We Got Our First Scalp - Gaetz out; Tulsi Next?

[billsfan_34]

On 11/21/2024 at 12:36 PM, The Frankish Reich said:

Goodbye Gaetzy. And what a luscious high-hair scalp it is.

Maybe Ronnie will appoint you to Rubio's seat. That way he can spend lots of quality time with more people who can't stand him.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/21/trump-ag-pick-matt-gaetz-says-hes-withdrawing.html

Clinging on to low hanging fruit. Tulsi isn’t going anywhere. Move along now…

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

49 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

I knew you would have some way to spin it.

i don’t comment on a lot of topics that are talked about on here.

You're confusing dialogue you're uncomfortable with or unwilling to have with 'spin'.  

 

49 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

 

And I’m sure we have never seen the authorities know who their man is in a particular crime but can’t or don’t bring charges because they don’t have evidence that will stand up in court. That’s never happened in USA history before.

Of course that's happened. If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that different rules are applied at different times depending on the target and who's calling the shots. Of course, lack of evidence frequently intersects with lack of criminality, and it sounds an awful lot like you seem to think lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.  That's pretty consistent with your crowd. 

 

49 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

 

 An ethics committee and a court of law are two very different things. 
And are you saying that the Biden doj didn’t want to prosecute Matt gatez? A Republican? I’m not sure what you #######s are getting at anyway
 

matt gates is a piece of ***** that you guys are in love with you love trump I’m not shocked you love a guy with the character of Matt. If you want him in charge of the doj go ahead. Trump is running *****en clown show anyway. If a piece odd *****. Pedo rapist like trump can be president I’m sure they can find a spot for Matt.

Yes, an Ethics Committee in this case is a group of individuals, collectively and individually widely distrusted by the American public regardless of politics, making largely symbolic statements and in some cases, publishing a report, while in others keeping results secret.  

 

As for the DOJ, I'm not sure what you're struggling with.  Yes, I believe the Biden DOJ would have prosecuted Gaetz if at all possible.  That they did not is quite telling to me, just as your Spidey senses seem to be telling you that the fact they didn't is evidence of his guilt.  It's a dog and pony show, as these things usually are.  

 

Whatever your feelings are on Matt Gaetz, he's been removed from the equation.  That's a good thing--we agree on that.  Of course, we have an acknowledged groper in the WH now, your second choice oversaw the character assassination of a SC nominee and was richly rewarded for it in spite of acknowledging she believed Biden assaulted a number of women, and she ran on a platform with Bill Clinton pimping for her--so you really can't walk too far without tripping over a POS in DC.  

 

These are just the facts, Jack. 

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I think the report is clear on that.

No evidence that he knew the one girl was under 18.

No evidence that he "trafficked" the girls across international or state boundaries.

So not a good federal prosecution.

You might ask why the DA for the county in which these drug/sex orgies were held didn't bring charges. The answer is probably found in an examination of the Gaetz family's political power.

Ah, 8 years of democrat silliness on everything from Russians to doors kicked in to slippage to novel theories of prosecution to corrupt prosecutors in Georgia to Biden's ties to China to Russian laptops but suddenly...as if by magic---political connections!   

 

 

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

2 hours ago, 4th&long said:

Like I told Leo. Proving something in court and an ethics committee are two very different things. Other than that I haven’t paid much attention to it so that is obviously just a guess.  I still haven’t heard all of what the report said. The guy is a dirt bag, I didn’t need the report to know that. 

Nice job of proving the point that you don't need facts, you just need the NYT to tell you what to think. Dude is likely a scumbag but at least I need evidence

[Roundybout]

1 hour ago, billsfan_34 said:

Clinging on to low hanging fruit. Tulsi isn’t going anywhere. Move along now…

 

Tulsi is currently seething that Assad was removed from power. 

[4th&long]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You're confusing dialogue you're uncomfortable with or unwilling to have with 'spin'.  

