John Adams Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Rob's House said: The point, and I think you know this, is that EVEN IF everything you say is true, there is no allegation that any reasonable person believes is scandalous, much less impeachable. Maybe I've even said this is not likely impeachable? And this is likely to backfire on the Dems? 4 minutes ago, Rob's House said: The fact that countless examples of Dems doing similar and far more egregious things with no concern by those conspicuously clutching their pearls illustrates the fact that this is a manufactured "scandal" being hyped to dupe the disinterested and rally the true believers, and that no one actually cares about the substance of the allegations. What about the other guy, again. Covered in so many other threads here on PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: 3rd Chair doesn't realize that he's just one of a long line of libs who have come down here with a superiority complex thinking he's going to show us what's up. He, along with the others are nothing more than Tibs, with slightly better spelling and grammar. libs lol. Still waiting for you in the other thread to show that you didn't lie. Cute that you are ignoring it lololol It is fun catching you in lies Edited October 2, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Just now, John Adams said: Maybe I've even said this is not likely impeachable? And this is likely to backfire on the Dems? You have. From the beginning. But you've also said, from the beginning, that the attempt at extortion was clear. It isn't, and wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Womp-womp, JA Another narrative bites the dust. You know what would really surprise me? If the guy who needs US aid decided to publicly sh** on Trump. And you pride yourself on being politically knowledgeable. Are you sure journalists really picked up your posts and distributed them far and wide as their own? That really is a sad commentary on the media. Just now, Deranged Rhino said: You have. From the beginning. But you've also said, from the beginning, that the attempt at extortion was clear. Extortion is a crime and would be impeachable. Moran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: libs lol. Still waiting for you in the other thread to show that you didn't lie. Cute that you are ignoring it lololol It is fun catching you in lies You insult me but shame yourself. I'm not going to prove a negative to you. In fact, TYTT might have hit the nail right on the head when he said you just weren't worth his effort. I know you aren't worth mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, John Adams said: Maybe I've even said this is not likely impeachable? And this is likely to backfire on the Dems? [/quote] On that we agree. I just don't understand why you keep posting variations of "whataboutism" which is what people say when they want you to ignore their glaring double standards. Quote What about the other guy, again. Covered in so many other threads here on PPP. You lost me. What other guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You insult me but shame yourself. I'm not going to prove a negative to you. In fact, TYTT might have hit the nail right on the head when he said you just weren't worth his effort. I know you aren't worth mine. prove a negative? You said I said something, I said find it then. You lied and got caught. Own it for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: 500+ words. Which, in Trump's rambling style, could cover several topic changes. But details and facts are irrelevant when you've been programmed to parrot a narrative without stopping to think about it. And that's the thing. I read it, and thought "Yes, it could be a coercive threat, or a request for a quid-pro-quo. But it could also be a change of subject." For a normal person, it would be ambiguous. For Trump, who's use of the language is bowling-ball sharp at the best of times, and who's as subtle as a shark in a goldfish bowl, it's that much worse. Really, to say it in any way proves or even represents coercion is begging the question. It's only true if you interpret it through an a priori presumption of bad acts ("Trump abuses power, therefore this is an abuse of power, which proves Trump abuses power.") . Perfectly solid grounds for impeachment, sure... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 16 minutes ago, John Adams said: Extortion is a crime and would be impeachable. And now you've identified why your position is intellectually dishonest and problematic. Will your rectify it? Or continue to believe the media is your friend and their "experts" should be trusted without push back? Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 22 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Don't mock our love. Just don't expect me to bake you a wedding cake. Sybil, who is a lawyer, engineer, candlestick maker and cake decorator most likely feels differently. Try him out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Pardon my interruption, Sen. Bob Menendez calls on Mike Pompeo to ‘recuse himself from all Ukraine related-matters’ Pelosi’s Impeachment by Innuendo Continues – Ukraine Narrative is The Vehicle… Original Article 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) Edited October 2, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Just don't expect me to bake you a wedding cake. Sybil, who is a lawyer, engineer, candlestick maker and cake decorator most likely feels differently. Try him out. You'll bake my cake or I'll hire Crayola and take your shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: the fact you think that is noteworthy shows your lack of understanding of the process. It’s embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Rob's House said: You'll bake my cake or I'll hire Crayola and take your shop. I'll hire Koko and he'll promise to give 3rd Chair the 3rd chair in his next DUI case. 3rd Chair will agree to drop the case if he doesn't have to give Koko too much money. After all, money doesn't grow on trees for an adjunct professor at a community college. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No *****. Hasn't it been widely reported already that Pelosi had advanced access? How do you think they came out of the gate so strong with the prepared narrative? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: No *****. Hasn't it been widely reported already that Pelosi had advanced access? How do you think they came out of the gate so strong with the prepared narrative? I'm thinking tea leaves? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: the fact you think that is noteworthy shows your lack of understanding of the process. It’s embarrassing. Yes, who would want to read the transcript of the call before making that call the centerpiece of one's case? 