Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode X: Purple Raining to Impeachment

[guartz]

Clinton's campaign to try and plant evidence

wut

[guartz]

[Salodin]

wut

What?

The guy either is trying to plant evidence with all these shady people he normally does business with, or just straight has millions of dollars worth of illegal bribes he wants to make and only found success in doing so with Trumps campaign.

Either angle is terrible for donny.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

His strongest argument is that the bar for bribery, in his opinion, was not met. Not only is he wrong, according to three of his peers who were also there, but it doesn't matter.

Keep in mind the jury is out to this day as to whether or not Nixon knew about the Watergate break in ahead of time. His articles of impeachment were all regarding obstruction of justice and Congress.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Dimmauk]

Did you watch the other's statements?

[Guyverarmor]

No he didn't Dimmy...those statements are just deep state liberal agendas...he has no need to watch em.

[guartz]

Did you watch the other's statements?

I did, one yelled at me and the other regurgitated democrat's talking points. Reminded me of the sea of experts MSM hires for their opinions.

[guartz]

I still stand with the guy who said being butthurt isn't a basis for impeachment.

[arus2001]

Being butthurt is not a suitable defense to not impeach.

[Zealot]

Nothing you just said has any basis in reality.

Also lol, looking up this Turley guy now and he was also an expert witness at Clinton's impeachment where he argued the exact opposite proposition, declaring no law needed to be broken to justify impeachment.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I did, one yelled at me and the other regurgitated democrat's talking points. Reminded me of the sea of experts MSM hires for their opinions.

I don't believe for one second that you've ever actually watched an expert speak on any subject and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Fiye]

I don't believe for one second that you've ever actually watched an expert speak on any subject and nothing you say will convince me otherwise.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The problem with guartz is he's watched plenty of people speak for hours on topics. That he has researched any topic to some degree is true but the problem is he dug himself into so many conspiracy theories that it has shaped his entire world view.

There's a reason why I want him to talk about Sandy Hook.

[kuronosan]

You don't. You really don't.

Guartz cherry picks his topics a lot like Ben Shapiro. I imagine he's rather intelligent and capable of intelligent thought, but he chooses instead to engage in nonsensical threads of reasoning in order to win an argument.

In this example, constitutional scholars and lawyers are offering credible reasons for impeachment and congressfolk who previously would have agreed with regard to Clinton's impeachment are throwing themselves on the fence posts for Trump because they want to win. They want their power to pass their agenda.

This is not the hill they should die on. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, Trump is very obviously guilty.

[Fiye]

You don't. You really don't.

Guartz cherry picks his topics a lot like Ben Shapiro. I imagine he's rather intelligent and capable of intelligent thought, but he chooses instead to engage in nonsensical threads of reasoning in order to win an argument.

In this example, constitutional scholars and lawyers are offering credible reasons for impeachment and congressfolk who previously would have agreed with regard to Clinton's impeachment are throwing themselves on the fence posts for Trump because they want to win. They want their power to pass their agenda.

This is not the hill they should die on. Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, Trump is very obviously guilty.

Guartz doesn't cherry pick his information. If that were the case we could systematically dismantle his arguments as they came up. The problem is he's bought into several layers of conspiracy.

Guartz can show you the work. Guartz can cite people on it. But to us its all nonsense because it serves some greater conspiracy that the deep state is trying to undermine Trump.

[Fiye]

There's a reason why I don't take Guartz arguments at face value. And why I do background searches on all of his topic points. Because what Guartz has been arguing aren't ideas he's formulated. He's regurgitating information and I cite when he linked the Ben Swann video as a huge case for it. Or when I called out his black gun crime chart talking point that's been repeated by David Duke.

Obviously we're all shaped by the media we take in but I point out Guartz as the lone exception because his sources are absolute fucking garbage.

[archibaldcrane]

Let's pretend we'd know who Epstein was if Clinton won.

.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[guartz]

Guartz doesn't cherry pick his information. If that were the case we could systematically dismantle his arguments as they came up. The problem is he's bought into several layers of conspiracy.

Guartz can show you the work. Guartz can cite people on it. But to us its all nonsense because it serves some greater conspiracy that the deep state is trying to undermine Trump.

Very insightful actually, but I can clear it up a bit since you are half right:

I was normal kid until I started paying attention to politics under Bush jr. The weapons of mass destruction, they are east, west, north and south. Tinfoil hat came out then. Lefties were on board back then, chomsky's manufactured consent was quoted religiously. I was obsessed with neocons a decade ego, I wanted to understand them more then anything, and what I learned was that those were dynastic beliefs - born from universities and intellectuals like Strauss and propagated in American politics by think tanks and people who did not believe the things they said. They called it 'noble lies' in vain of Plato. The ideas were simple enough, politics was mob control and what was is the best way to control mobs. It was super critical of American liberalism(as in classical liberal sense) and that it contained seeds of it's own destruction. It wasn't a guide, per say, more like political/philosophical hermeneutics. So this, ah, quest for understanding and my problem say you say, sort of detached me from politics. A good way to explain it is something like; the basics of epistemology is that we have built in interpretative structures that paints reality for us - and it's not a mechanical system that reacts deterministically, as in, it's not just the stimulus response chain - (I think it was chomsky that once suggested that evolutionary purpose of speech was to influence thoughts), it's more like an embedded system of individual cognition based on experiences. That's why a person can look at multiple cars with slight variations and still understand they are cars. And why I can look at current politics and say they are propaganda.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

[kuronosan]

Actually for me it clears it up perfectly.

Thank you.

[Salodin]

Clears it up perfectly.

You're fucking insane.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

Let the GOP teeth gnashing begin. Dems pulled the trigger.