 

Of course that's happened. If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that different rules are applied at different times depending on the target and who's calling the shots. Of course, lack of evidence frequently intersects with lack of criminality, and it sounds an awful lot like you seem to think lack of evidence is evidence of guilt.  That's pretty consistent with your crowd. 

 

Yes, an Ethics Committee in this case is a group of individuals, collectively and individually widely distrusted by the American public regardless of politics, making largely symbolic statements and in some cases, publishing a report, while in others keeping results secret.  

 

As for the DOJ, I'm not sure what you're struggling with.  Yes, I believe the Biden DOJ would have prosecuted Gaetz if at all possible.  That they did not is quite telling to me, just as your Spidey senses seem to be telling you that the fact they didn't is evidence of his guilt.  It's a dog and pony show, as these things usually are.  

 

Whatever your feelings are on Matt Gaetz, he's been removed from the equation.  That's a good thing--we agree on that.  Of course, we have an acknowledged groper in the WH now, your second choice oversaw the character assassination of a SC nominee and was richly rewarded for it in spite of acknowledging she believed Biden assaulted a number of women, and she ran on a platform with Bill Clinton pimping for her--so you really can't walk too far without tripping over a POS in DC.  

 

These are just the facts, Jack. 

Ah, 8 years of democrat silliness on everything from Russians to doors kicked in to slippage to novel theories of prosecution to corrupt prosecutors in Georgia to Biden's ties to China to Russian laptops but suddenly...as if by magic---political connections!   

 

 

 

 

Blah blah blah. You got more *****. I can’t read this drivel. You like Matt? Good for you, defend him. I’m all for him being trumps ag. Tells me more about you than him. Spin dr. Full of *****.

[4th&long]

55 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Nice job of proving the point that you don't need facts, you just need the NYT to tell you what to think. Dude is likely a scumbag but at least I need evidence

He’s indicted himself. I don’t read The NY Times. ***** you. Defend him. I’m all for him serving. Did I call for him to go to jail? I’d rather he represent trump. Those two pieces of ***** deserve eachother. And why didn’t Florida bring charges against him? He’s friends with the Florida ag. Why do you think he acts like he does? Friends in high places, scum like you that defend him. You don’t just think he’s not guilty (till you see evidence) you defend him. If evidence was put in front of you you would pull a len and spin it, try to say the republicans on the ethics committee were rinos. Pathetic. Matt gates is not worth arguing with you lowlifes about.

[Orlando Buffalo]

11 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

He’s indicted himself. I don’t read The NY Times. ***** you. Defend him. I’m all for him serving. Did I call for him to go to jail? I’d rather he represent trump. Those two pieces of ***** deserve eachother. And why didn’t Florida bring charges against him? He’s friends with the Florida ag. Why do you think he acts like he does? Friends in high places, scum like you that defend him. You don’t just think he’s not guilty (till you see evidence) you defend him. If evidence was put in front of you you would pull a len and spin it, try to say the republicans on the ethics committee were rinos. Pathetic. Matt gates is not worth arguing with you lowlifes about.

I at no point defended him, I literally just said "he is likely a scumbag",  I bashed the DOJ or Congress. I like proving liberals don't need facts to make decisions which you prove all the time. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

44 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

Blah blah blah. You got more *****. I can’t read this drivel. You like Matt? Good for you, defend him. I’m all for him being trumps ag. Tells me more about you than him. Spin dr. Full of *****.

It's said that your attitude determines your altitude, sir.  If you're constantly engaging then storming off, you're consistently going to end up in the same place--revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of what others say or suggest, and tilting at windmills that exist only in your mind.     It's your call, but I'll keep a good thought for you.  

 

Happy Holidays!

 

 

[billsfan_34]

1 hour ago, Roundybout said:

 

Tulsi is currently seething that Assad was removed from power. 

She is? Can you provide a reference supporting this? 

