Topic: 1st day of impeachment hearings
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #93,623
Trump-1
Liberalcrats-0
Liberalcrats-0
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #1,059,715
Bert, you are a socialist welfare cheat. Why would you like Trump?
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 24 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,716
Why do you root against your best interests, Bert?
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,718
I don't think anything has changed as a result, in terms of public opinion. The republicans spent the entire time parroting the same tired, bullshit conspiracies and deflection tactics that their base eats up, instead of addressing the actual issues at hand. The only people left at this point who still support Trump are the braindead retards who will always believe everything the republicans tell them without ever giving it a second thought.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,721
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
The only people left at this point who support democraps are the braindead retards who will always believe everything the democraps tell them without ever giving it a second thought.
The only people left at this point who support democraps are the braindead retards who will always believe everything the democraps tell them without ever giving it a second thought.
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 13 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,722
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,735
@previous (B)
Yeah, though in all honesty "braindead retard" may have been a bit overboard and I wish to apologize for that. I mean, it's accurate, but we shouldn't be demonizing people like Bert. It isn't Bert's fault that he is mentally deficient. He's a victim first and foremost, taken advantage of by those whose continuing power and influence relies on exploiting people like him.
Yeah, though in all honesty "braindead retard" may have been a bit overboard and I wish to apologize for that. I mean, it's accurate, but we shouldn't be demonizing people like Bert. It isn't Bert's fault that he is mentally deficient. He's a victim first and foremost, taken advantage of by those whose continuing power and influence relies on exploiting people like him.
beckeyderp !3NeoVaGFAg joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,737
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,761
What a fucking joke. The only people left at this point who still support this impeachment crap are the braindead retards who will always believe everything CNN & the democrats tell them without ever giving it a second thought.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,805
I'm eager to see if Jim Jordan can keep that manic, unhinged energy going day after day.
I think the highlight for me was Mark Meadows going full Giuliani during a recess interview with the press and talking about how everybody has their own definition of what truth is. You know someone is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses when they begin to sound like a freshman philosophy major on mushrooms.
I think the highlight for me was Mark Meadows going full Giuliani during a recess interview with the press and talking about how everybody has their own definition of what truth is. You know someone is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses when they begin to sound like a freshman philosophy major on mushrooms.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,811
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
RussiaGate 2: Ukrainian boogaloo will gift Trump 2020, and Republicans 2024 and 2028
It's grate.
RussiaGate 2: Ukrainian boogaloo will gift Trump 2020, and Republicans 2024 and 2028
It's grate.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,814
@previous (I)
> It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
I legit laughed at this. Indeed, it is.
> It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
I legit laughed at this. Indeed, it is.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,826
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,865
@previous (I)
Sowell used to be a regularly featured columnist in my local paper for years..
Havent read the paper per for awhile tho..
Sowell used to be a regularly featured columnist in my local paper for years..
Havent read the paper per for awhile tho..
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,871
@1,059,826 (I)
And I found it funny because it applies to you. The President quite obviously did something wrong, but you're too emotionally invested in him to acknowledge that.
And I found it funny because it applies to you. The President quite obviously did something wrong, but you're too emotionally invested in him to acknowledge that.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,872
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
When you are arguing with someone whose ideology commits him to the belief that only people in cities eat food, and that the sixth amendment applies to impeachment proceedings, you really can't do anything other than just kinda look at them funny until they finish their ravings and go away.
When you are arguing with someone whose ideology commits him to the belief that only people in cities eat food, and that the sixth amendment applies to impeachment proceedings, you really can't do anything other than just kinda look at them funny until they finish their ravings and go away.
Liberalcrats (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,873
We are the ones who give politians a bad name and we are trying to act like it's the Republicans are the ones who do that...but it isn't working because Trump isn't a politician..
WHOOPS..
WHOOPS..
