███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[badbabysitter]

Actually, no.

What I equate from the source I linked to is that SOMEONE did the work at some point and published a list. Where's your source for the things YOU claim?

I never claimed a damned thing when it came to the list, once again you're judging me for a position I never took. Also the list is derived from aother list derived from an opinion. An opinion isnt hard work


I dont need proof for the things I have not claimed. But you do need proof for the the things you claim

Meanwhile you started with "I don't click links" and that I "need to write a longer post" if I want to discuss what you deem to be "ancient history". From there you progressed to "it's clickbait" yet seem to suddenly know who's on the list.

It's clickbait because its clickbait. Others already explained its an uconfirmed list taken from another unconfirmed list taken from an opinion piece.

I also never said I dont click links, you are once again judging me for a position I never took

And then you equate a disagreement with a particular person to full abandonment and disavowal of a political party.

I also never said that, wow, you are really on a roll here. I was pointing out your list was unconfirmed and full of holes and how deemed kelly Clarkson was a Republican simply because she was on the list.. which is full of holes

It's just so disingenuous and full of deflection, misdirection, and lies, there's no fucking way to keep it all straight. Which is your point as you crow and crow over your empty headed BS.

How am I being disingenious, you have continued to make accusations about me doing things I never did. All the whilst completely ignoring what I keep asking and not confirming your own freaking claims

It's not my job to support your claims

It's amazing that you aren't bruised from all the congratulatory pats on the back you've given to yourself.

It'amazing you can be such an intellectual fraud and still play victim over it

 

[RoryN]

bullshit with the intent to subvert an election

https://i.imgur.com/3TZaksB.jpg

 

[CandiCame]

Start over, Candi.

Here's why I asked: I know a lot about music trivia, though not so much about Elvis.

I DO know a bit about Elvis and Priscilla, solely because I grew up in the same neighborhood with the actress who played Priscilla opposite Kurt Russell in the trash biopic Elvis and Me. SHE had to meet with all these Elvis groupies and insiders and hanger-ons to prep for the role and shared a shit-ton of stories.

So to be clear: I'm not pulling your chain, accusing Elvis of being a pterodactyl or making fun of the fat Elvis jumpsuit in the back corner of your closet.

I can't do fat Elvis but my dad can. Not just visually but his voice actually changed once he had more weight on his diaphragm; that makes your voice change and I can't do older Elvis as well as young Elvis. Probably couldn't do young Elvis now either, but I used to kill it. I don't know why this is, but fat people sing better. My vocal coaches always said it was something to do with how the diaphragm works and how specific weight distribution affects it, but it always sounded like bullshit and I never looked it up- but I mean, it's an objective thing. You get a greater vocal range if you gain weight and it's a whole big thing in competitive singing, especially anything that requires undulation like the gospel Elvis frequently sings (and operatic. A skinny guy in an opera competition is... fucked. I've been there. It's weird. There are skinny opera singers but they're not Pavarotti). My point is, you meant that as an insult but this is actually a whole big thing.

But I can't gain weight. I can't. I've never been able to do it. I go on those special diets and everything and it's just not something I can do. Some people are like that. Plus, I was also competitive dancing at the time and burning upwards of 3000Kcal a day and the singing diet and the dancing diet are different so... that's the story of the eating disorder I've talked about before. My brother who was also involved in this also has an eating disorder so like... don't put your kids in these programs. Like... they're not... good... at the end of the day... Or don't get SO into them, I guess. They're fun if you don't lose your goddamn mind. Did you know dairy causes plem buildup that ruins your voice? Because I knew that as a child and that is information I ought not have had.

Like I know people make fun of him being on Reese cups and shit, those thousands of pics of that scrawny little fuck eating those peanut butter and nanner sammiches like that's an acceptable thing for a person to do, but listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ-k3oblIM8 This man is LITERALLY DYING. Better lung function, better range, better transfer. How? Fuck if I know. Drank a full calorie coke on stage with the fuckin acid and gas in it. Diction is shit but remember: 1: His diction was always shit because of his dialect and 2: He's high as fuck. Like he is an degree of high off his ass that... you know, killed him.

Secondly, I really feel like if that was a "Fun Elvis trivia" thing the piece of trivia wouldn't have been, "Underaged overseas drug party". That's not a fun fact and it's weird to me that people wouldn't know that. Like it would be weird to me that me answering that question would be the first time you learned that. That's one of the first things people learn about Elvis.

I mean, the "What was he reading when he died" thing is weird too because that presumes he's dead and that's a whole... other... thing...

