• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chuck Schumer says Democrats might tie spending bill to Mueller protection

Cardinal said:
No, I'm done with the typical "let's wait and see if X happens" response only for trump supporters to say they don't care when X actually does happen.

Trump supporters aren't a mysterious and unknown species anymore. Their diversions, deflections, pretenses of stupidity and gas lighting are boring, and I've moved on to House investigations (assuming Mueller doesn't conclude guilt).
Click to expand...

Your TDS is showing. Anything but guilty is not acceptable, not truthful, not what you want, not what you demand; facts be damned. :roll:

I wonder if the State applied the same to you, if you'd be just as insistent on it.

Besides, what have Trump supporters got to do if Trump is guilty of anything or not? Or is that now guilt by association?
 
Cardinal said:
Similarly (and understandably) you would only accept a verdict of innocence if Hillary Clinton were placed in charge of the SC investigation.

Anyway, I've made my feelings clear and I've already moved on to House-controlled investigations for legitimate outcomes.
Click to expand...

Whomever the President is, they are in charge of a SC. If Hillary had won, there never would have been a SC investigation because the grapes wouldn't have soured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom