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

[jomar]

I believe in the truth. I speak the truth, you on the other hand project the silly narratives of the left that are demolished daily in detail. Aren't getting tired of losing?

So how do you explain claiming that Trump has been far more tough on Russia than Obama, citing a far right misleading article.

I then replied with a politifact link in which they had looked into that very question and found that claim to be mostly false.

I do get getting lost in the threads, so maybe that’s why you didn’t respond...again.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy

Name them.

ALL OF THEM, YAPPO.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f25e213776d3c4790c25c0b4739f383a/tenor.gif?itemid=12272097

 

[RobDownSouth]

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy and nobody ever even raised the specter of that.

Name them. If they actually were Republicans would have been all over them. If you recall they openly said from day one they would actively work to obstruct him. In fact, when Trump was elected and Republican controlled Congress was fumbling around not getting anything done, Paul Ryan actually admitted they’d become and had been the party of obstruction for so long they had forgotten how to govern.

Any number of Obama scandals were impeachment worthy and nobody ever even raised the specter of that.

Name them.

ALL OF THEM, YAPPO.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f25e213776d3c4790c25c0b4739f383a/tenor.gif?itemid=12272097

Oh my, it would seem that Que's Fifth Annual Festival Of Thanksgiving Shitposting is getting started one day early this year!

BotanyBoy and HisArpy, report to the BroCavalry reserve mustering area STAT!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh my, it would seem that Que's Fifth Annual Festival Of Thanksgiving Shitposting is getting started one day early this year!

BotanyBoy and HisArpy, report to the BroCavalry reserve mustering area STAT!

Ohh looks like I'm still living rent free in Robs fantasies....you forgot, I was an Obama voter/supporter.

You remember Obama right? That alt-right conservative reich winger POTUS we had before Trump??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/22/barack-obama-conservative/?arc404=true

 

[Rightguide]

You only have to go back five posts, nitwit.

1664-528=1136 numb nuts.

 

[Rightguide]

Fake news! (it is/was on the list only because it was propped up, not because the masses bought it)

I gave you the NYTs link to the bestseller page, it's right there under non-fiction. The only thing propping it up is the market. Get a clue. The giggest Trump haters in the world are at the NYTs, are you suggesting they're perpetrating a fraud on the public in order to make their Public Enemy #2 look good?

 

[jomar]

I gave you the NYTs link to the bestseller page, it's right there under non-fiction. The only thing propping it up is the market. Get a clue. The giggest Trump haters in the world are at the NYTs, are you suggesting they're perpetrating a fraud on the public in order to make their Public Enemy #2 look good?

No fraud at all. It's right there out in the open why the book is on that list. The market you speak of isn't the masses buying it, it's a few buying masses of the books. Ergo, propped up.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=why+is+don+trump+jr+book+on+bestseller+list

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I gave you the NYTs link to the bestseller page, it's right there under non-fiction. The only thing propping it up is the market. Get a clue. The giggest Trump haters in the world are at the NYTs, are you suggesting they're perpetrating a fraud on the public in order to make their Public Enemy #2 look good?

Might be the most tin foiliest hat thing you've ever said.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I gave you the NYTs link to the bestseller page, it's right there under non-fiction. The only thing propping it up is the market. Get a clue.

This is a demonstrable lie. Take a look at Trump Junior's ranking
https://static.pjmedia.com/trending/user-content/51/files/2019/11/triggered_nyt.png

Look at the very bottom. It has the dreaded "dagger".

What is a "dagger"? That's the Times informing readers that bulk-buyers are attempting to manipulate the book's ranking through institutional bulk purchasing (6th paragraph).

The RNC bought thousands of copies that they provide "for free" to new donors to the RNC. Also, some Russian oligarch bought 70,000 copies of Junior's book, out of kindness I suppose.

Once again you bring great shame to yourself, your family, your nation and the USMC.

 

[Rightguide]

So how do you explain claiming that Trump has been far more tough on Russia than Obama, citing a far right misleading article.

I then replied with a politifact link in which they had looked into that very question and found that claim to be mostly false.

I do get getting lost in the threads, so maybe that’s why you didn’t respond...again.

So post the untruths in the article I posted on Trump sanctions.

