US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Última edición:
And he returned the unemployment rate back to what it was at the start of Obama's presidency. Why does Obama come up so much? It's of course deflection and whataboutism to you, it's certainly not because he was the last fucking president before Trump.

Newsflash: The unemployment rate is currently at its lowest point in the last 50 years. https://time.com/5692797/september-jobs-numbers/

You sir, are delusional. Stop the Obama dick sucking; it's very annoying.
 
a2ebf3489c.jpg
So what do you guys have to say now that Trump has done the exact same thing with China? Still in denial mode?
trump talks to ukraine about possible corrupt politician and we say its ok because corrupt politicians should be investigated
trump talks to china about possible corrupt politician and we say its ok because corrupt politicians should be investigated

so remind me again why you think we should feel any differently about this?

if you supported the dems probing russia about phony collusion bullshit prior to trump's election, but condemn this, you're a hypocrite.
 
Well it looks like you're not much better, since you're entire post is just a regurgitation of MSM talking points, as @It's HK-47 would put it.
Pointing out policies and practices that I disagree with are MSM talking points? Haven't read this yet but I'm willing to bet you're either gonna deflect on "Democrats bad" or gonna make an appeal to "logic" despite showing not having to have read or seen a single piece of legislation that I disagreed with.
You're fucking delusional if you thought companies like Google ever needed someone's personal permission to sell their data to the highest bidder. Broadband Consumer Privacy Proposal was little more than fluff legislation designed to seem like it was doing something while actually doing nothing or making things worse.
I showed you the exact legislation that required that they did and all you did was said "Nuh-uh". Exactly which provisions of that legislation was useless, and if it was so useless why did Broadband companies go hard on trying to lobby to get it removed along with Net Neutrality?
>only benefited the rich not the poor
>muh top .02%
Ignoring that you yourself admitted that poor people get tax cuts too, thus nuking your own argument, how do you think tax cuts are supposed to work? Should poor people spontaneously get thousands of dollars while anyone worth over a million gets nada?
You can go to fucking Google, and learn that a "tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government. The immediate effects of a tax cut are a decrease in the real income of the government and an increase in the real income of those whose tax rates have been lowered".
Poor people get less from tax cuts because they have less income. Rich people get more from tax cuts because they have more income. This can't be avoided, and this can't be stopped.
I never said that the poor people didn't get tax cuts you ape. Why tax people who make $250,000 10% and people who make make $50,000 15%? Why not vice versa?

What the hell is this supposed to prove, exactly? How is repealing the estates tax harming the general populace of America? It really sounds like you're just mad that Trump isn't going after the rich with near-socialistic fervor, because "muh income inequality" or some shit.
Socialistic fervor? It's essentially a property tax that they're allowed to not to pay because...........why? I'm not sure why you're so eager to defend this. If your replies are as sorry as you are in real life you'll never own property of that value.
Drone strikes are almost always used to kill terrorists. If we pull out of the Middle East entirely, there will likely be more terrorists coming in to fill the void. If we put boots on the ground there, it will lead us into a costly war.

The way I see it, drone strikes are an efficient and effective way of dealing with terrorist threats abroad.
Well I don't give a fuck how you see it. When it comes to the actual numbers of cost effectiveness the program cost way too much for something that does that causes way too much unnecessary damage. Half the people being blow up aren't even direct threats to America so why should we continue spending this much money and effort?

We do deals with Saudis for their oil. Antagonize the Saudis, and oil proves spike up. It's unfortunate, and I believe that we should invest in nuclear to truly become independent of Middle Eastern oil, but as of now it's a fact of life.
I agree on everything you said except for it being a fact of life (and somewhat about antagonizing the Saudis. Fuck em). It doesn't have to be. We have the technological means and capabilities of doing it.
So I guess we should all be seeing the reports of epic corruption coming from the Trump administration, or at least from Gary Cohn in particular.

