kcar wrote:

The issue with Trump's legal woes are (of course IMO) his history of success.  He hasn't been held accountable for anything, because he knows to use money and lawyers to drag out, pay off, and silence legal trouble.  He learned it from Roy Cohn.  I don't think he's "incompetent" in the way Kurt thinks Biden is... I think Trump is merely a victim of his average intelligence and a world-class lack of self-awareness.

Arrogance, greed, and a lifetime of not being held accountable have create "the Donald" we have today.  He's not failing... in so much as there was never all that much to begin with.

We could go back and forth on the issue of Biden's mental abilities but he and his administration have achieved quite a bit. No one was complaining about Biden's mind when he handled Kevin McCarthy and the idiotic GOP-fueled debt ceiling "crisis."

While Kurt certainly has been vocal about Biden's supposed mental decline, he's been strangely silent about Trump's mental abilities. Trump has exposed himself to all sorts of legal trouble largely because he's shown NO common sense or caution even when well advised by lawyers and family.

Were the phone calls to Raffemsperger and other officials in battleground states, urging them to vacate certified election results, rational and based on established facts? Or were they wishful thinking without any concern about criminal conduct?

Was the attempt to overthrow election results with fake electors a good idea that could stand up to legal scrutiny, or was that obviously illegal and doomed to failure?

Who in their right mind would believe that interrupting a ceremonial count of electoral votes was going to keep Biden from becoming President?

What about the wilful retention and congealment of classified government documents despite repeated govt requests for the return of same? Did that make any sense, especially when you realize that Trump could have returned those documents and later asked to view them again? Or simply photocopied them for vanity's sake and returned the originals?

Look at Trump's legal troubles. Do any of those problems seem like they stemmed from actions by Trump that were likely to succeed or stay within the bounds of the law?

Trump is mentally incompetent. His judgment outside of matters promoting tribalism is shockingly poor. The only things keeping him afloat are his completely unjustified arrogance and the blind loyalties of his followers who somehow believe he's going to make their lives better.

 kurtster wrote:
You conveniently ignored the part about starting this back and forth with the "oh my" post about the release of the memo by Grassley, and the fact he said after his speech a few weeks ago he admitted the "informant" may not be reliable and can't be located.  Following that, he releases the document, reinforcing the bullshit he admitted to a few weeks ago.  On queue, you post it like something actually happened.

As for the "your side" above.  I NEVER voted for a Democrat until 2016.  I was a registered Republican until my last move (in NJ, so I couldn't vote for Fetterman, but I would have).  What changed was the party, not me.  Trump, and those who support him, offer no solutions, only a desire to eliminate the government.  I don't see that as an acceptable course for the long term health of the country. Fix it.  Automate it.  Don't just stop doing things because you want to cut taxes.  As for PA: Dr. Oz?  He's a fool.  Democrats aren't winning elections, Republicans are donating them.  A house cat would be better than a lot of Republican candidates recently (no offense to cats meant).  


Your primary focus now is on proving that Joe Biden is a crook by attempting to assign the actions of his addict son, or that he's mentally incompetent.  All in support of a guy with multiple indictments (which you said you'd comment on, but have been oddly silent), with more on the way.  At this point it's a decision between an older guy who's not as sharp as he used to be, and a guy who wants to destroy anything necessary to grift every dollar he can from anyone possible.  I've said it before, I wish Biden wouldn't run...but would vote for anyone in a race against Trump. 

 rgio wrote:   
The actual exchange

 rgio wrote: 
I reconstructed the actual exchange which you conveniently altered in your favor to mislead others about what I was and have been saying.  You were not clear and now attempt to mislead others in order to cover your tracks.

So Warren Buffett is 92. Got a problem with his age ?  Your hero George Soros is also 92.  These people are sharp as a tack.  I think Grassley's oars are definitely in the water and still making good headway.

Then there is Senator Diane Feinstein, she is 90.  You're ok with her, right ?  She is far from sharp as a tack.

This is not about age.  It is about mental and physical condition.  But I bet that you're ok with and even voted for Senator Fetterman age 53, who is obviously mentally challenged.