Politifact is not a reliable source:

Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute who owns the Tampa Bay Times, this from Wiki:

In 2019, Poynter used various "fake news" databases (including those curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Merrimack College, PolitiFact, and Snopes) to compile a list of over 515 news websites that it labeled "unreliable." Poynter called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites on the list. The list included conservative news websites such as the Washington Examiner, The Washington Free Beacon, and The Daily Signal. After backlash, Poynter retracted the list, citing "weaknesses in the methodology."[9] Poynter issued a statement saying "We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute

All you need to know about the Poynter Institute:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/poynter-unreliable-sources-list
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...nservative-media-unreliable-poynter-institute

 

[jomar]

So post the untruths in the article I posted on Trump sanctions.

Politifact is not a reliable source:

Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute who owns the Tampa Bay Times, this from Wiki:

In 2019, Poynter used various "fake news" databases (including those curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Merrimack College, PolitiFact, and Snopes) to compile a list of over 515 news websites that it labeled "unreliable." Poynter called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites on the list. The list included conservative news websites such as the Washington Examiner, The Washington Free Beacon, and The Daily Signal. After backlash, Poynter retracted the list, citing "weaknesses in the methodology."[9] Poynter issued a statement saying "We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute

All you need to know about the Poynter Institute:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/poynter-unreliable-sources-list
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...nservative-media-unreliable-poynter-institute

Using far right biased sources to try and discredit things they don't like is disingenuous. You claimed you get your info from a variety of places, but all you seem to link to is far right sources.

Don't worry about the top two...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=is+politifact+bised

is politifact biased

 

[Rightguide]

No fraud at all. It's right there out in the open why the book is on that list. The market you speak of isn't the masses buying it, it's a few buying masses of the books. Ergo, propped up.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=why+is+don+trump+jr+book+on+bestseller+list

Then all the lists are phony, USA Today, “Triggered” is currently No. 5. On Bookscan, “Triggered” is No. 3.

NBC News:

"The answer is not simple. To make any bestseller list typically requires selling at least 5,000 books within a single week. The New York Times is notoriously tight-lipped about its bestseller methodology, though it is fair to say that not all book sales count equally (or at all). Also, if $94,800 was spent by the RNC on $30 books, that accounts for around 3,160 books sold. Still not quite enough to make it on the list — but certainly a good boost.

On the other hand, such boosts happen more often than we may think. Indeed, many believe that the list is easy to manipulate. “It happens so frequently, I'm not sure I'd even call it ‘manipulation"

Which means they'd have to do that every week to keep it there.

 

[Rightguide]

Using far right biased sources to try and discredit things they don't like is disingenuous. You claimed you get your info from a variety of places, but all you seem to link to is far right sources.

Don't worry about the top two...
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-e&q=is+politifact+bised

is politifact biased

You didn't provide any facts to disprove those I linked to, why?

Yes they are biased and as I've just shown, they got caught at it.

 

[schism666]

So post the untruths in the article I posted on Trump sanctions.

Politifact is not a reliable source:

Politifact is owned by the Poynter Institute who owns the Tampa Bay Times, this from Wiki:

In 2019, Poynter used various "fake news" databases (including those curated by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Merrimack College, PolitiFact, and Snopes) to compile a list of over 515 news websites that it labeled "unreliable." Poynter called on advertisers to "blacklist" the sites on the list. The list included conservative news websites such as the Washington Examiner, The Washington Free Beacon, and The Daily Signal. After backlash, Poynter retracted the list, citing "weaknesses in the methodology."[9] Poynter issued a statement saying "We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute

All you need to know about the Poynter Institute:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/poynter-unreliable-sources-list
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...nservative-media-unreliable-poynter-institute

you have also claimed wiki isn't reliable. make up your clouded mind.

 

[jaF0]

Y'all'd be doin' yo'seff's a YHUUUUUUGGGEEEE favor by simply skipping over RatTurd's posts.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

you have also claimed wiki isn't reliable. make up your clouded mind.

It's easy to figure out. A source is reliable if it says something Vette likes, if they don't it's not reliable.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's easy to figure out. A source is reliable if it says something Vette likes, if they don't it's not reliable.

That's not unlike BotanyBoy redefining "socialism" to be "anything I don't like".
*nods*

 

[icanhelp1]

You didn't provide any facts to disprove those I linked to, why?

Yes they are biased and as I've just shown, they got caught at it.