But we don't, and Cohn resigned after just one year.
He's not like the trade policies he helped foster and created is still in place or nothing. They left when he did as well.
Ignoring the fact that any article from the NYT should be taken with massive grains of salt on principle, if we assume the article is accurate, then those are very likely the parts of the TPP that aren't trash.
No. Just no.
First, define what is "unpresidential" in your eyes. Second, if your definition of "unpresidential" is anything close to what I think it is, then why not just move to Europe at this point? The corrupt and spineless wannabe dictators there are far more clearly your taste, as at least they're polite and well-mannered.
Why don't you move to Europe since you like ineffective leaders who love to talk in platitudes. Being presidential means not getting into twitter spats and blocking people because they say mean things about you. Being presidential is speaking and acting like you're a leader of a nation not making idle threats to our enemies (again) over twitter while proving you just like to talk shit.
And @The 8 of Spades you don't even need to mention Obama when refuting these obviously copy-pasted talking points, just use facts and logic.
lol ok Diet Ben Shapiro. You can disagree on the personal reasons on why I don't like trump all day thats fine. It's subjective. But if you can't point out any effective piece of legislation or sort of objective data to back up why you think your dear leader is so great then all your talking out ass. But that isn't surprising from the typical A&H poster.
 
Informative, thank you. Though I'm not sure how my dissecting Obama's bullshit is me sucking his dick, I thought I'd made it clear that I think Obama was a worse president than Trump.

Sorry, it certainly came off that way when I read it, as if you were defending Obama's record on employment, which wasn't stellar by any means.
Meh, carry on fellow Farmer. Salute!
:drink:
 
I'm not particulary a fan of his administration's internet policies, but on the other hand I don't think this really rises to "hurts a lot of innocent people" except in the most generous sense of the word "hurts".
Well it's not so much for as hurts. Its more of the lines of not being beneficial to them.

I am deeply unshocked that people who pay less taxes see a smaller benefit from a tax cut. There are, however, people between the absolute bottom and the absolute top to consider.

You know what, though? A tax cut is still a tax cut, as opposed to a tax hike.
I just wish he would reverse it instead of the tax cuts being bottom heavy and make it top heavy. I'm don't wanna go full socialist and be like "THE RICH SHOULD GET TAXED A GORILLIAN PERCENT!". But come on, low income should not have to pay more.

Why am I supposed to be outraged that the government doesn't get free money from dead people, exactly?
I view it as a not paying a property tax.

I wouldn't mind us getting out of the middle east, but until that happens, I'd rather have more drones in the air and less boots on the ground.
I rather have fewer drones in the air. Cost too much money can be used somewhere else.

See, here's a place we could have common ground.
I would be surprised and somewhat upset if we didn't.

Oh please. He's not perfect, but he's tried to do a lot with regards to that promise, except he keeps getting blocked left, right and center. I mean, case in point, this whole debacle with Biden right now.
He's first two years of office he had a majority in the house and the senate (could be wrong about will edit if I am). He had the opportunity to do whatever wanted within that time frame. He squandered it.

First, you might want to pick a better source article. The one you chose basically says nothing about your point.

But sure, in general terms. The TPP was a trade agreement. The revised NAFTA... thing... I can't remember the new acronym... is a trade agreement. Most people's objection to the TPP was not "Oh god, it's a TRADE AGREEMENT, run for the hills!". It was, rather, a number of specific exceptions - it gained us very little, was likely to cost us jobs, took a giant shit all over IP freedoms and worker rights both, it was crafted almost entirely in secret with little input from anyone but major corporations, it was a trade agreement mostly with countries that had infinitesimal economies compared to our own (and in some cases piss poor technological bases, too).

Some of the same general issues might have gotten recycled into Neo-NAFTA, but not all of them by any means, it's an agreement only with direct neighbors rather than a shotgun blast worth of smaller nations all over the globe, and generally we got better terms all around with the new agreement.
Its called the USMCA or something like that. I will give him credit that it did help subsidize farming a good bit. But manufacturing as whole is still getting fucked.

Again, there's potentially some common ground to be had - I'm not always a fan of Trump's behavior. But I'm not sold on the "unpresidential" argument. I mean, setting aside that it's kind of a tautological argument to begin with, we've had some pretty shit presidents in the past.
I'm not denying we've had shit presidents, but to say "we've had shit president, so lets put in another one"? Like I said, it's ok to have standards. As a person he's fine. As the President of the United States? Behavior is just unacceptable to me.
 
d3ffbdb78f7a310155ab70c2b7b5dcfd.png


Pelosi: Those were the President's own words.
Reporter: They weren't his words, though. [Schiff] made them up.
Pelosi: He did not make them up. They were his words.

