Trump 2020: Impeachment hearing live.

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
I think this may apply to you as well, @steviebruno

Revelation: 3:16.

So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
Joe, we've already established that you don't actually "think" anything.

Why do you keep trying to attack me? Do you feel a personal affront when Donald Trump is attacked, Joe? Are you his personal avenger?

Will this be your strategy when the witnesses testify publicly? Will you personally attack them, as well? And is all this not just a ploy to keep from honestly discussing Trump's impending impeachment?
 
Last edited:

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
He ADMITTED to running a shadow foreign policy carried out by his own civilian lackeys where he took duly appropriated taxpayer funds, and secretly withheld them so that he could extort a foreign government into interfering with (against their will) and corrupting the US election, in order to advance his personal political interests rather than the national interests that people (hilariously) elected him to serve.

And he gets a total pass from you.

And not only that, the Democrats are actually the corrupt assholes, for carrying out their Constitutional duty. They would have been in violation of their oaths if they hadn't moved to impeach him for this, you idiot cultist asshole.

Fuuuuuuuuck, you're a hypocrite cunt. What the hell happened to you? You used to be a smart guy, but over the last decade you have devolved into just another brainwashed hypocrite moron cultist. SAD!

:hat
You actually have to be dumb as hell to think that getting impeached for being a corrupt asshole is a good reelection strategy. This, of course, means that a fairly good percentage of our very own posters are dumb as hell.
 
Reactions: Bachafach

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
Joe, we've already established that you don't actually "think" anything.

Why do you keep trying to attack me? Do you feel a personal affront when Donald Trump is attacked, Joe? Are you his personal avenger?

Will this be your strategy when the witnesses testify publicly? Will you personally attack them, as well? And is all this not just a ploy to keep from honestly discussing Trump's impending impeachment?
We? What do you think, Steve, and how did you come to any conclusions that you have? Is it possible they given to you via sources you read or heard? Or are you an expert in the legalities pertaining to the subject at hand?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
We? What do you think, Steve, and how did you come to any conclusions that you have? Is it possible they given to you via sources you read or heard? Or are you an expert in the legalities pertaining to the subject at hand?
Outside looking in, Joe, it seems that you had lifted your entire argument about rules for a criminal case from a conspiracy site defending Donald Trump and got called on it. Just sayin'.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
35,281
12,418
Outside looking in, Joe, it seems that you had lifted your entire argument about rules for a criminal case from a conspiracy site defending Donald Trump and got called on it. Just sayin'.
Surely not....?

In unrelated news, here's today's third-from-top story on one of Joe's true news sources, The American Thinker:


The Democrats’ Nomination is Hillary's to Lose
By Bill Schanefelt

Be afraid, be very afraid. Barring some serious event in her life, Hillary Clinton likely will be nominated for President of the United States by the Democrat party in mid-July next year.



Real news! That's how real journalists write!

:hat
 
Last edited:
Reactions: steviebruno

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
35,281
12,418
So this is the actual progression of the Republican defence of Trump's corruption.

  • The July 25 call was perfect.
  • The president was kidding when, on the White House driveway, he invited interference of foreign powers.
  • Well, there was no quid pro quo.
  • There may have been a quid pro quo — but the good type. There’s no corrupt intent.
  • The process stinks; release the transcripts.
  • We aren’t reading the transcripts so I don’t know anything about a corrupt quid pro quo.
  • We cannot tell you whether soliciting a foreign government’s help in winning an election is wrong.
And people are still shilling for this, and still desperately trying to pretend that the Democrats are the real threat to the Republic, for activating the Constitutional remedy against exactly this type of banana-republic corruption and self-dealing. All in service of mindless devotion to a spoiled, vile, ignorant halfwit. At this point, it is flat out frightening.

:hat
 
Reactions: kf3 and Beefcake

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
So this is the actual progression of the Republican defence of Trump's corruption.

  • The July 25 call was perfect.
  • The president was kidding when, on the White House driveway, he invited interference of foreign powers.
  • Well, there was no quid pro quo.
  • There may have been a quid pro quo — but the good type. There’s no corrupt intent.
  • The process stinks; release the transcripts.
  • We aren’t reading the transcripts so I don’t know anything about a corrupt quid pro quo.
  • We cannot tell you whether soliciting a foreign government’s help in winning an election is wrong.
And people are still shilling for this, and still desperately trying to pretend that the Democrats are the real threat to the Republic, for activating the Constitutional remedy against exactly this type of banana-republic corruption and self-dealing. All in service of mindless devotion to a spoiled, vile, ignorant halfwit. At this point, it is flat out frightening.

