Dems meeting tommorow on impeachment. Pelosi to have dinner with Trump in evening

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion. While this has been described as a contemporary problem, some observers have described it as a long-standing part of political life that was less notable before the advent of the Internet and related social changes.


SINCE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACTS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBATE

ApostleofGrief said:

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion. While this has been described as a contemporary problem, some observers have described it as a long-standing part of political life that was less notable before the advent of the Internet and related social changes.


SINCE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACTS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBATE

I'm more than happy to address your facts. In fact I have addressed your facts. There is no evidence that Papadopoulos conspired with any Russians for any dirt on Hillary. That is a fact that you ignore. There is no evidence that Mifsud is a Russian agent but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that he is either an FBI or CIA asset.

ApostleofGrief said:

Sledog said:

ApostleofGrief said:

Well?

It's illegal to release grand jury stuff. Illegal. Look up the definition. They've read the less redacted report. Can't read grand jury Shit. It's illegal. I repeated it several times since your skull is thick.

Sledog said:

ApostleofGrief said:

Well?

It's illegal to release grand jury stuff. Illegal. Look up the definition. They've read the less redacted report. Can't read grand jury Shit. It's illegal. I repeated it several times since your skull is thick.

You believe bullshit! The AG often will petition in court to release grand jury stuff. It's done regularly. But again, Barr refused.

The main problem with you idiotic far right dumbfucks is that you steadfastly resist to get the supporting considerations. You believe lies like "no collusion no obstruction" despite there being both because that's what you want to believe. You are consistently SELECTIVE WITH THE FACTS ... Or just lie!

The fact is there was no crimes hence no charges. If there were they would have been the result of the fruit of the poison tree and inadmissible in court. It's an investigation started by a political opponent that colluded and paid Russians for false information which was fed to the FBI,CIA etc. by actors within our government in order to derail Trumps election and impeach him if he did win.

Fuck you commies are some committed lying pieces of shit. Move to Cuba or North Korea will ya?

RaceBannon said:

ApostleofGrief said:

I've posted links to articles from bona fide news sources which negate your contentions: 1) that Hillary's dossier started the FBI investigation (NY Times link), 2) that Democrats can see the unredacted report (see Reuters, this is false). Both points #1 and #2 are just false.

McCabe said no dossier no warrant

Inconvenient fact for you right there

THE INVESTIGATIONS *****STARTED ******** BECAUSE OF A TIPOFF FROM AUSTRALIAN INTELLIGENCE. So, that's why it started. That was the first cause. That was the probable cause. So if you want to talk about why it started, it was because of a tipoff from Australian intelligence. Why did it start? Was it a dossier? No, it was because of a tipoff from Australian intelligence. No matter how many red herrings you throw out, the probable cause was again, A TIP OFF FROM AUSTRALIAN INTELLIGENCE IN 2016 BEFORE THE DOSSIER WAS AVAILABLE.

At least the Dems can now get back to passing important legislation for the country.

Or not.

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

SFGbob said:

CirrhosisDawg said:

RaceBannon said:

I heard EXONERATED

Bob barr’s Belly and I are laughing in the media room.

The "joke" was lame the first time you told it Kunt.

Go back to ass tongueing Bob Barr GayBob.

Pretty funny how you're go to slam on Barr and Trump for that matter is that they are fat. Unless you're their wives or doctors I'm not sure why you'd care, but when a photo of Nadler is posted, your fucking hero who you claimed could do anything he wanted, where the guy looks like fucking Humpty Dumpty you cry like a bitch.

And I'll remind you that Nadler has had gastric bypass surgery. He used to be an even fatter ballooned faced blow hard.

Surprised he’s not in the trump administration. He’d “fit” in well! 😂 !1!!1

Nothing says I lost better than going with a fat joke.

ApostleofGrief said:

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of facts by relegating facts and expert opinions to be of secondary importance relative to appeal to emotion. While this has been described as a contemporary problem, some observers have described it as a long-standing part of political life that was less notable before the advent of the Internet and related social changes.

SINCE YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACTS IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEBATE

Debating with an idiot isn't really debating. It's target practice.

ApostleofGrief said:

RaceBannon said:

ApostleofGrief said:

I've posted links to articles from bona fide news sources which negate your contentions: 1) that Hillary's dossier started the FBI investigation (NY Times link), 2) that Democrats can see the unredacted report (see Reuters, this is false). Both points #1 and #2 are just false.

McCabe said no dossier no warrant

Inconvenient fact for you right there

THE INVESTIGATIONS *****STARTED ******** BECAUSE OF A TIPOFF FROM AUSTRALIAN INTELLIGENCE. So, that's why it started. That was the first cause. That was the probable cause. So if you want to talk about why it started, it was because of a tipoff from Australian intelligence. Why did it start? Was it a dossier? No, it was because of a tipoff from Australian intelligence. No matter how many red herrings you throw out, the probable cause was again, A TIP OFF FROM AUSTRALIAN INTELLIGENCE IN 2016 BEFORE THE DOSSIER WAS AVAILABLE.

A tip is never probable cause you fucking idiot. They used the dossier info to get the FISA Court warrants to spy, you tripling-down moron. You're an idiot with a sub 80 IQ who needs to do us a favor and drop dead, D2.

Leave and don't come back you HRC Cocksucker.

RaceBannon said:

Trump suggested the comments, and the numerous investigations into him, prevented them from negotiating.

“You can't do it under these circumstances,” Trump said. “Get these phony investigations over with.”

The president said he wanted to pursue an infrastructure proposal, but "instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk in to look at people that have just said that I was doing a cover-up."

Trump added: "I don't do cover-ups.”


Only a Muellertard like @CirrhosisDawg thinks the best way to negotiate is to lie and smear the person you are negotiating with

Maybe it works that way in high finance in South Pasadena down El Monte way

Trump doesn’t do cover ups? Stormy Daniels true?