Oh so we're just going to whole-ass fucking lie now even though it's not in the transcript, there's video evidence of Schiff saying it and of Schiff himself admitted during the hearing that he made it up. Alright, good to know that's how dishonest we're willing to be about this now.
 
Only feel like there's a couple of these with anything to address, so forgive the snipping for brevity...

I view it as a not paying a property tax.

I suppose that's your prerogative. I don't see why the government should get to tax death.

He's first two years of office he had a majority in the house and the senate (could be wrong about will edit if I am). He had the opportunity to do whatever wanted within that time frame. He squandered it.

Except despite theoretically having a blank check in congress, in practice he didn't - he had to fight his own party numerous times to get anything done, and he didn't always win.

My use of the phrase "left, right and center" there was deliberate.

Its called the USMCA or something like that. I will give him credit that it did help subsidize farming a good bit. But manufacturing as whole is still getting fucked.

Not as bad as it was, and we lost a lot of the really exceptional stuff, like some of the TTP's proposed changes to IP law. To say nothing of having to integrate economies like Brunei, New Zealand, Peru or Vietnam with economies like Japan, Mexico, and the United States.

For comparison, if I remember the figure correctly, we represented something like 2/3rds of the economic might in the TPP. Japan was second, at like... 15%?. Everyone else was lower than that. Many of them signifigantly lower than that. Very tightly integrated economic trade pacts with such diverse economies have a history of sucking all the balls.

I'm not denying we've had shit presidents, but to say "we've had shit president, so lets put in another one"? Like I said, it's ok to have standards. As a person he's fine. As the President of the United States? Behavior is just unacceptable to me.

Eh. It's occasionally embarrassing and/or frustrating, but unacceptable? Nah, it's not that big a deal for me... Particularly when even at his most crass and tactless, I generally find myself agreeing with the sentiment expressed.
 
d3ffbdb78f7a310155ab70c2b7b5dcfd.png

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6aDLhPcf8Ms
Pelosi: Those were the President's own words.
Reporter: They weren't his words, though. [Schiff] made them up.
Pelosi: He did not make them up. They were his words.

Oh so we're just going to whole-ass fucking lie now even though it's not in the transcript, there's video evidence of Schiff saying it and of Schiff himself admitted during the hearing that he made it up. Alright, good to know that's how dishonest we're willing to be about this now.
pelosi spouting off about her and other democrats loyalty to the constitution is just rich
 
Oh so we're just going to whole-ass fucking lie now even though it's not in the transcript, there's video evidence of Schiff saying it and of Schiff himself admitted during the hearing that he made it up. Alright, good to know that's how dishonest we're willing to be about this now.

That had to be such an uncomfortable interview after that for Stephanopoulos. I mean, where do you go from there? And it's not like Stephanopoulos is a MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter himself.

It's probably a sign of me being too optimistic for this timeline, but I still can't believe there hasn't been more in the media about this one.
 
d3ffbdb78f7a310155ab70c2b7b5dcfd.png

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6aDLhPcf8Ms
Pelosi: Those were the President's own words.
Reporter: They weren't his words, though. [Schiff] made them up.
Pelosi: He did not make them up. They were his words.

Oh so we're just going to whole-ass fucking lie now even though it's not in the transcript, there's video evidence of Schiff saying it and of Schiff himself admitted during the hearing that he made it up. Alright, good to know that's how dishonest we're willing to be about this now.
Just impeach already. Draft the fucking articles and put it to vote. DO IT FAGGOT!
 
And you're a very optimistic person. Not realistic, but hey.
I mean if you can't point out any examples your talking out of your ass.

Ver archivo adjunto 958900

And he returned the unemployment rate back to what it was at the start of Obama's presidency. Why does Obama come up so much? It's of course deflection and whataboutism to you, it's certainly not because he was the last fucking president before Trump.
It's whataboutism to me because the comparison your making is that we went from shit to mediocre and you expect me to overlook it or even praise it.

