Classified Biden documents found - now up to 3 locations.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Fauxcohontis is your standard?!? God help us all.

Posts like this will always undermine your attempts to stake the nonpartisan, both-sides-are-bad ground.

Go on. Explain your logic. I’d love to hear it.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Posts like this will always undermine your attempts to stake the nonpartisan, both-sides-are-bad ground.

Go on.  Explain your logic.  I’d love to hear it.

Using a racist insult straight out of far-right Republican media makes you appear to be something other than an independent observer. There are many more political message board posters who claim partisan and ideological independence than there are politically and ideologically independent posters, so I look for signs of fake independence and usually find them.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Posts like this will always undermine your attempts to stake the nonpartisan, both-sides-are-bad ground.

Go on. Explain your logic. I’d love to hear it.

Seemed pretty straight forward tbh

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The FBI went through every room, every drawer, every closet in Biden's house and found a few more (less than 10, maybe) documents with classified markings, and they didn't have to spend 2 years fighting with Biden to gain access.

Biden is such a piker compared to Trump. 40 years in government and all he has are probably less than 25 classified documents altogether. Trump stole that many in 2 hours.

The only problem is that the target number is supposed to be zero.

At least Biden isn't fighting with the DoJ about possession of classified documents.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

The only problem is that the target number is supposed to be zero.

At least Biden isn't fighting with the DoJ about possession of classified documents.

That’s like saying, “Well, at least the mass shooter gave himself up.”

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Go on.  Explain your logic.  I’d love to hear it.

Using a racist insult straight out of far-right Republican media makes you appear to be something other than an independent observer. There are many more political message board posters who claim partisan and ideological independence than there are politically and ideologically independent posters, so I look for signs of fake independence and usually find them.

Sorry if I insulted your girl. Socialist worth $67M and pays $110k in taxes a year? Hypocrite deserves to be called much worse.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Using a racist insult straight out of far-right Republican media makes you appear to be something other than an independent observer. There are many more political message board posters who claim partisan and ideological independence than there are politically and ideologically independent posters, so I look for signs of fake independence and usually find them.

Sorry if I insulted your girl. Socialist worth $67M and pays $110k in taxes a year? Hypocrite deserves to be called much worse.

You reinforced my view of you. As for the socialist accusation, you're old enough to know that all successful nations combine socialism and capitalism, and we only argue about where to drop the needle.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

At least Biden isn't fighting with the DoJ about possession of classified documents.

That’s like saying, “Well, at least the mass shooter gave himself up.”

Not really. Biden was reckless, but intent also matters. Biden has not fought to keep the documents, lied about the documents, or refused to give anything back. Trump knowingly had the documents, lied, and tried to keep them by claiming they belonged to him.

If I am cleaning my gun and it goes off and kills somebody, it's an accident, but my behavior is still reckless and punishable by law. It's a whole other level of wrong if I knowingly point my loaded gun at somebody and pull the trigger.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Go on.  Explain your logic.  I’d love to hear it.

Using a racist insult straight out of far-right Republican media makes you appear to be something other than an independent observer. There are many more political message board posters who claim partisan and ideological independence than there are politically and ideologically independent posters, so I look for signs of fake independence and usually find them.

I didn't read the racist insult, and I am not reading this entire thread to find it, but this is unacceptable at tSwill. We tolerate a lot but not the dehumanization of people based on arbitrary characteristics like race. Do better or GTFO.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Sorry if I insulted your girl. Socialist worth $67M and pays $110k in taxes a year? Hypocrite deserves to be called much worse.

You reinforced my view of you. As for the socialist accusation, you're old enough to know that all successful nations combine socialism and capitalism, and we only argue about where to drop the needle.

I seriously doubt I was going to do anything else. People like you never change their minds.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You reinforced my view of you. As for the socialist accusation, you're old enough to know that all successful nations combine socialism and capitalism, and we only argue about where to drop the needle.

I seriously doubt I was going to do anything else. People like you never change their minds.

No need to take it personally. First, you called Warren "Fauxcahontas" and then you called her a socialist and a hypocrite. You're free to keep parroting Sean Hannity and Donald Trump. All I'm saying is that if you're going for an independent nonpartisan image, you're doing it wrong.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I seriously doubt I was going to do anything else. People like you never change their minds.