Fox News: Del Beccaro,

"You see, the Obama administration clearly engaged with Ukraine starting in January of 2016. As investigative reporter John Solomon tells us, the Obama White House “summoned” Ukrainian authorities under false pretenses.The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.Of course, that was when candidate Trump was on the ascent. It is also important to note that Ukraine was seeking aid from the Obama administration at that time.

Then, as Solomon tells us, which narrative is largely confirmed by Politico, “In March 2016, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) pressed his embassy to try to find any Russian dirt on Trump and Manafort that might reside in Ukraine’s intelligence files. The DNC contractor also asked Chaly's team to try to persuade Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to make a statement disparaging Manafort when the Ukrainian leader visited the United States during the 2016 election.”

You can plainly see that the Obama administration sought to involve Ukraine in the 2016 election. The March 2016 requests were declined by Ukraine on the basis that it would involve them in the U.S. election. In that same month, Joe Biden famously forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in exchange for aid.We also know that the Biden investigation in Ukraine died and that Ukraine handed over information on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that led to his embarrassing resignation."

"Quid pro quo."

 

[Rightguide]

you have also claimed wiki isn't reliable. make up your clouded mind.

It isn't at times for reasons known to all and discussed here ad infinitum:

"Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately. You do not need to register to do this, and anyone who has edited is known as a Wikipedian or editor. Small edits add up, and every editor can be proud to have made Wikipedia better for all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

 

[Rightguide]

Fox News: Del Beccaro,

"You see, the Obama administration clearly engaged with Ukraine starting in January of 2016. As investigative reporter John Solomon tells us, the Obama White House “summoned” Ukrainian authorities under false pretenses.The January 2016 gathering, confirmed by multiple participants and contemporaneous memos, brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).The agenda suggested the purpose was training and coordination. But Ukrainian participants said it didn’t take long — during the meetings and afterward — to realize the Americans’ objectives included two politically hot investigations: one that touched Vice President Joe Biden’s family and one that involved a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump.Of course, that was when candidate Trump was on the ascent. It is also important to note that Ukraine was seeking aid from the Obama administration at that time.

Then, as Solomon tells us, which narrative is largely confirmed by Politico, “In March 2016, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) pressed his embassy to try to find any Russian dirt on Trump and Manafort that might reside in Ukraine’s intelligence files. The DNC contractor also asked Chaly's team to try to persuade Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to make a statement disparaging Manafort when the Ukrainian leader visited the United States during the 2016 election.”

You can plainly see that the Obama administration sought to involve Ukraine in the 2016 election. The March 2016 requests were declined by Ukraine on the basis that it would involve them in the U.S. election. In that same month, Joe Biden famously forced Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in exchange for aid.We also know that the Biden investigation in Ukraine died and that Ukraine handed over information on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort that led to his embarrassing resignation."

"Quid pro quo."

Solomon deserves a Pulitzer for his work on this matter.

 

[jomar]

You didn't provide any facts to disprove those I linked to, why?

Yes they are biased and as I've just shown, they got caught at it.

You linked something not on point.

I linked sources that were. You ignored them. That's on you.

 

[phrodeau]

1664-528=1136 numb nuts.

That one wasn’t your post. It’s the one you posted at 5:28 GMT.

 

[jomar]

Then all the lists are phony, USA Today, “Triggered” is currently No. 5. On Bookscan, “Triggered” is No. 3.

NBC News:

"The answer is not simple. To make any bestseller list typically requires selling at least 5,000 books within a single week. The New York Times is notoriously tight-lipped about its bestseller methodology, though it is fair to say that not all book sales count equally (or at all). Also, if $94,800 was spent by the RNC on $30 books, that accounts for around 3,160 books sold. Still not quite enough to make it on the list — but certainly a good boost.

On the other hand, such boosts happen more often than we may think. Indeed, many believe that the list is easy to manipulate. “It happens so frequently, I'm not sure I'd even call it ‘manipulation"

Which means they'd have to do that every week to keep it there.

You're missing the point. It's not so much people are buying the book, though I'm sure some die hards are. Libraries and RNC have bought a big chunk and giving it a boost (see bold in your own post). His book doesn't cost 30, by the way.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKZBVC5XkAAuERh.jpg

 

[LincolnDuncan]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKZBVC5XkAAuERh.jpg

What a jackass!

He's got too much time on his hands