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,875
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,881
@previous (L)
No...not in the sense of it being a career...where service to the country deviates to a of the country being ruled over by a committee of nuts..
No...not in the sense of it being a career...where service to the country deviates to a of the country being ruled over by a committee of nuts..
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,882
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,919
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,921
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,922
Republicans: this is secondhand hearsay. Only firsthand witnesses are reliable.
Democrats: OK, we have a bunch of firsthand eyewitnesses that we will call to testify.
Republicans: No! They must be blocked!
Democrats: OK, we have a bunch of firsthand eyewitnesses that we will call to testify.
Republicans: No! They must be blocked!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,927
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,939
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,941
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why aren't they eager to be jump into the proceedings of a Kangaroo court?
I suppose wisdom may play a significant role..
Why aren't they eager to be jump into the proceedings of a Kangaroo court?
I suppose wisdom may play a significant role..
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,944
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,947
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,951
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,956
@1,059,941 (A)
Both of them have been subpoenaed by the United States House of Representatives. Do you support them violating the law by refusing to appear?
Both of them have been subpoenaed by the United States House of Representatives. Do you support them violating the law by refusing to appear?
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,957
@1,059,922 (L)
> Republicans: this is secondhand hearsay. Only firsthand witnesses are reliable.
>
> Democrats: OK, we have a bunch of firsthand eyewitnesses that we will call to testify.
>
> Republicans: No! They must be blocked!
Are we watching the same hearing?
Jim Jordan:
"There is one witness who they won't bring in front of us... that's the guy who started it all: the whistleblower."
"Out of 435 members of congress, only one person gets to know who that is."
"Only chairmanship knows who the whistleblower is, we don't."
"We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth."
"More importantly, the American people won't get that chance."
Sounds like they very much want to call this key witness, but nobody is even allowed to mention his name.
> Republicans: this is secondhand hearsay. Only firsthand witnesses are reliable.
>
> Democrats: OK, we have a bunch of firsthand eyewitnesses that we will call to testify.
>
> Republicans: No! They must be blocked!
Are we watching the same hearing?
Jim Jordan:
"There is one witness who they won't bring in front of us... that's the guy who started it all: the whistleblower."
"Out of 435 members of congress, only one person gets to know who that is."
"Only chairmanship knows who the whistleblower is, we don't."
"We will never get the chance to see the whistleblower raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth."
"More importantly, the American people won't get that chance."
Sounds like they very much want to call this key witness, but nobody is even allowed to mention his name.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,959
@previous (G)
This is so weird to me because for like the first month of the inquiry Republicans were insistent that this whistleblower knew nothing and it was all hearsay because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge. Now democrats not calling him to testify means they are stifling people with firsthand knowledge from testifying? Can we please stick to talking points in a way that makes sense? Thanks.
This is so weird to me because for like the first month of the inquiry Republicans were insistent that this whistleblower knew nothing and it was all hearsay because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge. Now democrats not calling him to testify means they are stifling people with firsthand knowledge from testifying? Can we please stick to talking points in a way that makes sense? Thanks.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,962
To try and oust The President of the USA on testimony from a secret witness is a JOKE..
It's a retarded circus..
It's a retarded circus..
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,964
@previous (A)
The whistleblower testimony was the basis for beginning the impeachment. There has been dozens of hours of testimony since then, broadly corroborating it and then some. We aee so far past what the whistleblower said that focusing on him seems pretty weak as a defense.
The whistleblower testimony was the basis for beginning the impeachment. There has been dozens of hours of testimony since then, broadly corroborating it and then some. We aee so far past what the whistleblower said that focusing on him seems pretty weak as a defense.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 43 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,965
@1,059,959 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yes, it is very weird, isn't it. "We've got this guy who knows everything! Our entire case is based largely on his word! But we're not going to tell you his name, nor are we going to let him testify, because reasons."
> Republicans were insistent that this whistleblower knew nothing and it was all hearsay because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge
This is still true.