[daz28]

4 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

I at no point defended him, I literally just said "he is likely a scumbag",  I bashed the DOJ or Congress. I like proving liberals don't need facts to make decisions which you prove all the time. 

You've provided you own conundrum.  Why didn't the corrupt Biden DOJ, that has no issue whatsoever bringing false charges against enemies of the democrats, bring charges against a pedophile?  Seems to me you believe lack of evidence hasn't been a problem before, right? 

[Orlando Buffalo]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You've provided you own conundrum.  Why didn't the corrupt Biden DOJ, that has no issue whatsoever bringing false charges against enemies of the democrats, bring charges against a pedophile?  Seems to me you believe lack of evidence hasn't been a problem before, right? 

So your argument is that Biden is a liar? Interesting approach. As for evidence, the DOJ was happy to indict people on weak evidence so far, so why not on such "strong" evidence that you truly believe Gaetz is a pedophile?

[daz28]

18 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

So your argument is that Biden is a liar? Interesting approach. As for evidence, the DOJ was happy to indict people on weak evidence so far, so why not on such "strong" evidence that you truly believe Gaetz is a pedophile?

I don't believe he's a "pedophile", but from the information I've seen, it appears he did have sex with a person underage.  I also believe what HE literally called "funds" were a payment.  I'm asking YOU why you can in one instance claim he must be innocent if they didn't prosecute, yet still claim they'll indict anyone on flimsy charges if they're a member of the GQP.  That's YOUR conundrum, not mine. 

 

fund

[fənd]

noun

funds (plural noun)

a sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose:

Edited Wednesday at 03:24 AM by daz28

[4th&long]

14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It's said that your attitude determines your altitude, sir.  If you're constantly engaging then storming off, you're consistently going to end up in the same place--revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of what others say or suggest, and tilting at windmills that exist only in your mind.     It's your call, but I'll keep a good thought for you.  

 

Happy Holidays!

 

 

Hahahaha. You are still full of crap out yourself. Why do I want to try to talk about something with a person who twist everything I say to fit your narrative. I must have meant so and so or I don’t talk about something because of this or that. You have created your own version of everything. I’m fine with letting you live in your little world. 
people get along with you because you are polite to them. I see thru your *****.💩 

[Orlando Buffalo]

10 hours ago, daz28 said:

I don't believe he's a "pedophile", but from the information I've seen, it appears he did have sex with a person underage.  I also believe what HE literally called "funds" were a payment.  I'm asking YOU why you can in one instance claim he must be innocent if they didn't prosecute, yet still claim they'll indict anyone on flimsy charges if they're a member of the GQP.  That's YOUR conundrum, not mine. 

 

fund

[fənd]

noun

funds (plural noun)

a sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose:

Wow you are stupid. The point I am making about the DOJ is they chose who to prosecute based on their threat to the Dems, not the nature of the crimes being committed. The fact that Gaetz is just a lesser version as Clinton, without the sexual assault, makes me glad he is out of Congress and hopeful he is not going to be my next senator. 

[daz28]

13 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

Wow you are stupid. The point I am making about the DOJ is they chose who to prosecute based on their threat to the Dems, not the nature of the crimes being committed. The fact that Gaetz is just a lesser version as Clinton, without the sexual assault, makes me glad he is out of Congress and hopeful he is not going to be my next senator. 

What happened to the people seeing through the democrats BS?  I thought it only helped them get elected.  You may as well stop, because I'll never allow hypocritical nonsense to slide.  Don't be shocked to see MG back in politics soon, and it's because the GQP is NOT the party of values anymore.  That's quite apparent.  

[Orlando Buffalo]

44 minutes ago, daz28 said:

What happened to the people seeing through the democrats BS?  I thought it only helped them get elected.  You may as well stop, because I'll never allow hypocritical nonsense to slide.  Don't be shocked to see MG back in politics soon, and it's because the GQP is NOT the party of values anymore.  That's quite apparent.  

I am assuming you are drunk since this makes no sense. I hope you had a merry Christmas.