Social Pelosi Announces Impeachment Inquiry

[Lucifer Alpha]

Zero likes.

I gave him a sympathy like. He tried.

 

[dittohead84]

This has gone beyond a joke a long time ago. How can anyone support these asshole Democrats? I've long been interested in American politics and I'm from the other side of the Atlantic.

Pelosi, Schumer, O'Rourke, AOC etc....what a pack of stupid pricks.

I'll say it right now. If you're an Anti Trumper you are a fucking moron of the highest degree.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

@IngaVovchanchyn fingers are typing which means she is lying again.

Es normal.

Precisely what is it that I've posted in this thread that you find untruthful? Do you think the Dems nailed Trump on Russia after promising they had him there? I don't. You think impeachment is not high risk and high reward politically? I do.

Try to engage constructively in these discussions Mike. There's much to talk about despite our sometimes conflicting viewpoints. Your post here doesn't add anything to the thread at all except insults. Weren't you warned about that after your last tantrum?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Precisely what is it that I've posted in this thread that you find untruthful? Do you think the Dems nailed Trump on Russia after promising they had him there? I don't. You think impeachment is not high risk and high reward politically? I do.

Try to engage constructively in these discussions Mike. There's much to talk about despite our sometimes conflicting viewpoints. Your post here doesn't add anything to the thread at all except insults. Weren't you warned about that after your last tantrum?

If you want to know what you LIED about ask me the question properly by asking "What did I lie about", then I will create the list.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Well he was intentionally ordering someone to withhold information from a congressional inquiry. The grounds for impeachment is there. Transcript is what im waiting on reading.

 

[Darkballs]

You think impeachment is not high risk and high reward politically? I do.

Well the impeachment inquiry is necessary for transparency alone. The WH has decided to unlawfully obstruct a whistleblower complaint by refusing to hand it over to the House Intelligence Committee.

Your argument that this is really about Pelosi getting ahead of the bad Biden news is absurd. It's pretty much been confirmed that this is a shitty right wing attack to muddle the waters. Biden pushed for a notoriously corrupt prosecutor to be removed and have a more competent one assigned for a more THOROUGH investigation. The timeframe of the alleged illegal conduct doesn't even apply to Biden's son, and he has never been implemented in anything illegal.

You have an allegation that our President withheld funds from Ukraine while pressuring it's president to launch a criminal investigation into his political rival. And the WH is refusing to make that complaint public.

Are you really going to argue that this isn't a factor in the decision to launch an impeachment inquiry?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If you want to know what you LIED about ask me the question properly by asking "What did I lie about", then I will create the list.

Damn, this is passive aggressive even for you. Imagine slandering someone in broad terms but feeling as if that person owes you to ask what specifically you did wrong. You're the asshole running your mouth, Mike. If you have something to say, you should say it. Otherwise can we please skip your drama and move on to the drama in Washington?

You have avoided addressing any of the political points I've made in this thread. I'm not even sure you've read any of them. I think there's needs to be something much more substantial than we've yet seen to really sell this scandal to independents and undecideds. Maybe the whistleblower report has something good, maybe not. But if not, this could be a huge error on Pelosi's part. I tend to think she's one of the smartest folks in Washington, so I usually give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Well the impeachment inquiry is necessary for transparency alone. The WH has decided to unlawfully obstruct a whistleblower complaint by refusing to hand it over to the House Intelligence Committee.

Your argument that this is really about Pelosi getting ahead of the bad Biden news is absurd. It's pretty much been confirmed that this is a shitty right wing attack to muddle the waters. Biden pushed for a notoriously corrupt prosecutor to be removed and have a more competent one assigned for a more THOROUGH investigation. The timeframe of the alleged illegal conduct doesn't even apply to Biden's son, and he has never been implemented in anything illegal.

1. You misunderstood my comment about Pelosi's timing. Reread it and I think you'll agree that you've mischaracterized it here. It's not about trying to forestall a scandal from hurting Biden. I don't think Pelosi cares much for him either way. But the possibility that Biden gets bad exposure from Pelosi's accusations against Trump is non-negligible to say the least. I know you've got your talking points, but there's an obvious conflict of interest at play in Biden's actions even if they were otherwise justified. Pelosi won't ignore the possibility that it might look bad to a lot of people and that Biden might make it worse with an ill timed gaffe. So if he does end up getting hurt in this scandal, I think she'd rather have that done sooner rather than later. What Pelosi cares about is a strong nominee emerging from the Dem primaries.