> Now democrats not calling him to testify means they are stifling people with firsthand knowledge from testifying?
Lolno, I don't think they think it means that. It means the Democrats don't want him to stand up and either perjure himself or else give the entire game away (i.e. that it's all complete nonsense from start to finish). Especially seeing as this Eric guy was also involved in the whole Russia collusion conspiracy, which turned out to be complete bullshit. Of course they don't want Republicans questioning him. It would mean their undoing.
Yes, it is very weird, isn't it. "We've got this guy who knows everything! Our entire case is based largely on his word! But we're not going to tell you his name, nor are we going to let him testify, because reasons."
> Republicans were insistent that this whistleblower knew nothing and it was all hearsay because he didn't have any firsthand knowledge
This is still true.
> Now democrats not calling him to testify means they are stifling people with firsthand knowledge from testifying?
Lolno, I don't think they think it means that. It means the Democrats don't want him to stand up and either perjure himself or else give the entire game away (i.e. that it's all complete nonsense from start to finish). Especially seeing as this Eric guy was also involved in the whole Russia collusion conspiracy, which turned out to be complete bullshit. Of course they don't want Republicans questioning him. It would mean their undoing.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,971
What a fucking joke. The only people left at this point who still support this X crap are the braindead retards who will always believe everything Y & Z tell them without ever giving it a second thought.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 47 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,059,981
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,013
@1,059,872 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That's pretty cool coming from someone who thinks they don't need farms because you buy your food from the supermarket.
I like the impeachment hearing almost as much as the kavanaguh hearing. Democrats really are making kangaroo courts a grate way to boost support for Republicans. The best part is when there are witnesses who didn't witness anything.
That's pretty cool coming from someone who thinks they don't need farms because you buy your food from the supermarket.
I like the impeachment hearing almost as much as the kavanaguh hearing. Democrats really are making kangaroo courts a grate way to boost support for Republicans. The best part is when there are witnesses who didn't witness anything.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,015
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,017
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,019
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 24 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,021
@1,059,965 (G)
> "We've got this guy who knows everything! Our entire case is based largely on his word! But we're not going to tell you his name, nor are we going to let him testify, because reasons."
If you can find any Democrat on any committee saying anything like that, I'd be surprised. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, etc. all seem to be consistently saying that the whistleblower was the impetus to begin the investigation, but at this point it isn't his word vs. the President because we also have testimony from Sondland who just flatly admits to conditioning aid on a public announcement of and investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden. Which is like...the issue at hand.
> Lolno, I don't think they think it means that. It means the Democrats don't want him to stand up and either perjure himself or else give the entire game away (i.e. that it's all complete nonsense from start to finish). Especially seeing as this Eric guy was also involved in the whole Russia collusion conspiracy, which turned out to be complete bullshit. Of course they don't want Republicans questioning him. It would mean their undoing.
Or, it means that the Dems don't want to have Republicans create a huge scene and sideshow about the whistleblower because even if he were everything Republicans say he is and then some, it doesn't change the facts of the case, which are that the President abused his office to get a foreign country to investigate his political rivals. All the wild gesticulating in the world will not change that fact, unfortunately for the R's.
@1,060,013 (I)
The difference is I don't actually believe that and never said I did. You, unfortunately, did say that!
> "We've got this guy who knows everything! Our entire case is based largely on his word! But we're not going to tell you his name, nor are we going to let him testify, because reasons."
If you can find any Democrat on any committee saying anything like that, I'd be surprised. Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, etc. all seem to be consistently saying that the whistleblower was the impetus to begin the investigation, but at this point it isn't his word vs. the President because we also have testimony from Sondland who just flatly admits to conditioning aid on a public announcement of and investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden. Which is like...the issue at hand.