Also, none of that is relevant to his political affiliation. My point was that Elvis lived his life mostly apolitical, with the exception of meeting a few presidents (as a celebrity, not as an endorsement) and that ONE election he publicly commented on. That was by design. He didn't want anybody to know, even his family, so nobody does. So it is BUCKWILD to see somebody pretending like they know.

And, though this wasn't my point- dude was not a saint. Like that shit with little girls is not something we're just gonna pretend didn't happen, so it's a good point. If somebody could prove Elvis was a republican (Idk how they hell they'd do that, even his ghost probably wouldn't answer that question) that wouldn't exactly be a ringing endorsement of the party.

But like, also... why? Why make up shit? There are celebrity republicans. Arnold Schwarzenegger held office for fuck's sake. That guy from Toy Story, Tim Allen is a diehard republican. Like just... use the real ones? There's no need to make shit up about Elvis and Tailor Swift or whoever. Just tell the truth and make the same point.

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://i.imgur.com/3TZaksB.jpg

Oh look, someone doesn't realize we're a union of states

 

[HisArpy]

I never claimed a damned thing when it came to the list, once again you're judging me for a position I never took. Also the list is derived from aother list derived from an opinion. An opinion isnt hard work

It's a citeable cource for which you have NO REBUTTAL except to attack the source. Rebut the DATA in it with more than the crap you've spewed so far. We'll wait but not forever. The GB does have SOME standards...

I dont need proof for the things I have not claimed. But you do need proof for the the things you claim

I cited to a source. That's proof enough to support what I said.

It's clickbait because its clickbait. Others already explained its an uconfirmed list taken from another unconfirmed list taken from an opinion piece.

Clickbait is defined as:

clickbait
[ˈklikbāt]
NOUN

(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.


The source I linked to offers nothing out of the ordinary. There is no pay wall or redirects either. It is merely a LIST OF NAMES of artists who are reported to be Republicans. So, if you don't know the definitions of the terms you use, you shouldn't use them. You especially shouldn't use them in what's become a blatantly obvious deflection attempt.

From there, rebut the list of names by citing to a source which proves that someone on the list, such as Clarkson, is NOT a "Republican". Until you do so, all you have is crap to spew.

I also never said I dont click links, you are once again judging me for a position I never took

Ahh, sorry, I went back and looked. It wasn't you, it was someone who sounds just as stupid as you. My mistake.

I also never said that, wow, you are really on a roll here. I was pointing out your list was unconfirmed and full of holes and how deemed kelly Clarkson was a Republican simply because she was on the list.. which is full of holes

Your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion stated without supporting facts. As such it is worthless beyond measure in a discussion about the use of supporting facts.

Really, you should harder try to keep tabs on your own argument.

How am I being disingenious, you have continued to make accusations about me doing things I never did. All the whilst completely ignoring what I keep asking and not confirming your own freaking claims

It's not my job to support your claims

No, it's YOUR FUCKING JOB to support your own claims. Something you have yet to do beyond continually blathering nonsense.

It'amazing you can be such an intellectual fraud and still play victim over it

I am no one's victim.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh look, someone doesn't realize we're a union of states

So what the elephant said is wrong.

 

[CandiCame]

So what the elephant said is wrong.

Here' a history question:

How many dictators does it take to turn an empire into a ruin of unionists states?

 

[coati]

So what the elephant said is wrong.

Doncha know, Pavlov's dog always salivates and ignores the elephant in the room when the bell rings.

He's daddy's good dog, yes he is! Yes he is!

 

[Conager]

Oh look, someone doesn't realize we're a union of states

The cartoon is an admission that impeachment is an attempt to subvert the will of the electoral college to conform to the will of motor-voter Californians. Which (not incidentally) is a collection of motorists, not necessarily "the people" as defined to be qualified voters.

 

[badbabysitter]

It's a citeable cource for which you have NO REBUTTAL except to attack the source.

Dude, it's been demonstrated to you that its a list sourced from a another list sourced from an opinion. Just because it's on the internet does not mean it's true.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class

Rebut the DATA in it with more than the crap you've spewed so far. We'll wait but not forever. The GB does have SOME standards...


The Gb has standards, but you clearly do not. A list sourced from another list sourced from an opinion is not a statement of fact.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class

I cited to a source. That's proof enough to support what I said.

Once again, a list sourced from another list sourced from an opinion is not proof of anything. If I find something on the internet that says lizard people control all the bakeries and its sourced from another piece about lizard people controlling bakeries sourced from an opinion about lizard people controlling all the bakeries.. does not make it true

But you seem to think it does

is defined as:

clickbait
[ˈklikbāt]
NOUN

(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page.