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No *****. Hasn't it been widely reported already that Pelosi had advanced access? How do you think they came out of the gate so strong with the prepared narrative? Adam Schiff needed an excuse to send people to the Ukraine back in August. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Yes, who would want to read the transcript of the call before making that call the centerpiece of one's case? you don’t understand what “making that call” constitutes. Neither does DR. Hence your failure to understand why that tweet is not noteworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Crayola64 said: ... <snip> Whatever you just posted took more effort (I didn’t read it <snip> ... Thank you for making my point for me. The next time I want to argue against something, I’ll simply ask you to argue for it, and rest my case. With that said, you’re a very boring person. Please PM me when you’ve grown up a bit and want to learn something. Have a blessed day. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: you don’t understand what “making that call” constitutes. Neither does DR. Hence your failure to understand why that tweet is not noteworthy That tweet was a confirmation of what we already knew. The call is meaningless? I sorta thought the dems think it's a big deal. The centerpiece of their "case". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: That tweet was a confirmation of what we already knew. The call is meaningless? I sorta thought the dems think it's a big deal. The centerpiece of their "case". calling it credible isn’t the equivalent of weighing evidence. I don’t care what the dems think. Any emphasis that the complaint was credible is overblown. And anything, like that tweet, attacking that determination is misdirected. Both sides can be wrong you goof Edited October 2, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 JOHN SOLOMON: RECORDS SHOW THAT A DNC CONTRACTOR CAME TO THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY TO ASK FOR HELP TO GET DIRT ON TRUMP. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: calling it credible isn’t the equivalent of weighing evidence. I don’t care what the dems think. Any emphasis that the complaint was credible is overblown. And anything, like that tweet, attacking that determination is misdirected. Both sides can be wrong you goof So, attacking the credibility of an overblown complaint is wrong? If I'm ever in court again I'll be tempted to hire you...………………………..for my opponent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: So, attacking the credibility of an overblown complaint is wrong? If I'm ever in court again I'll be tempted to hire you...………………………..for my opponent. no, attacking the statutory credibility determination is wrong. So is the dems pointing to it. It’s a low-level threshold determination. you can attack the credibility of the complaint all you want. I’m talking about the statutory determination, they are two distinct things. why is that so hard for you to grasp? You look so dumb because you dont know what you’re talking about. Edited October 2, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 2, 2019 Author Share Posted October 2, 2019 Trump just said he has a lot respect for whistleblowers as long as they are real. What a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: no, attacking the statutory credibility determination is wrong. So is the dems pointing to it. It’s a low-level threshold determination. you can attack the credibility of the complaint all you want. I’m talking about the statutory determination, they are two distinct things. why is that so hard for you to grasp? You look so dumb because you dont know what you’re talking about. You are nothing but a goal post mover. The farce being perpetrated upon Trump is political in reality and in any kind of a real court would be thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: When the NYT is reporting this, Soft-Coup 2.0 is officially *****. Wonder if Schiffy recuses himself now? hahahahaha I kid, I kid. Ds don't recuse, recusals are only for Republicans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: You are nothing but a goal post mover. The farce being perpetrated upon Trump is political in reality and in any kind of a real court would be thrown out. what are you talking about. That’s exactly what the tweet was referring to. Just because you don’t understand things doesn’t mean the goal posts moved. It means you are confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump just said he has a lot respect for whistleblowers as long as they are real. What a joke Why is it a joke? You don’t really believe all whistleblowers are to be believed without question do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: what are you talking about. That’s exactly what the tweet was referring to. Just because you don’t understand things doesn’t mean the goal posts moved. It means you are confused You're so full of horseshit. Don't you have an ambulance to chase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: You're so full of horseshit. Don't you have an ambulance to chase? I deal with much bigger cases than that little one! dumb dumb dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, John Adams said: He named Biden, his #1 leading opponent, and asked for the "favor" of investigating him. How many times do you think Trump has used that move before: So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated? Edited October 2, 2019 by Gary M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Gary M said: So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated? Now about that Steele dossier... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Gary M said: So once someone becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated? And....Shouldn’t the same hold true for SCOTUS candidates? Or are we going to continue to ask them about high school parties? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Now about that Steele dossier... Come at least give him a chance to answer before throwing that out there!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, Gary M said: So once a Democrat becomes a candidate for POTUS they can't be investigated? FIFY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 hours ago, John Adams said: When did you stop beating your wife? No one asked the question for information, just to be douchey. They wanted to know if you were coming from a well informed position or a position based public or MSM opinion. So instead of answering their simple yes or no question you evaded and as an good lawyer knows evading a question typically looks bad. Sooooo good job looking bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 2, 2019 Author Share Posted October 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Now about that Steele dossier... What foreign aid was held back because of that? You guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts