US Politics Thread

[Bigga]

What's not accurate...?

 

[west didsblue]

As per usual, the nutless wonder/s on here neglect to explain what's in (or out) of the 'I.R.A.' bill.

I can't be arsed going through it, so I'll let Doel do it again...

It was good of you to post a concise explanation of the bill, even though your motive for posting it appeared to be just to take an opportunity to throw some gratuitous insults to the whole forum who, if interested, had already read up on the contents of the bill on one of any number of media outlets. Maybe if you actually wanted to discuss the contents of it - for example whether an incremental bill was worth having or how Manchin and Sinema hijacked it for their own ends - maybe you should express your own opinions. But we all know that you're not interested in a proper discussion with "nutless wonders" or "neolibs" which are the labels you apply to anyone who isn't you. I really have no idea why you bother with this forum - it's clearly not for you.

 

[BobKowalski]

Ahh yes, we all remember fondly how the FBI raided the Clintons' homes after it was found that the lovely Hillary had kept secret gov files on her personal server.

Those were the days of consistency...?

Yes. Clinton was investigated over them. Twice if I recall.

The Trump raid was about retrieving physical documents rather than electronic. If Trump hadn’t taken them or simply returned them, then there would have been no grounds for the raid.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

What's not accurate...?

#45 with extra sleaze and a large soda?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Yes. Clinton was investigated over them. Twice if I recall.

The Trump raid was about retrieving physical documents rather than electronic. If Trump hadn’t taken them or simply returned them, then there would have been no grounds for the raid.

Everything they say they want on Clinton has been done and got no where.

 

[Bigga]

It was good of you to post a concise explanation of the bill, even though your motive for posting it appeared to be just to take an opportunity to throw some gratuitous insults to the whole forum who, if interested, had already read up on the contents of the bill on one of any number of media outlets. Maybe if you actually wanted to discuss the contents of it - for example whether an incremental bill was worth having or how Manchin and Sinema hijacked it for their own ends - maybe you should express your own opinions. But we all know that you're not interested in a proper discussion with "nutless wonders" or "neolibs" which are the labels you apply to anyone who isn't you. I really have no idea why you bother with this forum - it's clearly not for you.

I've expressed my views on incrementalism a hundred times. You lot care not and express that it's a necessary evil.

Bollocks.

Everybody and their dog knew why Manchin and Sinema signed on as they had something in return.

I despair at the happy clappers cheering on Dems without revealing the whole picture. If that was done, I'd say 'fair play' and offer nothing else.

This, patently, does not happen on this thread.

 

[Bigga]

Yes. Clinton was investigated over them. Twice if I recall.

The Trump raid was about retrieving physical documents rather than electronic. If Trump hadn’t taken them or simply returned them, then there would have been no grounds for the raid.

I can't quite believe what I've just read.

You're saying that it's fine to keep gov secrets electronically.

Wow...

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Everything they say they want on Clinton has been done and got no where.

No where - except that the unfounded allegations may have cost her the Presidency, abetted by a frankly clueless Comey. Reputation damage is a primary goal of these sorts of allegations.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

No where - except that the unfounded allegations may have cost her the Presidency, abetted by a frankly clueless Comey. Reputation damage is a primary goal of these sorts of allegations.

Agree - not saying the Clinton / Biden bashing doesnt work for them. Just that there is zero risk that any valid investigation get s any traction.

I say valid as the GOP dont hide the fact they will happily take any old BS and hold it up as 'evidence'. See Mike Lindell. How far away are we from a congresional hearing giving credibility to some whacko like that?