No need to take it personally. First, you called Warren "Fauxcahontas" and then you called her a socialist and a hypocrite. You're free to keep parroting Sean Hannity and Donald Trump. All I'm saying is that if you're going for an independent nonpartisan image, you're doing it wrong.

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No need to take it personally. First, you called Warren "Fauxcahontas" and then you called her a socialist and a hypocrite. You're free to keep parroting Sean Hannity and Donald Trump. All I'm saying is that if you're going for an independent nonpartisan image, you're doing it wrong.

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

Parroting conservative media is not thinking for yourself. Again, you're free to parrot whomever you choose. A nonpartisan facade is never very convincing on a political message board anyway.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

At least Biden isn't fighting with the DoJ about possession of classified documents.

That’s like saying, “Well, at least the mass shooter gave himself up.”

The system the government has for controlling classified, secret & for eyes only information sucks.

More than likely, due to that lack of control, Biden inadvertently ended up with a few, less than 20 by last count, classified documents in his "possession" though it is likely he was not aware of this, and he has immediately, upon become aware turned these over to the proper authorities.

Your analogy sucks, it should be more like a truck driver whose truck was loaded with contraband without their knowledge.

If the House wishes to investigate this, it should be all about the lax controls on these documents.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Using a racist insult straight out of far-right Republican media makes you appear to be something other than an independent observer. There are many more political message board posters who claim partisan and ideological independence than there are politically and ideologically independent posters, so I look for signs of fake independence and usually find them.

Sorry if I insulted your girl. Socialist worth $67M and pays $110k in taxes a year? Hypocrite deserves to be called much worse.

Come on now.

You are posting shit without any facts to back your shit up, at least, assuming you are posting about Senator Warren, which based on this thread you better be, or you are just a trolling asshole.

From 2020 -

Elizabeth Warren's net worth amounts to a consensus $8.75 million in 2019, a figure that is based on various financial statements, most notably the release of her federal tax returns -- 10 years in total through 2018.

It's also worth noting that Warren puts her money where her mouth is on sharing the wealth -- a tenet she's pushing in her 2020 presidential run. In 2017, she and her husband donated $882,000 to charity, about 9% of her yearly earnings.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-15024381

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No need to take it personally. First, you called Warren "Fauxcahontas" and then you called her a socialist and a hypocrite. You're free to keep parroting Sean Hannity and Donald Trump. All I'm saying is that if you're going for an independent nonpartisan image, you're doing it wrong.

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

Criticizing both sides doesn't make you independent, it just makes you an asshole.

TravelinMan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

No need to take it personally. First, you called Warren "Fauxcahontas" and then you called her a socialist and a hypocrite. You're free to keep parroting Sean Hannity and Donald Trump. All I'm saying is that if you're going for an independent nonpartisan image, you're doing it wrong.

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

No dude, doing the both-sides-do-it thing that just makes you a puppet of the MSM.

You should be critical of the actions which deserve the criticism, which means you have to evaluate the facts are reach your own conclusions, which you can defend against all comers with facts.

There may be proposals from Senator Warren which deserve thoughtful criticisms, but calling her names is just bullshit.

The fact she wants to disinvest every politician, judge and their family and also making all lobbying scheduled public meetings seems like a step in the right direction.
And also why she has the huge target on her back... right wing as we know it wouldnt exist with her rules.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Sorry if I insulted your girl. Socialist worth $67M and pays $110k in taxes a year? Hypocrite deserves to be called much worse.

Come on now.

You are posting shit without any facts to back your shit up, at least, assuming you are posting about Senator Warren, which based on this thread you better be, or you are just a trolling asshole.

From 2020 -

Elizabeth Warren's net worth amounts to a consensus $8.75 million in 2019, a figure that is based on various financial statements, most notably the release of her federal tax returns -- 10 years in total through 2018.

It's also worth noting that Warren puts her money where her mouth is on sharing the wealth -- a tenet she's pushing in her 2020 presidential run. In 2017, she and her husband donated $882,000 to charity, about 9% of her yearly earnings.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-15024381

The very first thing that came up when I Googled “Elizabeth Warren net worth:”

https://caknowledge.com/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-forbes/

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

Criticizing both sides doesn't make you independent, it just makes you an asshole.

I can live with that. At least I’m not a blind partisan making excuses for my team.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Being independent means thinking for yourself and criticizing both sides.

