Watching Shiffy, Nadler, and the Motley Crew press conference this morning
Comments
-
You sound lonely and desperate.CirrhosisDawg said:
So this is derangement? Got it.DoogieMcDoogerson said:I'll try - Someone who hates the president so bad that it becomes impossible to assess facts and truths objectively. Particularly when those facts pertain to misdeeds, corruption, and crimes done by the party they favor. A key symptom is for the TDS-infected person to deflect rather than confront questions or facts presented to them. Something you and Hondo exhibit with virtually each and every post you make here. Often TDS-infected people project the misdeeds of their democratic gods onto trump and accuse him of the same acts.
You must live a fucking miserable life if this is what floats your tiny boat. There are some smart folks here who "get it" which is why I participate. I don't understand why you even waste your time here. You're not adding anything to the conversation...you bring nothing to the table. Like I said, it must float your boat but for very different reasons than most of us here. You are a complete fucking loser.
You’ve posted before you come to the tug because it makes you feel better than most of the the news you read and watch.
Where might someone who “gets it” find this objective truth you reference?
For background, I subscribe to the WSJ, LA Times and Economist. I never watch any tv news (cable or network) and listen to kspn710 and am570 sports talk radio exclusively on the radio.
Also, you subscribe. But have you tried reading? No well read person could be as fucking stupid as you. -
Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.CirrhosisDawg said:
Why does trump’s impeachment that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?Swaye said:
If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.CirrhosisDawg said:So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?
This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution. -
FIFYDoogieMcDoogerson said:I'll try - Someone who LOVES the president so MUCH that it becomes impossible to assess facts and truths objectively. Particularly when those facts pertain to misdeeds, corruption, and crimes done by the party they favor. A key symptom is for the TDS-infected person to deflect rather than confront questions or facts presented to them. Something ME and TRUMPTARDS exhibit with virtually each and every post you make here. Often TDS-infected people project the MADE UP misdeeds of the Democrats.
You must live a fucking miserable life if this is what floats your tiny boat. There are some smart folks here who "get it" which is why I participate. I don't understand why you even waste your time here. You're not adding anything to the conversation...you bring nothing to the table. Like I said, it must float your boat but for very different reasons than most of us here. You are a complete fucking loser. -
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that. -
If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that. -
This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.CirrhosisDawg said:
Why does trump’s impeachment that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?Swaye said:
If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.CirrhosisDawg said:So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?
This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution. -
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that. -
What a crew of shitheads
-
Then stop sucking them offCirrhosisDawg said:
This post explains precisely why the federal government is an abject abomination and needs to be reduced to the federalist constricts outlined in the constitution.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Because it's another milestone of the demise of our democratic institutions when a party is willing to use impeachment simply to try and negate an election? As you said, he'll be only the third president to be impeached and the Dems still aren't even sure what they are impeaching for.CirrhosisDawg said:
Why does trump’s impeachment that supposedly guarantees “5 more years” cause such Trumptard meltdowns?Swaye said:
If this is true, why does he bother you so much then? You'd figure a guy who flexes his kids private school education (lulz) could figure this shit out.CirrhosisDawg said:So near as I can tell, Trumptard’s note “tds” as some sort of undefined opposition to trump. (It’s hard to discern because no one will define it). How would a non tds trump opposition work when 95% of his agenda is dead and he has zero political capital?
This is supposedly a site that is tangentially related to a prominent academic institution. -
I'll try to help you understand:GDS said:
Read through article 1 and don't see a single lie. Can you post the lie from article 1 for me?DoogieMcDoogerson said:If you read through the bullshit lies and opinions, yes, that is what article 1 is insinuating. Why not use the word Bribery? I mean it's right there in the constitution as something to impeach for. Why be so obtuse? Because they don't have the facts to prove it.
GDS said:
You really don't see the hallmark definition of bribery in article 1? Wow...DoogieMcDoogerson said:Some pretty rich shit in this.
Let's have a press conference. Oh wait, let's not take any questions.
No quid pro quo, no bribery in the charges. Isn't that what this was about?
Let's claim this is about defending the constitution. Your party has a great track record on that.
Literally the first sentence. Disputed? Proven?
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump
Solicited the interference of a foreign government,
Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.
Again. Proven? Intent Proven?
He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that
included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,
harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and
in?uence the 2020 United States Presidential election to
his advantage.
Opinion or Fact? Certainly not a fact. Just an opinion...
President Trump engaged in this scheme
or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit.
Discredited by whom?
a discredited theory promoted by Rus-
sia alleging that Ukraine?rather than Rus-
sia?interfered in the 2016 United States Pres-
idential election.
I could go on and on. Literally you're looking at opinion, suspicions, and no proven facts. This is why this is so partisan. There's no fucking case here.
Can't wait to see Chelsea Clinton impeached in a partisan move in 2038.
