. We now know there should have been words where the ellipsis were.
Slore, you are better than that.
No offense, but I don't think you guys are in any position to be judging the quality of Slore's posts.
[+]
It is just frustrating when people make claims of thin gs they have no idea of. That goes for both sides.
You or I do not know if things were left out or not but you spew them as fact. No one knows for 100% why not wait for more info to come out. It is reported there were 12 people on the call on US side. One..one person out of 12 says things were omitted. Do you believe one of 11?
Also, the crown apple was flowing well last night :)
Wait for more information before jumping to conclusions guys. It just shows so much partisan hack placement when you do that. Makes you look a fool.
You or I do not know if things were left out or not but you spew them as fact. No one knows for 100% why not wait for more info to come out. It is reported there were 12 people on the call on US side. One..one person out of 12 says things were omitted. Do you believe one of 11?
Also, the crown apple was flowing well last night :)
Wait for more information before jumping to conclusions guys. It just shows so much partisan hack placement when you do that. Makes you look a fool.
Not sure where you are getting that 12 people were on the call, but we have only hear testimony from one, and yea, I see no reason not to believe a decorated war vet testifying under oath. His description of the process of generating the transcript lines up with what has been described by former officials.
Trust when I say the average American doesn't follow this ***on a daily basis.
Hell they probably don't even know you need 2/3 of the Senate to remove a President.
So you expect them to know all the inner workings of hearings and testimonies and rules and procedures....Give me a break !
All this is just political theater. We the American people get the final say in Nov 2020.
Until then you can talk about this and that. Won't amount to a hill of beans.
Hell they probably don't even know you need 2/3 of the Senate to remove a President.
So you expect them to know all the inner workings of hearings and testimonies and rules and procedures....Give me a break !
All this is just political theater. We the American people get the final say in Nov 2020.
Until then you can talk about this and that. Won't amount to a hill of beans.
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Ragnarok.Ozment said: »
Nausi said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The official record transcript is buried almost as deep as Jimmy Hoffa.
You've explained how you've imagined that it was created. There was a witness also on the call in question, that pointed out quite clearly that some of the conversation was missing from the document that was released. It wasn't even redacted...it was missing.
Vindman Nausi, it's been discussed over several pages of this thread.
Quote:
The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call...
And totally blew your desperate conspiracy theory away.
Read it again in its context, you are not comprehending the comment. The lawmakers still understand the call, and the phrases do not change that. What the missing phrases do is provide further evidence of Trump's crime, and also his lawyer's obstruction (once again).
I'm here for entertainment purposely only. Any reading I do is accidental at best.
They should make this transcript a book I can't wait to read it !
Hell I'll read it twice that will show em !
Hell I'll read it twice that will show em !
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.