WWTBAM Bored

I vote YES.

Trump says no, in violation of decades of precedent. He believes the FBI, including the person he appointed to lead the FBI previously, is out to get him.

My thought is, if these people really are out to get his nominees, and they survive such a challenge, they’re obviously qualified.

Leaders welcome challenges. Donald Trump avoids challenges. He is a baby, not a badass.

NO.

Has there been any accountability for this? As far as I can see, just personnel shuffling. Not that I've seen. The people who hold the insurance policy are still there.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2024 9:38 am

NO.

Has there been any accountability for this? As far as I can see, just personnel shuffling. Not that I've seen. The people who hold the insurance policy are still there.

My point stands. The people “out to get Trump” would be motivated to find evidence of drunkenness, rape, and Russian collaboration. If they can’t, these folks are probably clean. If there’s any hint that the evidence is bad, there is a Republican majority in the Senate to protect Trump.

You suck at this.

I suck at this? Excuse me?

The people “out to get Trump” would be motivated to find evidence of drunkenness, rape, and Russian collaboration. If they can’t, these folks are probably clean.

Um, yeah. They WERE motivated to find this stuff. They couldn't find any. The Mueller report confirmed that. If they were clean they would have dropped it right there. But they didn't. Ever hear of the Steele Dossier? Ever hear of the lawfare cases that were brought against trump to take him out of the 2024 race and put him behind bars? HINT: It didn't work.

I would not trust these people to vet anyone. Just going by their own standards, these people are presumed corrupt and not to be trusted. Some people need to be held accountable. Strzok was just one of many. He was just stupid enough to be caught.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:23 pm

I suck at this? Excuse me?

The people “out to get Trump” would be motivated to find evidence of drunkenness, rape, and Russian collaboration. If they can’t, these folks are probably clean.

Um, yeah. They WERE motivated to find this stuff. They couldn't find any. The Mueller report confirmed that. If they were clean they would have dropped it right there. But they didn't. Ever hear of the Steele Dossier? Ever hear of the lawfare cases that were brought against trump to take him out of the 2024 race and put him behind bars? HINT: It didn't work.

I would not trust these people to vet anyone. Just going by their own standards, these people are presumed corrupt and not to be trusted. Some people need to be held accountable. Strzok was just one of many. He was just stupid enough to be caught.

Great. Still haven't heard an alternative from you, other than Trump just always gets what he wants.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2024 7:05 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2024 1:23 pm

I suck at this? Excuse me?

The people “out to get Trump” would be motivated to find evidence of drunkenness, rape, and Russian collaboration. If they can’t, these folks are probably clean.

Um, yeah. They WERE motivated to find this stuff. They couldn't find any. The Mueller report confirmed that. If they were clean they would have dropped it right there. But they didn't. Ever hear of the Steele Dossier? Ever hear of the lawfare cases that were brought against trump to take him out of the 2024 race and put him behind bars? HINT: It didn't work.

I would not trust these people to vet anyone. Just going by their own standards, these people are presumed corrupt and not to be trusted. Some people need to be held accountable. Strzok was just one of many. He was just stupid enough to be caught.

Great. Still haven't heard an alternative from you, other than Trump just always gets what he wants.

What's the alternative? If someone decides they need to make scandalous accusations against a nominee, they need to press charges and bring them to court with live witnesses that are on the record with real evidence. Rather than engage in scurrilous gossip from unnamed sources in front of the media and in a made for TV circus show with no evidence other than he said, she said. Otherwise, just stick to the issues relevant to the nomination.

"Great. Still haven't heard an alternative from you, other than Trump just always gets what he wants."

This makes no sense in whatever argument you're trying to make, anywhere.

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2024 9:47 pm

"Great. Still haven't heard an alternative from you, other than Trump just always gets what he wants."

This makes no sense in whatever argument you're trying to make, anywhere.

It doesn't have to make sense, like Monty Python's Argument Clinic. Just find anything, no matter how ludicrous, to contradict with. If nothing else, use the racism card. Or the "I was given a medical degree (supposedly). I know more than you, you moron" reply. Or find a miniscule, unrelated point to pick at in order to shift the argument from the main point which you can't refute. Right, ifonly?

I'm familiar with that tactic. For years.

Beebs52 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2024 9:47 pm

"Great. Still haven't heard an alternative from you, other than Trump just always gets what he wants."

This makes no sense in whatever argument you're trying to make, anywhere.

The argument was that the FBI always vets these people. From what I could tell, they’ve done a good job, despite what flock says.

More to the point, they are motivated to find problems with Trump’s nominees, according to flock, so if we are truly vetting people who are dealing with sensitive information, it would suggest they be as thoroughly vetted as possible.

For example, should our director of national intelligence be super cozy with Russia? I think that’s a fair thing to look into.

I asked flock what his solution would be if he doesn’t want the FBI. Of course, doesn’t really have one. He wants people to go to court and stuff like that, which is also not really how courts work, nor would it be time effective

I hope that helps!

Here's something that might help you.

The FBI isn't much help in investigating some people. Just like Sen Grassley, the majority of the American people don't trust the FBI anymore. They have dug their own grave by their own actions. Are they really going to vet anyone fairly that they believe are going to investigate them? They don't have a very good track record.
They can find everyone who was anywhere near the Capitol on Jan 6, but no clue who left cocaine in the White House.
They can raid the home of the former President, but Hillary can destroy all her emails.
Thay have Hunters laptop, Epstein's client list, and knew the Steele Dossier was a bunch of lies.
etc.etc.etc.