And the WH is refusing to make that complaint public. Are you really going to argue that this isn't a factor in the decision to launch an impeachment inquiry?

2. Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't remember arguing any such thing or even addressing that issue tangentially. Can you quote the part of my comment where I said something like this?

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

This has gone beyond a joke a long time ago. How can anyone support these asshole Democrats? I've long been interested in American politics and I'm from the other side of the Atlantic.

Pelosi, Schumer, O'Rourke, AOC etc....what a pack of stupid pricks.

I'll say it right now. If you're an Anti Trumper you are a fucking moron of the highest degree.

This is the best chance we have to drain the swamp and liberals are completely blowing it. That's what pisses me off about them the most. We can not squander this opportunity because they don't come around often. If we don't fight back now, we will be under their control forever.

 

[Darkballs]

1. You misunderstood my comment about Pelosi's timing. Reread it and I think you'll agree that you've mischaracterized it here. It's not about trying to forestall a scandal from hurting Biden. I don't think Pelosi cares much for him either way. But the possibility that Biden gets bad exposure from Pelosi's accusations against Trump is non-negligible to say the least. I know you've got your talking points, but there's an obvious conflict of interest at play in Biden's actions even if they were otherwise justified. Pelosi won't ignore the possibility that it might look bad to a lot of people and that Biden might make it worse with an ill timed gaffe. So if he does end up getting hurt in this scandal, I think she'd rather have that done sooner rather than later. What Pelosi cares about is a strong nominee emerging from the Dem primaries.

No I think I've characterized your summary of events pretty accurately.

You are arguing that the primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is so that Pelosi and the House Dems can uncover bad news about Biden first and plan accordingly. That's demonstrably stupid, but it seems quite clear that this is your argument.

As I pointed out before, Biden pushed for a corrupt prosecutor to be replaced with an honest one so that a genuine inquiry could be launched in illegal activity. At no time was Biden's son implicated in anything illegal. This is just a poor attempt to muddle the waters, as evidenced by your inability to articulate exactly what scandal you think Pelosi is trying to get ahead of.


Inga, I know you love to deflect and change the subject. But are you honestly going to sit here and pretend that the allegations against trump and his administration's attempts at unlawfully suppressing a valid complaint aren't at the crux of this impeachment inquiry?

 

[BarryDillon]

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Damn, this is passive aggressive even for you. Imagine slandering someone in broad terms but feeling as if that person owes you to ask what specifically you did wrong. You're the asshole running your mouth, Mike. If you have something to say, you should say it. Otherwise can we please skip your drama and move on to the drama in Washington?

You have avoided addressing any of the political points I've made in this thread. I'm not even sure you've read any of them. I think there's needs to be something much more substantial than we've yet seen to really sell this scandal to independents and undecideds. Maybe the whistleblower report has something good, maybe not. But if not, this could be a huge error on Pelosi's part. I tend to think she's one of the smartest folks in Washington, so I usually give her the benefit of the doubt.

He's got a real 'President of Selena's fan club' vibe with you.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No I think I've characterized your summary of events pretty accurately.

You are arguing that the primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is so that Pelosi and the House Dems can uncover bad news about Biden first and plan accordingly. That's demonstrably stupid, but it seems quite clear that this is your argument.

As I pointed out before, Biden pushed for a corrupt prosecutor to be replaced with an honest one so that a genuine inquiry could be launched in illegal activity. At no time was Biden's son implicated in anything illegal. This is just a poor attempt to muddle the waters, as evidenced by your inability to articulate exactly what scandal you think Pelosi is trying to get ahead of.


Inga, I know you love to deflect and change the subject. But are you honestly going to sit here and pretend that the allegations against trump and his administration's attempts at unlawfully suppressing a valid complaint aren't at the crux of this impeachment inquiry?

I'm neither deflecting nor changing the subject. I'm only resisting having people put arguments in my mouth which I didn't say. If you think I said the things you are claiming I said, why not quote where Is aid them? If you can't quote where I said them, then you are wrong to ascribe those views to me. Simple, right?