The source I linked to offers nothing out of the ordinary. There is no pay wall or redirects either. It is merely a LIST OF NAMES of artists who are reported to be Republicans. So, if you don't know the definitions of the terms you use, you shouldn't use them. You especially shouldn't use them in what's become a blatantly obvious deflection attempt.

Ah the new spin this is the FIRST time you have stated " reported to be". It's gone from they are to golly gee maybe


You're fucking changing your story


BWAHAHAHAHAHA




What a fraud

 

[Rightguide]

It's a citeable cource for which you have NO REBUTTAL except to attack the source.

Dude, it's been demonstrated to you that its a list sourced from a another list sourced from an opinion. Just because it's on the internet does not mean it's true.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class

Rebut the DATA in it with more than the crap you've spewed so far. We'll wait but not forever. The GB does have SOME standards...


The Gb has standards, but you clearly do not. A list sourced from another list sourced from an opinion is not a statement of fact.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class

I cited to a source. That's proof enough to support what I said.

Once again, a list sourced from another list sourced from an opinion is not proof of anything. If I find something on the internet that says lizard people control all the bakeries and its sourced from another piece about lizard people controlling bakeries sourced from an opinion about lizard people controlling all the bakeries.. does not make it true

But you seem to think it does









Ah the new spin this is the FIRST time you have stated " reported to be". It's gone from they are to golly gee maybe


You're fucking changing your story


BWAHAHAHAHAHA




What a fraud

You should probably learn how to quote.

 

[badbabysitter]

It's a citeable cource for which you have NO REBUTTAL except to attack the source.

Dude, it's been demonstrated to you that its a list sourced from a another list sourced from an opinion. Just because it's on the internet does not mean it's true.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class

Rebut the DATA in it with more than the crap you've spewed so far. We'll wait but not forever. The GB does have SOME standards...


The Gb has standards, but you clearly do not. A list sourced from another list sourced from an opinion is not a statement of fact.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class




You should probably learn how to quote.

HisHarpy impression


" there's nothing wrong with my quoting, you have yet to prove I did any misquoting

Please keep up with the rest if the class


I'm a lawyer

Honest"

 

[BotanyBoy]

So what the elephant said is wrong.

Yes..

 

[HisArpy]

It's a citeable cource for which you have NO REBUTTAL except to attack the source.

Dude, it's been demonstrated to you that its a list sourced from a another list sourced from an opinion. Just because it's on the internet does not mean it's true.


Do try to keep up with the rest of the class





HisHarpy impression


" there's nothing wrong with my quoting, you have yet to prove I did any misquoting

Please keep up with the rest if the class


I'm a lawyer

Honest"

dudly, give it up.

I cited to "a source" which supports what I said.

YOU seem to believe that if you decry the source as something created by ANOTHER SOURCE, it defeats the cited source.

Which is totally a WTF moment on everyone else's part.

The debate standard for factual statements is to be able to prove with an outside source that what you say is true. I did that. What I said is fact not opinion.

Unless you can show something contraindicating that FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, what I said stands as supported by the source I linked.

So, get your head out of your ass and go find it. Otherwise, the statement stands without rebuttal no matter what you want to think or believe. It's also not my fault you can't face reality. Now, do please try to keep up with the rest of the class. (And learn how the quote function works.)

 

[cowslinger64]

Any real taxpayer would be appreciative of anyone volunteering for duty at no salary in the pursuit and maintenance of the people's business. I take it you aren't such a taxpayer, but instead a welfare recipient triggered into Paroxysmal disgust by the notion of selfless volunteerism.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
You must shudder at the very thought such a suggestion might be directed at you.

I'm a taxpayer, and this is absolutely outrageous to anyone except the ultra wealthy and corporations, which you are neither or the trump ball lickers, which you most certainly are... as are the rest of you ignorant dumbasses...


https://news.yahoo.com/did-trumps-tax-cuts-mean-104501588.html



Two years after the Trump administration slashed the corporate tax rate, the savings has produced a windfall for corporations such as FedEx, said Jim Tankersley at The New York Times. The international shipping giant paid $1.5 billion in taxes in 2017. "The next year," FedEx "owed nothing." Its effective tax rate had gone from 34 percent to "less than zero."

"The corporate tax overhaul was overhyped," said Geoff Colvin at Fortune. Fixing the system was necessary, but Trump "wiped out the benefits of his first-year policy successes by doubling down on his signature campaign issues: tariffs and immigration." The administration's assurances that the cuts would "increase household income by $4,000 to $9,000 a year" were a fantasy. Companies spent their cash on stock buybacks, not wages or investment. That's not a surprise. What's shocking is that just 10 companies account for 37 percent of the $1 trillion returned to shareholders, with Apple alone accounting for 16 percent. Fred Smith may be pleased that he got what he lobbied for, but the "blessings for business were front-loaded." Since 2018, confidence among Smith's fellow CEOs has "plunged to levels not seen since the darkest days of the financial crisis."