Lizzy is part of the problem as much as anyone else.

No dude, doing the both-sides-do-it thing that just makes you a puppet of the MSM.

You should be critical of the actions which deserve the criticism, which means you have to evaluate the facts are reach your own conclusions, which you can defend against all comers with facts.

There may be proposals from Senator Warren which deserve thoughtful criticisms, but calling her names is just bullshit.

Says the guy who only reads headlines.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No dude, doing the both-sides-do-it thing that just makes you a puppet of the MSM.

You should be critical of the actions which deserve the criticism, which means you have to evaluate the facts are reach your own conclusions, which you can defend against all comers with facts.

There may be proposals from Senator Warren which deserve thoughtful criticisms, but calling her names is just bullshit.

Says the guy who only reads headlines.

If you want to talk about gaslighting you have just gaslight me to the rest of the posters, so here is an example of you gaslighting.

While I said that you can get much of the information from the headlines, I never said that I "only read the headlines."

Anyone who has interacted with me for as long as you have is aware that I often go into depth from information in news articles.

That you have made this claim at least twice now is amusing to you, I suppose, but it is not true, and you know it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Says the guy who only reads headlines.

If you want to talk about gaslighting you have just gaslight me to the rest of the posters, so here is an example of you gaslighting.

While I said that you can get much of the information from the headlines, I never said that I "only read the headlines."

Anyone who has interacted with me for as long as you have is aware that I often go into depth from information in news articles.

That you have made this claim at least twice now is amusing to you, I suppose, but it is not true, and you know it.

You didn’t say it. But when I mentioned that I couldn’t read it because it was pay walled, you admitted you couldn’t read it either. You just liked the headline.

Take your lumps like a man.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

If you want to talk about gaslighting you have just gaslight me to the rest of the posters, so here is an example of you gaslighting.

While I said that you can get much of the information from the headlines, I never said that I "only read the headlines."

Anyone who has interacted with me for as long as you have is aware that I often go into depth from information in news articles.

That you have made this claim at least twice now is amusing to you, I suppose, but it is not true, and you know it.

You didn’t say it.  But when I mentioned that I couldn’t read it because it was pay walled, you admitted you couldn’t read it either.  You just liked the headline.

Take your lumps like a man.

If you were ragging on me with the truth of what I said I would.  You have expanded it, maybe in your mind, to something I didn't say.  I try as hard as I can to type exactly the truth and having people extrapolate beyond what I said is annoying.

It is similar to when I post a qualified statement, where I said something "might happen" or "probably will happen". The words "might " or "probably" mean that I am not saying it "will" happen, yet way too often people try to claim that I used "will". I try to type is what I mean and expect others to be able to read.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

You didn’t say it.  But when I mentioned that I couldn’t read it because it was pay walled, you admitted you couldn’t read it either.  You just liked the headline.

Take your lumps like a man.

If you were ragging on me with the truth of what I said I would.  You have expanded it, maybe in your mind, to something I didn't say.  I try as hard as I can to type exactly the truth and having people extrapolate beyond what I said is annoying.

It is similar to when I post a qualified statement, where I said something "might happen" or "probably will happen". The words "might " or "probably" mean that I am not saying it "will" happen, yet way too often people try to claim that I used "will". I try to type is what I mean and expect others to be able to read.

I really don't care to argue with you on this point. For the last time, you posted this link:

https://www.autonews.com/cars-concepts/chevy-corvette-e-ray-quickest-vette-yet?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230117&utm_content=hero-headline

Did you read that article? Yes or no?

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

If you were ragging on me with the truth of what I said I would.  You have expanded it, maybe in your mind, to something I didn't say.  I try as hard as I can to type exactly the truth and having people extrapolate beyond what I said is annoying.

It is similar to when I post a qualified statement, where I said something "might happen" or "probably will happen".  The words "might " or "probably" mean that I am not saying it "will" happen, yet way too often people try to claim that I used "will".   I try to type is what I mean and expect others to be able to read.

I really don't care to argue with you on this point.  For the last time, you posted this link:

https://www.autonews.com/cars-concepts/chevy-corvette-e-ray-quickest-vette-yet?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230117&utm_content=hero-headline

Did you read that article?  Yes or no?

No.

Okay, you are deflecting from the point I am making, and I already answered that question, indirectly, when I said, just like you I can only see the headline.