I did not argue that the primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is to uncover bad news about Biden, as I've already explained to you. The primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is no doubt because Pelosi thinks Trump committed an impeachable offense. My argument was about the timing of the inquiry. Someone, I think it was @Higus, suggested she should have waited until the Dems had a nominee, while I took the position that Pelosi was moving quickly due to possible collateral damage to Biden's candidacy. You misunderstood my comment, silly. You should have reread it, as I suggested you do.

And no, I haven't pretended anything about Trump's attempt to suppress this scandal, which I've also explained. I haven't commented on that subject at all iirc. If you think I said those things, could you please quote where I said them?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I'm neither deflecting nor changing the subject. I'm only resisting having people put arguments in my mouth which I didn't say. If you think I said the things you are claiming I said, why not quote where Is aid them? If you can't quote where I said them, then you are wrong to ascribe those views to me. Simple, right?

I did not argue that the primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is to uncover bad news about Biden, as I've already explained to you. The primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is no doubt because Pelosi thinks Trump committed an impeachable offense. My argument was about the timing of the inquiry. Someone, I think it was @Higus, suggested she should have waited until the Dems had a nominee, while I took the position that Pelosi was moving quickly due to possible collateral damage to Biden's candidacy. You misunderstood my comment, silly. You should have reread it, as I suggested you do.

And no, I haven't pretended anything about Trump's attempt to suppress this scandal, which I've also explained. I haven't commented on that subject at all iirc. If you think I said those things, could you please quote where I said them?

That dipshit was pulling all the same shit with me last night. He is probably the most dishonest arguer on here.

 

[Darkballs]

I'm neither deflecting nor changing the subject. I'm only resisting having people put arguments in my mouth which I didn't say. If you think I said the things you are claiming I said, why not quote where Is aid them? If you can't quote where I said them, then you are wrong to ascribe those views to me. Simple, right?

I did not argue that the primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is to uncover bad news about Biden, as I've already explained to you. The primary motivation of an impeachment inquiry is no doubt because Pelosi thinks Trump committed an impeachable offense. My argument was about the timing of the inquiry. Someone, I think it was @Higus, suggested she should have waited until the Dems had a nominee, while I took the position that Pelosi was moving quickly due to possible collateral damage to Biden's candidacy. You misunderstood my comment, silly. You should have reread it, as I suggested you do.

And no, I haven't pretended anything about Trump's attempt to suppress this scandal, which I've also explained. I haven't commented on that subject at all iirc. If you think I said those things, could you please quote where I said them?

You say you aren't deflecting, yet you drone on about the timing and the completely baseless claim that Biden may be implicated as a motivator. As explained before, that's retarded. If you can't even substantiate what Biden or his son did wrong, it's stupid to suggest that Pelosi was motivated by "possible collateral damage" to his Joe's candidacy.

It's the obstruction of a whistleblower complaint that alleges trump withheld funds to pressure a foreign president to meddle in our elections, that is the motivator.

You know that. You just lack the integrity to admit it.

That dipshit was pulling all the same shit with me last night. He is probably the most dishonest arguer on here.

Get em Cleetus!

 

[Darkballs]

Didn't you hear @IngaVovchanchyn ?

It's really about the Bidens.

 

[Sketch]

Didn't you hear @IngaVovchanchyn ?

It's really about the Bidens.

You’ll see. This is bad news for Biden.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You say you aren't deflecting, yet you drone on about the timing and the completely baseless claim that Biden may be implicated as a motivator. As explained before, that's retarded. If you can't even substantiate what Biden or his son did wrong, it's stupid to suggest that Pelosi was motivated by "possible collateral damage" to his Joe's candidacy.

It's the obstruction of a whistleblower complaint that alleges trump withheld funds to pressure a foreign president to meddle in our elections, that is the motivator.

You know that. You just lack the integrity to admit it.



Get em Cleetus!

1. I'm not droning on about the timing. I made one comment. The only reason it has come up multiple times is you insist on mischaracterizing my comment.
2. You talk about integrity, but you cannot quote me saying any of the arguments you ascribe to me. This is because you cannot, because I did not say them.
3. The obstruction point is your point, and you should run with it. You seemed determined to show I am denying it, but I'm not.

 

[Darkballs]

You’ll see. This is bad news for Biden.

Solid argument. Really fleshed out with a lot of evidence to support it.

 

[F1980]

Look at the date: