FBI search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago (Update: Trump Indicted!)

[Nyvin]

Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, is a Trump appointee.   How does this play into the "suspicious timing" of the raid?    Why would Wray take part in a political hitjob on Trump?   Does this really make any sense?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Another excellent thread for those interested in classified documents (which is something I never expected to write before this week):

https://twitter.com/OfficeBob/status/1558957669020422144

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

Dang that’s crazy, maybe we should change something about the way we execute our foreign policy

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

Dang that’s crazy, maybe we should change something about the way we execute our foreign policy

I think out foreign policy has had both positives and negatives but way more positives than negatives. Thanks to us most of the nation in the former Warsaw Pact are free.

The US has done more good for the world than any super power in history and we will continue to do more good than bad

[It’s so Joever]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Maybe but ANY documents which could severely threaten our national security is a good enough reason for the raid.

[7,052,770]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

[7,052,770]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I wouldnt expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

[7,052,770]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

No, I thought I was pretty clear in my point that you think Fuzzy is way wrong on this issue and many others that are important to him, but feel the compulsion to take up for him anyway despite that simply because you vote the same way (and ironically you actually don't in presidential elections). He doesn't need to be hero worshipped or infantilized. It's just strange and borderline creepy.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, is a Trump appointee.   How does this play into the "suspicious timing" of the raid?    Why would Wray take part in a political hitjob on Trump?   Does this really make any sense?

According to the Fuzzy Bear, Chris Wray was "forced upon" Trump by unspecified dark forces, although that doesn't mean that Trump wasn't a weak figurehead president in any way, because Trump also managed to make Atlas users angry at the same time.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

No, I thought I was pretty clear in my point that you think Fuzzy is way wrong on this issue and many others that are important to him, but feel the compulsion to take up for him anyway despite that simply because you vote the same way (and ironically you actually don't in presidential elections). He doesn't need to be hero worshipped or infantilized. It's just strange and borderline creepy.

No I mainly was pointing out how Fuzzy views are more young than boomer and how Badger was misrepresenting his views on other stuff.

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

You can have a discussion with Fuzzy on criminal justice reform without talking about the 2020 election

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

You can have a discussion with Fuzzy on criminal justice reform without talking about the 2020 election

Sure. We're not talking about that though.

[GeorgiaModerate]

How about shortening some of the quote strings?  It's getting difficult to follow the thread.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Guys, we gotta do something about the quoting. 

It's making me dizzy every time I scroll down the thread

[ProudModerate2]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

You can have a discussion with Fuzzy on criminal justice reform without talking about the 2020 election

No you can't. Because when someone tries to have a "discussion with Fuzzy about the 2020 election," he decides to deflect and discuss the "BLM and Antifa riots" (for the 526th time in Atlas).

[T'Chenka]

Old School Republican,
You know what struck me the most is the timing of this Search Warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Most of the sort of liberal Cable News saying the DoJ's Decision wasn't a Political One. How convinient!

BUT how can it not be when we are less than 85 Days away from the Midterms?

Do you have any thoughts on this?

I think either side will say it helped or hurt them once the Election is over.

"Politicians can commit crimes around election time and they can't be investigated for it because of the timing, or else it's a witch hunt. But only politicians I support."

[Alben Barkley]

When a thread becomes dominated by OSR posts that are more quotes than actual new text, that’s when you know it’s a true Talk Elections secular blog post.

[Ferguson97]

When a thread becomes dominated by OSR posts that are more quotes than actual new text, that’s when you know it’s a true Talk Elections secular blog post.

It gets tiring when it just becomes:

Fuzzy: [insane ramblings]

Red/maroon avatar: that's insane

OSR: no he is not insane, he was nice to me

[T'Chenka]

What the 3 of us (OSR, Fuzzy Bear and myself) are saying that the timing is highly suspicious!

What would be a non-suspicious timing? Why should the DoJ change its procedures to placate one political party?

As we all know very well, a "non-suspicious timing" for this doesn't exist. Republicans would find a way to explain why the timing was suspicious no matter what, OR, in a rare scenario where that's too difficult, they'll just move onto another talking point about why this was a witch hunt. Whatever "logic" or "reasoning" is used, it's designed to never ever arrive at the conclusion that Trump being under siege is justified.

[It’s so Joever]

Anyways we can talk about whether “the move” was political or not much later. What matters now is that we have someone who doesn’t care about national security who had been keeping some clearly very important documents that would jeopardize our safety in the wrong hands are and now we have the question of what to do. Do we establish the precedent that it is okay is the mob says it is? If so fine, I just hope the people here know what that means down the line. And someday…when you don’t agree with the mob well…heh better pretend you do.

It’s either we focus on the actual issue at hand, which is THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR COUNTRY, or we get so side tracked by distractions and con artists waving red flags as if we were angry bulls, that we forget what is important and allow yet another brutal stab wound in Lady Liberty pour out until she passes from blood loss.

So what do you say Republicans and Independents? Should we call 911 or should we twist the knife? You have the choice, you are holding the phone.