Jump to content

Bi-Partisan Support For Impeachment


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

And Jordan is now on Intel... 

 

The stories about his "scandal" will go to 11 now.

*************

Smattering from the transcripts: 

 

 

 

(again, the people pushing this are DEEP swamp rats who work for think tanks who's entire purpose is to justify military intervention for the benefit of the MiC/USIC's bottom lines more than the good of the country... take Trump out of the equation -- are these REALLY the people you want to be siding with lefties? As a former one of you, I know most of you used to HATE the regime change agenda... but because ORANGE MAN BAD you're now going to forget about the death and destruction these folks spent decades promoting? Be smarter than that.)

 

 

 

Jordan is the guy who witnessed years of sexual abuse of students at OS and said nothing. He is a perfect pick for Trump there. Sickening! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Why are you so dishonest? 


LOL. Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

57 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So it's ok to withhold foreign aid in order to get foreign help in his election campaign? 


So it’s OK to withhold foreign aid so that your son’s company won’t be investigated for corruption?

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc said:


LOL. Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

 

 

Which is demonstrated Doc, 

by gator’s refusal to change his false thread title. 

 

There is is no bipartisan support in congress 

 

 

I guess he’s “spreading a lie “  ?

 

 

ANALYSIS: TRUE. 

 

The Democrats have decided not so much that Trump committed a crime as that he is a crime; his very existence is criminal.

 

This is also pretty much true of anyone who voted for him.

 

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the issue:

 

For all of time information was “owned” by a small group of people and could use that platform to disseminate whatever they wanted to in an effort to control the masses. That’s changed and information is now more or less available to everyone who wants to consume it. Now, there’s a lot of bad information as well, but generally average people can piece together what’s going on with a little time and effort.  This is not really a revolutionary concept. 
 

The issue is that it’s exposing those legacy control groups. Government establishments, corporations endorsed by said governments, and obviously the media.
 

So while this is going on there becomes three factions of people: 1) the apathetic, 2) those that cannot fathom that their worldview is suddenly changed and refuse to acknowledge it’s happening, and 3) those that are appreciative of the change and become more discerning in what they do and do not believe. 
 

The problem with the second group is that they will always be a group of useful idiots for the legacy establishment. The benefit for third group is that suddenly there’s much more liberty in knowing you’re not beholden to one side or party because you can discern information on your own. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dubs said:

Here’s the issue:

 

For all of time information was “owned” by a small group of people and could use that platform to disseminate whatever they wanted to in an effort to control the masses. That’s changed and information is now more or less available to everyone who wants to consume it. Now, there’s a lot of bad information as well, but generally average people can piece together what’s going on with a little time and effort.  This is not really a revolutionary concept. 
 

The issue is that it’s exposing those legacy control groups. Government establishments, corporations endorsed by said governments, and obviously the media.
 

So while this is going on there becomes three factions of people: 1) the apathetic, 2) those that cannot fathom that their worldview is suddenly changed and refuse to acknowledge it’s happening, and 3) those that are appreciative of the change and become more discerning in what they do and do not believe. 
 

The problem with the second group is that they will always be a group of useful idiots for the legacy establishment. The benefit for third group is that suddenly there’s much more liberty in knowing you’re not beholden to one side or party because you can discern information on your own. 

Image result for shia clapping gif

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, dubs said:

Here’s the issue:

 

For all of time information was “owned” by a small group of people and could use that platform to disseminate whatever they wanted to in an effort to control the masses. That’s changed and information is now more or less available to everyone who wants to consume it. Now, there’s a lot of bad information as well, but generally average people can piece together what’s going on with a little time and effort.  This is not really a revolutionary concept. 
 

The issue is that it’s exposing those legacy control groups. Government establishments, corporations endorsed by said governments, and obviously the media.
 

So while this is going on there becomes three factions of people: 1) the apathetic, 2) those that cannot fathom that their worldview is suddenly changed and refuse to acknowledge it’s happening, and 3) those that are appreciative of the change and become more discerning in what they do and do not believe. 
 

The problem with the second group is that they will always be a group of useful idiots for the legacy establishment. The benefit for third group is that suddenly there’s much more liberty in knowing you’re not beholden to one side or party because you can discern information on your own. 

 

The cave dwellers in Plato's allegory are surmised to be likely to kill the guy who got free, went to see sunlight and shadows and reflections, and came back to tell them about it.  So in your post, people in groups (1) and (2) would likely be disposed to kill people in group (3)  :beer:.    https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf

 

There are a lot of (1)'s and (2)'s on either side of politics and social Justice.  It kind of goes along with the trend these days of D's calling R's "cultists", and at the same time R's calling D's "cultists".  Too many people on each side have a strict orthodoxy to protect, and unless one orthodoxy or another gets totally discredited, there will be no peace between the two poles.  And even then, whatever legit side there is will likely be smacked by the discredited side for being right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...knowing that ALL you deal in is "facts", PPP unanimously  takes this as "gospel"......

Do you think Trump University was a fraudulent business? That's a fact none of you Trump supporters will even discuss 

3 minutes ago, Pilsner said:

Jordan the guy who let students get sexually assaulted and said nothing. You admit that's really scummy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...