:hat
You missed the last one: 6th Amendment.
 

Johnstown

Dominant Poster
Jun 4, 2013
16,590
2,007
He ADMITTED to running a shadow foreign policy carried out by his own civilian lackeys where he took duly appropriated taxpayer funds, and secretly withheld them so that he could extort a foreign government into interfering with (against their will) and corrupting the US election, in order to advance his personal political interests rather than the national interests that people (hilariously) elected him to serve.

And he gets a total pass from you.

And not only that, the Democrats are actually the corrupt assholes, for carrying out their Constitutional duty. They would have been in violation of their oaths if they hadn't moved to impeach him for this, you idiot cultist asshole.

Fuuuuuuuuck, you're a hypocrite cunt. What the hell happened to you? You used to be a smart guy, but over the last decade you have devolved into just another brainwashed hypocrite moron cultist. SAD!

:hat
I actually find Major to be fascinating...

He clearly still exhibits many of the hallmarks of intelligence. Someone like Joe basically just regurgitates right wing talking points. When he tries to apply anything more substantive than slogans he often quotes material that actually makes the exact opposite point that he is ostensibly holding.


Unfortunately Major does still gather much of his material from many of the same conspiracy sources as Joe. Yet he seems to have the ability to discern what he is reading somewhat....he will even not use the more absurd or "fake" material (unfortunately that never seems to inform him that maybe he should be more discriminating in using these sources in the first place...also he has a weak point for the absurd stuff that relates to homosexuality and transgender matters [like his stupid Michelle Obama is a man shit]).

But back to a strength...
He is capable of synthesizing information from multiple sources (usually crap sources...but still) and apply the material in new and novel ways even creating his own analysis. Which in a sense is one example of "thinking in action".

The guy clearly has some measure of brain power. In fact he manages to use that brain power to perform impressive feats of mental gymnastics (back to some negatives now).

He does that unfortunately to avoid the obvious conclusions that basic logic will draw. So he will post a diatribe about how the impeachment process is not a criminal investigation...but will then jump over the next obvious conclusion that Republican critiques about legality are absurd...and will instead go into some bizarre whataboutism about Bill Clinton's impeachment (for example).

So in a sense he uses his intelligence to wilfully make himself stupider.


He does this with remarkable frequency....
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2015
9,779
9,927
... I have a theory that if the Antichrist came tomorrow and declared himself either Democrat or Republican, he'd immediately have the support of half the American people.

Prove it wrong. Prove that you aren't as dumb as I think you are.
Already happened, stevie.

 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
Outside looking in, Joe, it seems that you had lifted your entire argument about rules for a criminal case from a conspiracy site defending Donald Trump and got called on it. Just sayin'.
Where do you lift your opinions from, Steve?
 

steviebruno

CHB NYC Delegate
Jun 5, 2013
13,872
4,213
New York City
Where do you lift your opinions from, Steve?
My opinion comes from the original complaint, the President's admission, the lies, retractions, and stalling from the White House, and leaked tesitmonies of those who have already testified (including Sondland, who perjured himself the first time around).

What is your actual argument, Joe?

Because you have spent the past couple of weeks piggybacking every single talking point that the GOP comes out with. It's like clockwork with you, to the point that I can spend 5 minutes watching Fox News and already know what the hell you're going to say before you do.

So it came as no surprise to me when you sat there and tried to articulate how the President was being denied his 6th Amendment right, as that just happens to be this week's talking point.

It came as no surprise when you argued that the impeachment inquiry needed to be voted on before the President cooperated... and no surprise that he continues to obstruct even after the vote has taken place, while you suddenly no longer care about the vote.
 
Reactions: Haggis

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,063
My opinion comes from the original complaint, the President's admission, the lies, retractions, and stalling from the White House, and leaked tesitmonies of those who have already testified (including Sondland, who perjured himself the first time around).

What is your actual argument, Joe?

Because you have spent the past couple of weeks piggybacking every single talking point that the GOP comes out with. It's like clockwork with you, to the point that I can spend 5 minutes watching Fox News and already know what the hell you're going to say before you do.

So it came as no surprise to me when you sat there and tried to articulate how the President was being denied his 6th Amendment right, as that just happens to be this week's talking point.

It came as no surprise when you argued that the impeachment inquiry needed to be voted on before the President cooperated... and no surprise that he continues to obstruct even after the vote has taken place, while you suddenly no longer care about the vote.

Care to explain how Alexander Vindman and Bill Taylor are also part of the conspiracy?
Sources, Steve. What are they?