I posted it because the headline is about the hybrid corvette being made due to the fact that an electric motor can get up to speed faster than an ICE.  You then asked a question for which I have no answer regarding some technical detail, and I don't know if the answer to your question is in the article or not.

There are probably other articles on the new hybrid corvette which might address your question.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I really don't care to argue with you on this point.  For the last time, you posted this link:

https://www.autonews.com/cars-concepts/chevy-corvette-e-ray-quickest-vette-yet?utm_source=breaking-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230117&utm_content=hero-headline

Did you read that article?  Yes or no?

No.

Okay, you are deflecting from the point I am making, and I already answered that question, indirectly, when I said, just like you I can only see the headline.

I posted it because the headline is about the hybrid corvette being made due to the fact that an electric motor can get up to speed faster than an ICE.  You then asked a question for which I have no answer regarding some technical detail, and I don't know if the answer to your question is in the article or not.

There are probably other articles on the new hybrid corvette which might address your question.

Thank you.

TravelinMan wrote:

Lizzy is part of the problem

as much as anyone else

.

For me, it's the bold blue part where you go way wrong.  I think we should hold our elected officials to a very high standard and they should be called out for lies, other nefarious acts and also honest mistakes.  Others think that they are all equally bad so they will vote for whoever serves their own short term interest(s) or hides behind that "observation" as an excuse.

I don't expect perfection from elected officials because they are people which is also why I don't tend to lionize them.  But just as in real life, some people seem to be better people than others... and Lizzy is no (fill in blank, Kevin, say).





"as much as anyone else" isn't pant's on fire maybe, but it is clearly false.

Rick Saunders wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Lizzy is part of the problem

as much as anyone else

.

For me, it's the bold blue part where you go way wrong.  I think we should hold our elected officials to a very high standard and they should be called out for lies, other nefarious acts and also honest mistakes.  Others think that they are all equally bad so they will vote for whoever serves their own short term interest(s) or hides behind that "observation" as an excuse.

I don't expect perfection from elected officials because they are people which is also why I don't tend to lionize them.  But just as in real life, some people seem to be better people than others... and Lizzy is no (fill in blank, Kevin, say).





"as much as anyone else" isn't pant's on fire maybe, but it is clearly false.

I tend to grade pass/fail. The "Sure, my guy is bad, but he isn't as bad as your guy" argument feels a bit silly to me.

TravelinMan wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:

For me, it's the bold blue part where you go way wrong.  I think we should hold our elected officials to a very high standard and they should be called out for lies, other nefarious acts and also honest mistakes.  Others think that they are all equally bad so they will vote for whoever serves their own short term interest(s) or hides behind that "observation" as an excuse.

I don't expect perfection from elected officials because they are people which is also why I don't tend to lionize them.  But just as in real life, some people seem to be better people than others... and Lizzy is no (fill in blank, Kevin, say).





"as much as anyone else" isn't pant's on fire maybe, but it is clearly false.

I tend to grade pass/fail. The "Sure, my guy is bad, but he isn't as bad as your guy" argument feels a bit silly to me.

Sure, until they want to go to medical school or govern my nation.

TravelinMan wrote:

Rick Saunders wrote:

For me, it's the bold blue part where you go way wrong.  I think we should hold our elected officials to a very high standard and they should be called out for lies, other nefarious acts and also honest mistakes.  Others think that they are all equally bad so they will vote for whoever serves their own short term interest(s) or hides behind that "observation" as an excuse.

I don't expect perfection from elected officials because they are people which is also why I don't tend to lionize them.  But just as in real life, some people seem to be better people than others... and Lizzy is no (fill in blank, Kevin, say).





"as much as anyone else" isn't pant's on fire maybe, but it is clearly false.

I tend to grade pass/fail. The "Sure, my guy is bad, but he isn't as bad as your guy" argument feels a bit silly to me.

Since politicians always have to compromise with other politicians to get anything done doesn't that mean there is no way for you to give them a pass?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I tend to grade pass/fail. The "Sure, my guy is bad, but he isn't as bad as your guy" argument feels a bit silly to me.

Since politicians always have to compromise with other politicians to get anything done doesn't that mean there is no way for you to give them a pass?

Not at all. In fact, I can’t even understand how you’d come to that conclusion. That’s just silly.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Since politicians always have to compromise with other politicians to get anything done doesn't that mean there is no way for you to give them a pass?

