Random Politics & Religion #39: Guac Is Extra

Who do you think their "anonymous sources" are?

nevermind, i'm two pages too late.

Lol Pelosi introducing resolution affirming their INPEACH investigation this week.

Delicious word salad but another nothing burger, and bot a formal house vote to open impeachment hearings.

How can lefties be so dumb as to fall for how they are getting played?

Don't care, it's been 2 pages and not a shred of evidence that Congressional Democrats are in charge of the WaPo, despite conspiracy theories that claim they are.

Yep, there goes that debunked Republican talking point.

Yep that stuff I've been saying all along about how they need to do a formal vote to make everything public and official, well looks like their doing it.


From the ladies own mouth, exactly what I said and all the sheep here disagreed with. That makes things open, instead of Schiff and Nadler doing shady stuff by holding secret gestapo style meetings.

My thoughts is this latest fiasco where the President was able to get the top two heads of ISIS, then say he didn't tell congress because he didn't want to endanger American lives by Peloski or Schiff leaking the information, was too much for the Democrats to take. It's painted them in an incredibly bad light and in order to fight that she needs to legitimize what they are doing. He's stonewalled their opposition research attempts by making it policy that the US Government won't honor subpoenas that it considers illegitimate. As the head of the executive branch and empowered by the Constitution to run said branch, there's nothing Congress can do about it but send a mean letter to him, especially with the Senate supporting him. The Supreme Court is the only group that could over rule the President's Executive privilege and the Democrats arguments are quite weak if they refuse to hold at least hold a vote on the matter.

So yeah, the Democrats continue to win the 2020 Presidential election for Trump.

Saevel with the hilarious fantasy that the ISIS raid has anything to do with the Pelosi's move, because there is no way she had this planned out to announce on Monday when they went back to work. Its just a kneejerk reaction based on what happened yesterday. That or Saevel is just wrong again.

Also, there are still going to be a lot of closed door testimonies this week and next, things will go public when the investigation has concluded. None of Saevel's conspiracies have been accurate.

Also, this has already been debunked by a simple judge's ruling that the House impeachment inquiry is completely legit and does not require any kind of a vote. The pathetic WH argument that the inquiry required a vote to be legit cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, hence the loss in court. Saevel continues to just make ***up and hide from people that can easily debunk him. Such a fun day.

it wasn't a woosh, the argument was just very weak.


me rambling for 1000 words and you taking out one sentence to focus on by quoting that exact sentence I wrote

is nothing like

you changing all the words in my post to create a personal attack.

The impeachment vote is on Halloween, can't wait to see all the Trumpkin memes. :D

the italicized font was supposed to be conveyed as sarcasm, since it's plainly clear that he gives the world enough dialogue to form their own opinions etc.

I cant speak for any lefties or righties but I dont follow him on twitter no. But that's not his fault, I dont follow anyone on there; Tend to avoid most social media when I can.

You haven't been paying attention to how he has been using his quote modifications. He's not always singling out sentences, he's purposefully removing words to make it look like someone said something they didn't. As long as he keeps it up, I will be amping up the retaliation. Knowing him, he'll just double down and do it more like a petulant child, but oh well.

"he is doing something I don't like. so I am going to resort to escalation. and if he in turn resorts to escalation as well, he must be a petulant child."

how is this kind of reasoning even remotely logical?
Can't blame you for not liking the behavior for sure, it's a mocking pettiness. but has this kind of escalation ever worked out well for you before? you've seen this kind of mocking pettiness from nearly everyone here daily.

I'm not here to change the world, I'm here because it's entertaining. So yes, it has worked well for me before.

Not the same thing...I removed the part of your quote that was basically name calling. Not the same as editing quotes to say something entirely different.

I can't argue that point, fair enough and I'll leave you two to your exchange

If one poster uses mocking pettiness and the response is escalation repeatedly, I think most readers here will agree with you at the exchange being entertaining.





Which is the outrage? the somberness or the laughing at death reporting

I am happy with that, glad I can be so entertaining. I will continue to entertain you throughout this thread. :D

Except that's not what you've been doing. You have been removing key portions that you're afraid to address because they make you look bad. Selectively removing portions of quote chains changes the meaning of the posts, because varies points build on each other to create a collective argument. If you're going to address something specific, you should break the chain by quoting only key portions.

On a side note, if you can't handle people mocking you, you probably shouldn't be mocking everyone else. It goes full circle in here.

100% false. I edit out the extraneous junk, name-calling, conspiracy theories, and will continue to do so. :)



I wasn't complaining, just pointing out your false statements.

Are you perhaps referring to the quotes below?



You are correct, I removed the conspiracy theory portion of your comment. So tell me, how did that alter the meaning of the shortened version?

Well, we'll get to that once you figure out what a conspiracy theory is. In the meantime, I'll add that to the list of phrases to disregard because you don't have a clue what they mean.

How about you show an example of what you are referring to when you say I alter posts to change their meaning? I'll wait (as usual).

Last page, Nausi's post that you shortened. That doesn't free you from the burden of figuring out what a conspiracy theory is because you weren't even close.

Rav, I edit out parts of quotes all the time. I do use ellipses though.

Oz, use ellipses and do try not to get sucked into pointless arguments.

Also, if you two were children you would both be in time out.

Like that? lol...

Rava, nothing on the last page. Stop digressing. Put up or shut up. :)

Jesus you guys are insufferable sometimes.

There is no problem with celebrating the demise of your enemy. The fake outrage of “Trump is too unpolished to be president” is ***, celebrating this stuff is done by everyone. If you don’t remember, then you’re a literal pawn of the liberal media.

The whole reason that meme was funny was because Hillary’s cackle is so maniacal that overdoes it as an answer to the question. (In case you meed me to explain that to you too)

Everything I dont like is a conspiracy theory.

lol, love nausi claiming other people as insufferable.

trump is unrelated to my point of two instances which occured without him that I quoted you regarding.

And as for the bolded, that is a statement which has become widely known for a lot of reasons when it comes to his behavior, but I never claimed he was unfit purely for the example you stated here of "celebrating this stuff"

I think he is "too unpolished" to be president basely solely on his poor behavior in general. at this point you sound exactly like the same "orange man good" blind sentiment, where none of his behavior and dialogue seems to be able to change your opinion of him.


if this point is referencing a source you saw recently that claimed only trump revels in victories that occur, and I had claimed that source didn't exist or something, you'd have a point sure and yeah that blind behavior would be insufferable as ***.