It is your side that is raising concerns about Biden's age more than anyone else.  They are trying to make things about about his age trying to ignore his obvious mental and physical issues pretending that he is all there and still fit to serve.  The age gimmick is to try and get him to get out of the way and not seek a second term without raising any concerns about his present deficiencies.

I've been all over term limits being one of the few consistent supporters of them here.  Have been for over 40 years. I was in favor of it when various states passed bills that got overturned because it must be done with an amendment to the Constitution.  You're probably not old enough to remember that. I even started a thread about it years ago and up until recently was called names for even bringing it up.

 kurtster wrote:

Kurt, when are you going to respond to Trump's indictments? I'm pretty sure you wrote that you'd hold back on commenting until indictments were handed down against Trump. Well the indictments are here.

The evidence supporting those indictments is extensive, openly documented and available for arguments in courts of law. The evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden OTOH is murky and based on rumor. AFAIK there is nothing to tie Joe Biden to Hunter Biden's business dealings.

So why don't you put a cork on it when it comes to the "Biden Crime Family". If you're so worried about corruption and criminal behavior amongst national politicians and their families, why don't you start posting about Trump and ALL his very real legal troubles?

 kurtster wrote:
Kurt...this is Chuck Grassley.  90 in a few weeks.  The guy who's releasing documents with unverified details from an informant they can't find and who won't testify.

 kurtster wrote:
I thought that was a bad thing...

 steeler wrote:

Of course, that doesn't jibe with "she drinks the blood of children" or "show us your birth certificate" but that didn't seem to slow them down. They never - ever - had any proof, just screeds.

Which is why I'm hoping there's a non-Biden Dem-supported candidate for 2024, but they're holding back on announcing so they don't have to deal with those unsubstantiated accusations that had no proof to back them up.

(Difference with Trump was we had the "when you're famous they let you do it" and "If she weren't my daughter I'd probably date her" stuff right there, as well as him saluting in N Korea and all that other stuff.)

 rgio wrote: 
Who in the hell are you talking about ?

And not because Biden is 81.  His age has nothing to do with it.  Never said it was about his age.  Don't put words in my mouth.  It is about his mental state or lack thereof ...

 steeler wrote: 
Let us not forget that these are career individuals with impeccable records testifying under oath with the penalty of perjury for lying under oath.

Of course that is irrelevant to others here.  You get it but no one else here is willing to consider this.

 Steely_D wrote:
Yes, the burden of proof resides with those making an allegation.

 steeler wrote:

The absence of evidence is what proves that there must be evidence.

 kurtster wrote:
Yes, if true about the obstruction, but this also becomes a pernicious circle:  Biden most definitely received bribes, we just cannot prove it because they are obstructing us. The 2020 election most definitely was stolen from Trump, we just cannot provide the evidence of this unprecedented, massive fraud because they are obstructing us. Ergo, we can assume the truth of our allegations because of our accompanying allegation of obstruction, thereby absolving us of having to prove these allegations. 

 rgio wrote:
QFolks: but...don't you see? Biden - 81, 8+1=9 JUST SHORT OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS because he isn't a follower of G*D! 
And Trump is 77 - with 7 being the Perfect Number, so he's DOUBLY perfect! 
Wheels within wheels, man!!!

(Ignore that if you give each letter in "Trump" a number and 20+18+21+13+16 is 88, or HH, a known white supremist code.)

 kcar wrote:
Sure, nothing in that document has been verified...and Grassley himself said the alleged witness couldn't be found... but the tribe LOVES that sort of rule breaking.  Hell, they're going to nominate a guy with likely 4 or 5 trials during the election year, 3 of which are for crimes against the country they so dearly love.


Pretty ironic that Kurt is so supportive of a guy who'll be 90 in September while screaming to anyone who'll listen that next years vote is to elect Kamala Harris because Biden's 81.

 kurtster wrote:

You are undoubtedly quite entertaining to someone, somewhere. 

But the rest of us don't give a f**k about your endlessly recycled nuttery. 

The Ukrainians are in on it too...

 kurtster wrote:
And vice versa. You do remember Trump's quid pro quo too?

 R_P wrote: 
Funny, not, how the one's doing the accusing (the original) are generally guilty of what they are accusing of others ... as in this example.