> Lolno, I don't think they think it means that. It means the Democrats don't want him to stand up and either perjure himself or else give the entire game away (i.e. that it's all complete nonsense from start to finish). Especially seeing as this Eric guy was also involved in the whole Russia collusion conspiracy, which turned out to be complete bullshit. Of course they don't want Republicans questioning him. It would mean their undoing.
Or, it means that the Dems don't want to have Republicans create a huge scene and sideshow about the whistleblower because even if he were everything Republicans say he is and then some, it doesn't change the facts of the case, which are that the President abused his office to get a foreign country to investigate his political rivals. All the wild gesticulating in the world will not change that fact, unfortunately for the R's.
@1,060,013 (I)
The difference is I don't actually believe that and never said I did. You, unfortunately, did say that!
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,023
> 1st day of impeachment hearingsMore like 1,028th day of Democrat tantrums ??
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,024
@1,060,021 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I kind of admire you for still trying to argue with these guys sometimes. On the one hand, it is pretty pointless because they're coming at it from such a different angle that any agreement seems impossible. But, on the other hand, it feels went wrong to let their aggressively partisan points go completely unchallenged.
I kind of admire you for still trying to argue with these guys sometimes. On the one hand, it is pretty pointless because they're coming at it from such a different angle that any agreement seems impossible. But, on the other hand, it feels went wrong to let their aggressively partisan points go completely unchallenged.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,025
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
I mean, I don't think they'll actually convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them (especially the NZ troll because he's SO crazy) but I think pointing out when people are saying things that aren't remotely true is valuable! Plus it makes me a little bit less stressed out at work if I can take my mind off shit for like five or ten minutes.
I mean, I don't think they'll actually convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them (especially the NZ troll because he's SO crazy) but I think pointing out when people are saying things that aren't remotely true is valuable! Plus it makes me a little bit less stressed out at work if I can take my mind off shit for like five or ten minutes.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,028
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's good to poke holes in the outright falsehoods.
And hey, sometimes it can be interesting too. I was really fascinated just recently when that one guy tried to sidestep that ambassador that spoke up about this, basically by saying it wasn't valid because he didn't say it in court. Such strained reasoning makes me wonder about how his mind works.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's good to poke holes in the outright falsehoods.
And hey, sometimes it can be interesting too. I was really fascinated just recently when that one guy tried to sidestep that ambassador that spoke up about this, basically by saying it wasn't valid because he didn't say it in court. Such strained reasoning makes me wonder about how his mind works.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,030
@1,060,024 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
What it reminds me of more than anything is the atheism vs religion debates. You've read all the best apologetics, you've got the hottest cosmological arguments, and the dopest catechism... for convincing people who already agree with you.
What it reminds me of more than anything is the atheism vs religion debates. You've read all the best apologetics, you've got the hottest cosmological arguments, and the dopest catechism... for convincing people who already agree with you.
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,239
@1,060,019 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Actually it's more fun to be anonymous and not have mods profile stalking me
Actually it's more fun to be anonymous and not have mods profile stalking me
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,240
@previous (I)
You know they can add notes to your profile, so they could still stalk you if they wanted, right?
You know they can add notes to your profile, so they could still stalk you if they wanted, right?
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,243
Anonymous Q replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,244
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,246
@1,060,239 (I)
@1,060,243 (I)
All that Stalk does is create a neat little web graphic of all IPs linked to UIDs and vice versa, and nobody ever uses it anymore because the server barely handles. We just hover over the "Profile" link which shows the profile notes of that user (normally just their name). Thanks.
@1,060,243 (I)
All that Stalk does is create a neat little web graphic of all IPs linked to UIDs and vice versa, and nobody ever uses it anymore because the server barely handles. We just hover over the "Profile" link which shows the profile notes of that user (normally just their name). Thanks.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,060,247
@1,060,243 (I)
We actually just have a "stalk" feature. We never use it though. 95% of all "profile stalking" is just reading UID notes.
We actually just have a "stalk" feature. We never use it though. 95% of all "profile stalking" is just reading UID notes.