Holy fuck, you actually think that PEOPLE not paying their taxes is the problem here and not Corporations who before 2017 didn't pay their actual taxes.



Emphasis mine. (https://www.wired.com/story/why-taxing-the-rich-may-not-sav
I don't know if you're just exceptional or being deliberatly obtuse. The estate tax exemption only applies to estates worth 5.8 million. So everyone else who wants to be pass on their shit to someone else has to pay and they don't. Why?


Maybe because he's the last president before Trump like I said already? Would you prefer I compare Trump to Warren G. Harding so I don't hurt your feelings anymore? All presidents are compared to the one before them, that's never not been the case. Why all the sudden aren't we allowed to do that?
Because both of their actions were fucking shit you absolute fucking re-tard. Just because one person was slightly less shit doesn't mean it wasn't shit.
Cute that you're ignoring the facts I've given you. TRUMP DIDN'T KILL A CITIZEN OF HIS OWN COUNTRY WITH A DRONE STRIKE. Do you even understand what that means? And real talk, I could give a fuck less if he's droning ISIS and Terrorists.
I ignored that fact because it was a non-sequitur. I didn't even mentioned or even remotely talked about trump killing his own citizens. I mainly was referring to the amount of money wasted and unnecessary budget increase. But even so, do you want me to praise something that should be an expectation? You want me to give your dear leader a gold star? Congratulations, he's still wasting a shit ton of money over in the middle east.

Hmm maybe because those people are just shuffled around throughout each presidency no matter who's there. That was happening way before Trump, so being a bit disingenuous there sparky.
Yes, he didn't campaign on draining the swap and presidents don't have the power to hire or fire anyone in his cabinet that he likes. Fucking idiot.


What's really the best in this is you're blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement when most of those jobs were being outsourced to places like China and India past a certain point which are, as you might know, not in North America. You want to be mad about NAFTA this long after, go yell at Clinton cause it's his baby. I was alive for NAFTA and I'm from the rust belt, so let me tell you something:

No one has talked about NAFTA in years mate. The people who actually did these jobs you're whining about don't care about it anymore, because they damn well know most companies aren't moving to fucking Mexico mostly.
My point is he didn't do a good job with stop outsourcing locally. How the hell can he stop outsourcing abroad? Boomers like you need to be hit with a rubber chicken.

Yet when I point out that things are better now than they were under the last president you get really cranky. And if you think Trump has acted out aanywhere near the amount his opponents (public and government) have, you're flat delusional. I've been around for a few presidencies by now, and I've never seen this amount of constant insanity before. It's been 4 years of flat out lies and Obama legalized propaganda from the media and their SM drones, yet that's Trump's fault? This shit started before he was even sworn in for God's sake.
Stupid fucking boomer. I'm mad that he keeps continuing the shit practices. That's why I hate it when someone says, "well obamur did it too!". I don't care who's doing it. I want it to scale back.
They wanted to impeach him before it was even possible for him to have done something impeachable, and you're yelling about Trump being a meanie to people who've actively worked against the American people for almost 4 years now.
I said hes polices were shit and he's unpresidential. I've said nothing about him being impeached or anything. Having trouble getting your shit together old man?
 
Only feel like there's a couple of these with anything to address, so forgive the snipping for brevity...



I suppose that's your prerogative. I don't see why the government should get to tax death.



Except despite theoretically having a blank check in congress, in practice he didn't - he had to fight his own party numerous times to get anything done, and he didn't always win.

My use of the phrase "left, right and center" there was deliberate.



Not as bad as it was, and we lost a lot of the really exceptional stuff, like some of the TTP's proposed changes to IP law. To say nothing of having to integrate economies like Brunei, New Zealand, Peru or Vietnam with economies like Japan, Mexico, and the United States.

For comparison, if I remember the figure correctly, we represented something like 2/3rds of the economic might in the TPP. Japan was second, at like... 15%?. Everyone else was lower than that. Many of them signifigantly lower than that. Very tightly integrated economic trade pacts with such diverse economies have a history of sucking all the balls.