Not at all. In fact, I can’t even understand how you’d come to that conclusion. That’s just silly.

My sense is from your comments about Senator Warren, who, if you look at what she had gotten done and how she conducts herself is a pretty accomplished Senator.

Also, there is leak over on this, in my mind, unfair to you, from a number of posters who seem to think both Parties are all fucked up.

TravelinMan wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
Criticizing both sides doesn't make you independent, it just makes you an asshole.

I can live with that. At least I’m not a blind partisan making excuses for my team.

[tw]1618459085967396865[/tw]

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I can live with that. At least I’m not a blind partisan making excuses for my team.

[tw]1618459085967396865[/tw]

I don't understand the argument about scale or amount.

Did you have **** you weren't supposed to, yes or no?

It's like saying some drunk driver who ran over 5 people is more heinous than one who just killed one person.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Come on now.

You are posting shit without any facts to back your shit up, at least, assuming you are posting about Senator Warren, which based on this thread you better be, or you are just a trolling asshole.

From 2020 -



https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-15024381

The very first thing that came up when I Googled “Elizabeth Warren net worth:”

https://caknowledge.com/elizabeth-warren-net-worth-forbes/

talk about not reading the article and lack of critical thinking.

2023 Audi RS Q8 · MSRP - $125,800, (from Edmaonds site)

Elizabeth Warren has recently bought a Audi RS Q8 for $310,000 USD, (from your linked article)

So I went to the Audi site and added every option to the RS Q8 - Price? $ 170,900.00
https://www.audi.ca/ca/web/en/models/q8/rsq8/build-price.html

Have to say it looks like the estimate you used is full of holes.

Here is the one that shows up in Bing just below the one you used. (Seems like a "critical thinker would have looked at more than one)

Elizabeth Warren Net worth and Biography

Elizabeth Warren net worth 2022 is $12 million. Elizabeth Ann Warren is an American politician and former law professor who is the senior United States senator from Massachusetts, serving since 2013.

https://www.glusea.com/elizabeth-warren-net-worth/

Here is a chart, from Roll Call of an estimation of the Net Worth of the 10 most wealthy women in Congress.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

[tw]1618459085967396865[/tw]

I don't understand the argument about scale or amount.

Did you have **** you weren't supposed to, yes or no?

It's like saying some drunk driver who ran over 5 people is more heinous than one who just killed one person.

Well?  (It seems obvious but here is an analogy to help you understand)

Say someone forgets to turn in a company credit card and then inadvertently uses it to by dinner at a restaurant, then when they realize what they have done they turn it in and pay back the money for the dinner.  (This is Biden in the analogy)

Compared to someone who has walks out the door with say $100k in cash and refuses to give it back, causing lawsuits which forces them to give it back.  (This is Trump in this analogy)

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

I don't understand the argument about scale or amount.

Did you have **** you weren't supposed to, yes or no?

It's like saying some drunk driver who ran over 5 people is more heinous than one who just killed one person.

Well?  (It seems obvious but here is an analogy to help you understand)

Say someone forgets to turn in a company credit card and then inadvertently uses it to by dinner at a restaurant, then when they realize what they have done they turn it in and pay back the money for the dinner.  (This is Biden in the analogy)

Compared to someone who has walks out the door with say $100k in cash and refuses to give it back, causing lawsuits which forces them to give it back.  (This is Trump in this analogy)

If we want a better government (we do, right?) then we need to stop grading on a curve.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Well?  (It seems obvious but here is an analogy to help you understand)

Say someone forgets to turn in a company credit card and then inadvertently uses it to by dinner at a restaurant, then when they realize what they have done they turn it in and pay back the money for the dinner.  (This is Biden in the analogy)

Compared to someone who has walks out the door with say $100k in cash and refuses to give it back, causing lawsuits which forces them to give it back.  (This is Trump in this analogy)

If we want a better government (we do, right?) then we need to stop grading on a curve.

I have stated on this board that the real issue here is that the government does not have the processes in place to ensure that classified information is properly handled.

Thus, we have a number of instances where classified information has been inadvertently compromised, aka Biden & Pence and most likely others, but not Trump.

In Trump's case he deliberately stole government documents and refused to give them back. This is not "grading on a curve" these are just the facts.