COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

mccarthy announces impeachment enquiry against President Biden, despite lacking the votes to get it started

BabyBoomer50s said:
Democrats control the WH and Senate. There is nothing stopping a DOJ investigation or a Senate investigation. I have no objection. I believe the Senate did look into Jared’s deal. Maybe they still are. Haven’t seen any news on that lately. Maybe it’s just a matter of Schumer and Garland being asleep on the job.

Anyway, I certainly understand why Biden apologists constantly try to change the subject but if you want to discuss Kushner, start a Kushner thread.
Click to expand...
Since it appears you are a Trump MAGA cult follower aka RINO perhaps you should start a Trump fascist thread as Trump is definitely a fascist.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Democrats control the WH and Senate. There is nothing stopping a DOJ investigation or a Senate investigation. I have no objection. I believe the Senate did look into Jared’s deal. Maybe they still are. Haven’t seen any news on that lately. Maybe it’s just a matter of Schumer and Garland being asleep on the job.

Anyway, I certainly understand why Biden apologists constantly try to change the subject but if you want to discuss Kushner, start a Kushner thread.
Click to expand...
More likely they are looking into it… but since the right claims a weaponized DOJ (who had their chance when 45 was there to investigate) this one is doing their job.

Poor Jeff Session, wouldn’t do the Cheetos bidding…. Now there is executive influence in DOJ influence.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Nope. You must be new here. Welcome to the Politics Forum
Click to expand...
No this guy is all for the new Nazi Florida version that is sinking like a stone in the polls (unless it’s his own, up 7 points in his internal poll I hear)

Notice your “tough guy” wasn’t so tough at the service held in Jacksonville but when in a room full of his white brethren he gets “tougher.”
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
If they are looking into it, they are not being very productive or they’re just not finding anything. It’s been two years.
Click to expand...
How many years did 45s DOJ get with Hunter? Or they were too busy covering up stuff or looking for the election “fraud”?

You guys are a joke.
 
Sean Renaud said:
What even is unbiased and is it even something you can accomplish cus I don't believe it is.
Click to expand...
All source of media bias their news to their audience. But not all use fake sources, or out right lie. Or fail to follow reporting principals. The ones that do are listed as centre non/biased. I did post a link listing about 20 sources that meet that criteria.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
A common tactic of Biden defenders is conflate impeachment inquiry with impeachment. They don’t deny the stunning revelations that have surfaced.
Click to expand...
I do think it is stunning that the President allowed his drug-using son to purchase a gun, and he should be impeached for that.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
A common tactic of Biden defenders is conflate impeachment inquiry with impeachment. They don’t deny the stunning revelations that have surfaced. They simply say this body of evidence doesn’t PROVE Biden received payments. They therefore don’t want the investigation to go any further than it already has. Especially since polling shows the revelations have a majority of Americans believing Biden has been unethically involved with Hunter’s business activities.

Here’s a video clip of a reporter trying to play that game with McCarthy. Watch how he takes her to school.

https://x.com/mzhemingway/status/1702423021523542490?s=46&t=D4wPadUSm31flBzHVSwUxA
Click to expand...
^
(Quoted for posterity and stupidity)

“stunning revelations”???

🙄

🤣

The “stunning revelations” that even REPUBLICANS have said are NOTHING BURGERS???

🙄

🤣

Another "big win" for BabyBoobs.

👍

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
 
icanhelp1 said:
Unbelievable!! The Media is supposed to scrutinize the WH not the other way around. Such arrogance.
Click to expand...
Yep, right after the courts ruled that the government couldn't curtail free speech or pressure organizations to curtail speech. Joe's lawless communists don't give a shit about the law.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
Democrats control the WH and Senate. There is nothing stopping a DOJ investigation or a Senate investigation. I have no objection. I believe the Senate did look into Jared’s deal. Maybe they still are. Haven’t seen any news on that lately. Maybe it’s just a matter of Schumer and Garland being asleep on the job.

Anyway, I certainly understand why Biden apologists constantly try to change the subject but if you want to discuss Kushner, start a Kushner thread.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell he was never a paid government employee and broke no law.
 
Fuzzy1975 said:
All source of media bias their news to their audience. But not all use fake sources, or out right lie. Or fail to follow reporting principals. The ones that do are listed as centre non/biased. I did post a link listing about 20 sources that meet that criteria.
Click to expand...
Well forget the audience. Lets for the sake of this conversation say that all news was ultimately funneled through a single "Source" so there was no market.

Is being unbiased even possible. If lets say me and Right Guide walk into the scene of a black church shooting. My thoughts are immediately going towards this was a hate crime. The odds of a black church being shot up at random TO ME seems pretty low. Taken at face value for the moment RG is going see this as a tragic attack on Americans or perhaps on Christianity. Since he constantly claims not to see color. This at the moment is not a criticism RG so I ask that you stay frosty.

The point is that the two of us could walk into the same crime scene, see the same thing and focus on different things for different reasons. We are BOTH biased and is entirely possible that we are both correct. They might hate black Christians or any combination. Maybe if the nearest location had been a Temple or Mosque or *gasp* a primarily white church. We don't have those facts. Neither of us are lying however is an important take away.
 
dkovic77 said:
How many years did 45s DOJ get with Hunter? Or they were too busy covering up stuff or looking for the election “fraud”?

You guys are a joke.
Click to expand...
Trump never had the DOj
Sean Renaud said:
Well forget the audience. Lets for the sake of this conversation say that all news was ultimately funneled through a single "Source" so there was no market.

Is being unbiased even possible. If lets say me and Right Guide walk into the scene of a black church shooting. My thoughts are immediately going towards this was a hate crime. The odds of a black church being shot up at random TO ME seems pretty low. Taken at face value for the moment RG is going see this as a tragic attack on Americans or perhaps on Christianity. Since he constantly claims not to see color. This at the moment is not a criticism RG so I ask that you stay frosty.

The point is that the two of us could walk into the same crime scene, see the same thing and focus on different things for different reasons. We are BOTH biased and is entirely possible that we are both correct. They might hate black Christians or any combination. Maybe if the nearest location had been a Temple or Mosque or *gasp* a primarily white church. We don't have those facts. Neither of us are lying however is an important take away.
Click to expand...
"Trump's" DOJ conspired against him from day one.

The problem with your analogy above is that at first glance it would be incorrect to assume a racial component to a shooting at the black church, no more than you would assume a racial component to any other shooting in any other place in the black community where daily shootings are commonplace. It could have been a gang shooting, drug-related, or outright berserk behavior. We can only assume it to be race-related when evidence of such becomes apparent.
 
Rightguide said:
The problem with your analogy above is that at first glance it would be incorrect to assume a racial component to a shooting at the black church, no more than you would assume a racial component to any other shooting in any other place in the black community where daily shootings are commonplace. It could have been a gang shooting, drug-related, or outright berserk behavior. We can only assume it to be race-related when evidence of such becomes apparent.
Click to expand...

The number of black churches is so low you have to go out of your way to have targeted one, which isn't actually the point. The other issues you bring up are clearly not race related at least not in that way.
 
phrodeau said:
I think you have the link wrong there.
Click to expand...


Since I don't type the link headline the problem here isn't me but the ABSOLUTELY SHITTY forum software. As for checking, I did and the linky worked to direct to the correct site before I posted.

So, send your complaints to management and then

GO FUCK YOURSELF
 
Rightguide said:
Trump never had the DOj

"Trump's" DOJ conspired against him from day one.

The problem with your analogy above is that at first glance it would be incorrect to assume a racial component to a shooting at the black church, no more than you would assume a racial component to any other shooting in any other place in the black community where daily shootings are commonplace. It could have been a gang shooting, drug-related, or outright berserk behavior. We can only assume it to be race-related when evidence of such becomes apparent.
Click to expand...
Ohhhh they conspired against the criminal. So does that make them doing their job. Yes.

Now the DOJ is continuing to look into criminal activity,

You really can’t have it all your way,

Compare the shootings at all churches and then to black churches. Doesn’t take a genius to see it. Guessing you don’t see it, which seems par for the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top