Eh. It's occasionally embarrassing and/or frustrating, but unacceptable? Nah, it's not that big a deal for me... Particularly when even at his most crass and tactless, I generally find myself agreeing with the sentiment expressed.
Agree to disagree?
 
Pointing out policies and practices that I disagree with are MSM talking points? Haven't read this yet but I'm willing to bet you're either gonna deflect on "Democrats bad" or gonna make an appeal to "logic" despite showing not having to have read or seen a single piece of legislation that I disagreed with.
Stop being a presumptuous twat.

I showed you the exact legislation that required that they did and all you did was said "Nuh-uh". Exactly which provisions of that legislation was useless, and if it was so useless why did Broadband companies go hard on trying to lobby to get it removed along with Net Neutrality?
You showed me a Wikipedia article, which already isn't exactly the best source on these kinds of topics.

Tell me, when was the last time Google asked anyone before collecting their data and selling it?

I never said that the poor people didn't get tax cuts you ape. Why tax people who make $250,000 10% and people who make make $50,000 15%? Why not vice versa?
You were saying that the tax cuts only benefitted the rich, which certainly implied that only the rich people got tax cuts, while the poor more or less got the same thing as before. That in effect, poor people actually didn't get tax cuts.

And show me where in your sources does it say anything like "tax people who make $250,000 10% and people who make make $50,000 15%"?

Socialistic fervor? It's essentially a property tax that they're allowed to not to pay because...........why? I'm not sure why you're so eager to defend this. If your replies are as sorry as you are in real life you'll never own property of that value.
So you have no explanation how eliminating the estates tax actually harms the American public, and have to resort to these shitty insults. Got it.

Well I don't give a fuck how you see it. When it comes to the actual numbers of cost effectiveness the program cost way too much for something that does that causes way too much unnecessary damage. Half the people being blow up aren't even direct threats to America so why should we continue spending this much money and effort?
"Cost way too much"? A few billion dollars for some drones is pocket change compared to the hundreds of billions the US has allowed for its military budget. As for "unnecessary damage", you might have a point, if there was anything of value or worth preserving in the shitholes of Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. There will be collateral damage from any military action anyway.

I'd also think that mostly anti-Western Islamic terrorists are direct threats to America.

Then again, this "Drones Warfare Team" is backed by George Soros's Open Society Foundation, so I take what they say with a grain of salt on principle.

I agree on everything you said except for it being a fact of life (and somewhat about antagonizing the Saudis. Fuck em). It doesn't have to be. We have the technological means and capabilities of doing it.
But acting on those means and capabilities takes time, and in the meantime, we have to use oil from anywhere we can get, both at home and abroad.

He's not like the trade policies he helped foster and created is still in place or nothing. They left when he did as well.
So what?

So what does that article prove against my point in particular?

Why don't you move to Europe since you like ineffective leaders who love to talk in platitudes. Being presidential means not getting into twitter spats and blocking people because they say mean things about you. Being presidential is speaking and acting like you're a leader of a nation not making idle threats to our enemies (again) over twitter while proving you just like to talk shit.
Maybe you should stop looking at Trump's Twitter shitposts and start looking at what he's actually done, before you run your mouth about how he's "ineffective" or "loves to talk in platitudes".

And given that your definition of "presidential" is exactly the kind of "muh decorum" shit I was expecting, I'm just going to tell you that style over substance is a logical fallacy, and one that applies to all "muh unpresidential" arguments.

lol ok Diet Ben Shapiro. You can disagree on the personal reasons on why I don't like trump all day thats fine. It's subjective. But if you can't point out any effective piece of legislation or sort of objective data to back up why you think your dear leader is so great then all your talking out ass. But that isn't surprising from the typical A&H poster.
And here I was thinking that you wanted to be less condescending than Cosmos. Clearly, I was wrong.
 
