The Impeachment Thread

#5,051
#5,051
RockyTop85 said:
🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯



Doesn’t support your theory in any way, though. Seems more like a snarky, I think you’d call it butthurt, acceptance of what I said earlier about what the statement contained.

I would have made fun of you if you had reacted this badly but still accepted what I said. 😂
Click to expand...
I’m shocked... shocked I say to see you reply like this! And the fact that you’re in SNL Dan Ackroyd Point/Counterpoint response mode in your dismissal reply just makes it more golden 😂
 
#5,054
#5,054
NorthDallas40 said:
I’m shocked... shocked I say to see you reply like this! And the fact that you’re in SNL Dan Ackroyd Point/Counterpoint response mode in your dismissal reply just makes it more golden 😂
Click to expand...
Um... what? Are we reading the same thing?

The thread just says that ICIG was covering their ass in that statement. It accepts the statement as factual. It does nothing to question the veracity of the statements contents.
 
#5,055
#5,055
RockyTop85 said:
Um... what? Are we reading the same thing?

The thread just says that ICIG was covering their ass in that statement. It accepts the statement as factual. It does nothing to question the veracity of the statements contents.
Click to expand...
It accepts the statement as factual? Are you inferring that from the last line? “It’s fishy as hell but ok” or something like that? Maybe go read again.

The explanation is a hot mess and York posted three or four points near verbatim that I had made. “Rocky you ignorant slut...” 😂

Edit: I think we inferred different meanings in this statement?

“In summary, ICIG seems be saying: Whistleblower was given form with incorrect information. Not my fault! Then, after Trump-Ukraine exploded, we changed form to match law. Yes, looked fishy, but all OK. 12/12 End.”
 
#5,057
#5,057
NorthDallas40 said:
It accepts the statement as factual? Are you inferring that from the last line? “It’s fishy as hell but ok” or something like that? Maybe go read again.

The explanation is a hot mess and York posted three or four points near verbatim that I had made. “Rocky you ignorant slut...” 😂

Edit: I think we inferred different meanings in this statement?

“In summary, ICIG seems be saying: Whistleblower was given form with incorrect information. Not my fault! Then, after Trump-Ukraine exploded, we changed form to match law. Yes, looked fishy, but all OK. 12/12 End.”
Click to expand...

None fo that matters. The Genie is out of the bottle and he's not going back in. Donnie saw to that when he released his confession.
 
#5,059
#5,059
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok so he’s more conservative and more small government that the lefties or anybody else that could enter the field. He isn’t more conservative or known better than Paul and Paul isn’t running this time. And he won’t take an blue votes he’ll just dilute red votes. I’ll pass.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to compare him to Dems? Just admit you have no clue about his positions and don't want to know. By almost every measure he's more conservative than Paul and Paul gets him on name recognition only because of his dad. You simply want to vote for Trump and will marginalize anyone who dared challenge him. At least be honest about it
 
#5,061
#5,061
utvolpj said:
Why do you continue to compare him to Dems? Just admit you have no clue about his positions and don't want to know. By almost every measure he's more conservative than Paul and Paul gets him on name recognition only because of his dad. You simply want to vote for Trump and will marginalize anyone who dared challenge him. At least be honest about it
Click to expand...

You should have learned from the last election about these people. It's not what you're for but who you're against.
 
#5,063
#5,063
utvolpj said:
Why do you continue to compare him to Dems? Just admit you have no clue about his positions and don't want to know. By almost every measure he's more conservative than Paul and Paul gets him on name recognition only because of his dad. You simply want to vote for Trump and will marginalize anyone who dared challenge him. At least be honest about it
Click to expand...
No. And stop assuming for me. Paul gets him on track record and known historical performance in my book. You view Amash as a serious challenger. He isn’t. He is a spoiler at best and no where near Perot level. If he had stayed in party and tried to primary Trump I’d respect that more than the chicken **** move he pulled. Simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#5,066
#5,066
NorthDallas40 said:
No. And stop assuming for me. Paul gets him on track record and known historical performance in my book. You view Amash as a serious challenger. He isn’t. He is a spoiler at best and no where near Perot level. If he had stayed in party and tried to primary Trump I’d respect that more than the chicken **** move he pulled. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
The GOP called off Primaries. What a chicken **** move on their part.
 
#5,067
#5,067
NorthDallas40 said:
No. And stop assuming for me. Paul gets him on track record and known historical performance in my book. You view Amash as a serious challenger. He isn’t. He is a spoiler at best and no where near Perot level. If he had stayed in party and tried to primary Trump I’d respect that more than the chicken **** move he pulled. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
But you respect Trump for changing parties because he couldn't compete as a dem? Uh huh
 
#5,071
#5,071
utvolpj said:
But you respect Trump for changing parties because he couldn't compete as a dem? Uh huh
Click to expand...
Where did I say I “respect” Trump? 😂

The devil you know... simple as that. Put Amash in the Senate for 20+ years of juggling DC politics and get back with me.
 
#5,072
#5,072
NorthDallas40 said:
It accepts the statement as factual? Are you inferring that from the last line? “It’s fishy as hell but ok” or something like that? Maybe go read again.

The explanation is a hot mess and York posted three or four points near verbatim that I had made. “Rocky you ignorant slut...” 😂
Click to expand...

1569956691390.gif
I think you need to read it again.

That thread is about how ICIG explained that they had to change the form because the prior form could be seen as unlawfully discouraging or prohibiting legitimate whistleblower complaints. The prior form was illegal. They had to change it. They explained this in their statement. Then ICIG blamed the illegal form on the people who were there before them.

The last sentence (“it looked fishy, but it was really okay”) was written in the voice of an ICIG, who has just explained why they changed the form.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top