 

[RoryN]

The cartoon is an admission that impeachment is an attempt to subvert the will of the electoral college to conform to the will of motor-voter Californians. Which (not incidentally) is a collection of motorists, not necessarily "the people" as defined to be qualified voters.

OK, Boomer.

 

[jomar]

Any real taxpayer would be appreciative of anyone volunteering for duty at no salary in the pursuit and maintenance of the people's business. I take it you aren't such a taxpayer, but instead a welfare recipient triggered into Paroxysmal disgust by the notion of selfless volunteerism.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
You must shudder at the very thought such a suggestion might be directed at you.

Glad to have his salary go somewhere else. Appreciate hm waiving it.

Do you think Trump is having any personal financial gain from being president?

 

[Dribble]

You get what you pay for.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I cited to "a source" which supports what I said.

YOU seem to believe that if you decry the source as something created by ANOTHER SOURCE, it defeats the cited source.

Which is totally a WTF moment on everyone else's part.

You cited a source based on an opinion. Now that you've been caught regurgitating an opinion you're attempting to deflect by ascribing another position to him.

Your source material's basis was not credible, and you lack the integrity to admit you are wrong. Don't worry, BotanyBoy routinely does the same thing, so you have company.

The debate standard for factual statements is to be able to prove with an outside source that what you say is true. I did that. What I said is fact not opinion.

Unless you can show something contraindicating that FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, what I said stands as supported by the source I linked.

So, get your head out of your ass and go find it. Otherwise, the statement stands without rebuttal no matter what you want to think or believe. It's also not my fault you can't face reality. Now, do please try to keep up with the rest of the class. (And learn how the quote function works.)

<Timmeh mode>
Oh Look! The Earth is actually FLAT! I found a source on the internets so it must be true! Checkmate, libtards!!
</Timmeh mode>

 

[cowslinger64]

You cited a source based on an opinion. Now that you've been caught regurgitating an opinion you're attempting to deflect by ascribing another position to him.

Your source material's basis was not credible, and you lack the integrity to admit you are wrong. Don't worry, BotanyBoy routinely does the same thing, so you have company.



<Timmeh mode>
Oh Look! The Earth is actually FLAT! I found a source on the internets so it must be true! Checkmate, libtards!!
</Timmeh mode>

Timmy, botanydummy, queball and the rest of the right wing limp dicks at work:



https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConcernedPrestigiousLacewing-small.gif

 

[Conager]

You get what you pay for.

-laughs

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Then why is impeachment written into the Constitution?

And how do you then justfy the impeachment of Clinton?

Conager: stupid and intellectually dishonest, like all Deplorables

The cartoon is an admission that impeachment is an attempt to subvert the will of the electoral college to conform to the will of motor-voter Californians. Which (not incidentally) is a collection of motorists, not necessarily "the people" as defined to be qualified voters.

 

[jaF0]

But wait, there's MORE!!!


White House review turns up e-mails showing extensive effort to justify Trump's decision to block Ukraine military aid
The Boston Globe | Mon Nov 25, 2019 01:44 UTC

A confidential White House review of President Trump's decision to place a hold on military aid to Ukraine has turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the decision.


Look Boss, de emailz, de emailz!!!!

Yes, Yes, Tattoo, I see....

 

[HisArpy]

You cited a source based on an opinion. Now that you've been caught regurgitating an opinion you're attempting to deflect by ascribing another position to him.

Your source material's basis was not credible, and you lack the integrity to admit you are wrong. Don't worry, BotanyBoy routinely does the same thing, so you have company.



<Timmeh mode>
Oh Look! The Earth is actually FLAT! I found a source on the internets so it must be true! Checkmate, libtards!!
</Timmeh mode>

This is about as much as any idjit on the GB can get.

If you have a different source which rebuts THE DATA in the source link, then spit it out. Otherwise, all you're doing is whining that you don't like what the source says.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This is about as much as any idjit on the GB can get.

If you have a different source which rebuts THE DATA in the source link, then spit it out. Otherwise, all you're doing is whining that you don't like what the source says.

Start over, Timmeh.

Your BASE SOURCE was deleted by wikipedia. I cannot refute what doesn't exist any longer. You continue to promote unsubstantiated claims. "I found it on teh internet, so it must be true!" is akin to your nutcase relatives sending you a chain email with a subject line "FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:Bill Gates will send you a new computer if you forward this 50 times".