Última edición:
You showed me a Wikipedia article, which already isn't exactly the best source on these kinds of topics.
I'm a lazy faggot. I should've taken the source directly.
Tell me, when was the last time Google asked anyone before collecting their data and selling it?
Literally anytime prior to 2016.
You were saying that the tax cuts only benefitted the rich, which certainly implied that only the rich people got tax cuts, while the poor more or less got the same thing as before. That in effect, poor people actually didn't get tax cuts.
No you're misunderstanding. The upperclass got more tax breaks than the lower class should've.
And show me where in your sources does it say anything like "tax people who make $250,000 10% and people who make make $50,000 15%"?
I already sourced it like 3 times. I will edit when I find it again.
So you have no explanation how eliminating the estates tax actually harms the American public, and have to resort to these shitty insults. Got it.
I feel like your deliberately missing the point thats why I insulted you. I'm sorry your weren't pretending to be retarded. The estate tax excemption only benefits people with property over 5.8 milllion. Not any one else. Why are the only people with those property values allowed to have those kickbacks?

"Cost way too much"? A few billion dollars for some drones is pocket change compared to the hundreds of billions the US has allowed for its military budget.
If you say so. I want save that money or do something else with it.
As for "unnecessary damage", you might have a point, if there was anything of value or worth preserving in the shitholes of Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. There will be collateral damage from any military action anyway.
"Donnie this isn't Vietnam there are rules." On top of that I just don't want to be in debt to those countries anymore for killing their civilians.
I'd also think that mostly anti-Western Islamic terrorists are direct threats to America.
If they planned any terriorist attacks that are a threat to the US, allies, or citizens abroad, yes. If they just wanna bomb some random mosque because they belonged to the wrong sect of the religion I don't care. They tend to do the latter a lot more than the former.
Then again, this "Drones Warfare Team" is backed by George Soros's Open Society Foundation, so I take what they say with a grain of salt on principle.
Sure.
But acting on those means and capabilities takes time, and in the meantime, we have to use oil from anywhere we can get, both at home and abroad.
Sure but fuck the Sauds.
The what is that the polices he put in place are still there.
So what does that article prove against my point in particular?
It proves that the parts that were re-negotiated under the new USMCA deal were vital and not trash.
Maybe you should stop looking at Trump's Twitter shitposts and start looking at what he's actually done, before you run your mouth about how he's "ineffective" or "love to talk in platitudes".
1570209729815.png

If your gonna bitch about sources you better damn well give me a good one.
And given that your definition of "presidential" is exactly the kind of "muh decorum" shit I was expecting, I'm just going to tell you that style over substance is a logical fallacy, and one that applies to all "muh unpresidential" arguments.
What's your argument though? You also did a logical fallacy too by the way.
And here I was thinking that you wanted to be less condescending than Cosmos. Clearly, I was wrong.
Because you didn't present any piece of real legislation, you didn't argue anything with any prove and demanded proof from others all the damn time, your sources are shit and now your claiming you have "facts and lawwwwgic" on your side like Sargon of Akkad commenter. You think I'm not gonna make fun of you?
 
I suppose. You've yet to call me a nazi bootlicker, so you're a step above your political compatriots in this thread.
If its any consolation, I've never understood the whole Nazi shit. I just think trump is at best decent and has some polices I disagree with.
You have made a very long post replying to a very long post while itemizing your refutations of particular points in that very long post, but you have done this without itemizing the particular pertinent quote you refute above said refutation.

You have recklessly chosen instead to just place the entire quote at the beginning.

The reader is left with no choice but to constantly go back from your reply to scrutinize the entire quote to ascertain which thing you are discussing. Then they have to take the time to find where they left off in your inane babbling to do that.

I am most displeased at the structure of your post, an affront to people with eyeballs everywhere. That is saying nothing of the substance therein, which is also worthy of mockery that others have already put forth or likely will in my stead.

I demand you exercise greater discretion in future posts you make while assblasted, lest you suffer further, the fateful wrath of my autism.
I don't understand what your saying so Im gonna take it as insult. fuck ur mum
 
Ver archivo adjunto 958758

Ver archivo adjunto 958759


There's video.



Trump has found the third rail of leftist establishment politics. They've been making billions selling influence via their family members.

Explains her delay to commit to the impeachment rhetoric.


The Ukraine is Hostile now?

They have secret plans to take over the world.

02hj6wyaqad11.jpg


Now that I think about it, Pelosi did hop on the impeachment train rather quickly.
I felt she was oddly on the fence until recently.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo