> But you're right it's just a generalization @Dark yeah. most people are pretty chill. i don't think i've ever encounter crazy people (i just think they really sincerely think their beliefs is good and kind)
> Dems 2016: election is rigged there was interference
> Dems 2020: election? Rigged? Whaaaaat? No way! Lulz cope @SmokyCopCar NO WIDESPREAD ELECTION FRAUD
> the key differnce is in 2016 the dems had enough subsantial evidence for an investigatiom @chaz a kind reminder: an investigation was brought up by "hearsay" of a person who wasn't even on the Ukraine call, which then turned out to be a set-up
> the key differnce is in 2016 the dems had enough subsantial evidence for an investigatiom @chaz enough to waste years on what, $100 million dollars or something way up there to lead to nothing?
> @Dark yeah. that's why we also shouldn't have any laws at all. who cares about crimes @isoboto Yeah and they'll be like "why build a wall if it won't stop 100%?" I'm like it will stop some.... should we always be all or nothing lol?
> @isoboto Yeah and they'll be like "why build a wall if it won't stop 100%?" I'm like it will stop some.... should we always be all or nothing lol? @Dark lmao! i'm surprised that that's even a good argument. like, Find me something that works 100%???? It's IMPOSSIBLE. But we want high efficiency. The walls are helping with that
@isoboto ukraine call is a whole different debackle @SmokyCopCar yeas, when someone has subatial evidence for an investigation, an investigation is valid.
> the key differnce is in 2016 the dems had enough subsantial evidence for an investigatiom @chaz "evidence" that was manufactured and a phone call that was leaked by a dem partisan which showed nothing in and of itself
> yeas, when someone has subatial evidence for an investigation, an investigation is valid. @chaz yeah. which is why a lot of people think it's weird many biden-voters say "there's no voter fraud. don't even bother looking"
> @isoboto ukraine call is a whole different debackle @SmokyCopCar yeas, when someone has subatial evidence for an investigation, an investigation is valid. @chaz yes one person saying something is justification for millions of dollars and years wasting the FBIs time and Trumps time
> @Dark the courts decided it was enough and I would say they know more than I do on law @chaz No they decided that the "witness" was enough. Not the document.
@isoboto well looking and full scale investigation are different, look all you want, but he needs more evidence for a full scale investigation. @SmokyCopCar I just trust the courts, the investigation may have brought up nothing, but it was justifiable by law
> @isoboto well looking and full scale investigation are different, look all you want, but he needs more evidence for a full scale investigation. @chaz no. i mean as in people actually are oppose to a full-scale investigation. he filed a lawsuit and 11K people had came forward with voter fraud claims. I think it's something worth investigating or at least looking into, no?
But I don't think any of us contest the base point of like, if there is sufficient cause an investigation is warranted. The hypocrisy as we see it; is that really once the transcript was released and the witness did not have "new information" they purely dragged it on knowing full well it was theater. Is there a bit of theatre here? Possibly but it's not like it's exactly being broadcast on the MMS though.
The kinda best part is the people that are showing their true colors in a sense. They call us sycophants or violent and they're mocking "us" for following the law and saying they'll "hold us accountable" for what? Making the country better?
