The Trump Second Impeachment Thread

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What a bullshit post coming from a leftist.

The Dems supported rioting, looting, arson, and murder for years and you didn't talk about the need for anyone to face justice at all.

You have no credibility whatsoever on the issue of crime and punishment beave.

Everything you said in your above  post is a lie. Plain and simple. 

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, I see what you mean.  Not as much as any right wing media, of course, but CNN are certainly biased.

My version is still the most mind boggling, of course.  Trump is all the things I said he is.  He doesn't care about you, and yet you still revere him.

CNN's lying and disinformation is legendary. Only a complete fool would downplay something like "The riots are mostly peaceful" or "M Brown was a gentle giant" to 'bias'.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Everything you said in your above  post is a lie. Plain and simple. 

Everything that I said in that post was an absolute fact, and if you want to contradict it then you need to speak to the accusation that the Dems supported the rioting, murders, etc.

Your childish insult is meaningless without the support of your worthless opinion. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

CNN's lying and disinformation is legendary. Only a complete fool would downplay something like "The riots are mostly peaceful" or "M Brown was a gentle giant" to 'bias'.

Only a complete fool would not know the difference between lies and bias.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Only a complete fool would not know the difference between lies and bias.

To say that M Brown was a gentle giant was not spin, it was a lie, just like it would be a lie if I sad that a bunch of gentle protestors peacefully entered the capitol building.

The people who entered the capitol weren't shooting guns and murdering people to get in there, but they weren't gentle either, and it would be a lie to say that they were.  

Only a total idiot doesn't understand this. It's pretty simple. 

Your standards are atrociously low when you accept actual lies as mere spin. 

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Everything that I said in that post was an absolute fact, and if you want to contradict it then you need to speak to the accusation that the Dems supported the rioting, murders, etc.

Your childish insult is meaningless without the support of your worthless opinion. 

Use your brain. How can someone prove something  never happened? This is just more of you backwards logic and reverse onus false accusations just like your phoney election fraud claims  

 

The Dems did not support riots or murdes. Yoy made that up and YOU have to prove it true not the other way around genius 

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Use your brain. How can someone prove something  never happened? This is just more of you backwards logic and reverse onus false accusations just like your phoney election fraud claims  

 

The Dems did not support riots or murdes. Yoy made that up and YOU have to prove it true not the other way around genius 

I have a brain, and I know that if the Dems didn't support the rioting and murders then they would have spoken out strongly against them instead of acting like it was people's civic duty to support the riots and like the carnage was insignificant. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

To say that M Brown was a gentle giant was not spin, it was a lie, just like it would be a lie if I sad that a bunch of gentle protestors peacefully entered the capitol building.

The people who entered the capitol weren't shooting guns and murdering people to get in there, but they weren't gentle either, and it would be a lie to say that they were.  

Only a total idiot doesn't understand this. It's pretty simple. 

Your standards are atrociously low when you accept actual lies as mere spin. 

Like I said, only a complete fool would not know the difference between lies and bias.  You seem determined to confirm that.  You did achieve one thing though.  As I was not a watcher or a reader of CNN before Trump turned the US political system into a reality TV show, I had to do some research to see just what you might be talking about.

So.  First Google:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/index.html

It’s a case of he said, he said. The accounts of why a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown on a street in Ferguson, Missouri, on Saturday couldn’t be more disparate.  That seems reasonable.

The St. Louis suburb of 21,000 was wracked by violence as protesters outraged over the 18-year-old’s shooting faced off with police.

Although there were reports that some demonstrations were peaceful – protesters held up their hands, as Brown reportedly did, and others demanded a fair inquiry, chanting, “No justice, no peace” – there were also reports of fires, looting, vandalism and attacks on police officers. - Peaceful, and wracked by violence.  No reason both can't be true.  It does look like the violence takes precedence there, but that's just me.

This is where the stories part ways.  Oops, two sides? Might as well report them both.

The chief didn’t explain how Brown got so far away from the car or whether he was surrendering. He said he was declining to disclose certain details because he didn’t want to “prejudice” the case.  Fact, but biased.  Why put quotes around the word prejudice?

Meanwhile, Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, didn’t need to know his identity to direct some pointed words at the man who shot the son she knew as a “gentle giant.” Fact, but biased.  She undoubtedly said it, and she probably believed it, but CNN didn't have to tell us.  They chose to include that.

Most of the article is taken up with two different stories of the same event.  CNN reports on both, but by the end of the article, I know which way they want me to lean.  That's bias.

You seem to need CNN to be liars, in order to justify your crackpot beliefs.  They are not.  They are a news reporting outlet with a left wing bias.  The people you go to for news are probably liars.  That's why you thought the election was rigged.  They lied to you. 

 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I have a brain, and I know that if the Dems didn't support the rioting and murders then they would have spoken out strongly against them instead of acting like it was people's civic duty to support the riots and like the carnage was insignificant. 

First of all you’ve already been shown proof of them condemning the violence yet you continue to repeat your lie. 
 

 Secondly your argument is false because supporting something and failing to sufficiently condemn something are not the same.
 

I mean it’s not like they tweeted you’re special we love you” to the rioters  the way Trump did to his terrorist followers.

 

It’s not like the Democrats invented the cause the mob was rioting for the way Trump did.

 

It’s not like the Democrats planned, organized, funded and delivered incendiary speeches at the event that turned into the riot the way Trump did

It’s not like Democrats continued with their plans to host rallies even after they were warned that some of their followers were planning to commit violence then way Trump did

Its not like the Democrats continued to egg on the mob with incendiary tweets even after they know it had turned violent. 

its not like BLM rioters were believed to believed they were doing Obama’s bidding and were monitoring their phones expecting instructions from Obama,  they way Trump rioters in the Capitol thought they were doing Trumps bidding and were expecting to receive further instructions tweeted from Trump

 

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Like I said, only a complete fool would not know the difference between lies and bias.  You seem determined to confirm that.  You did achieve one thing though.  As I was not a watcher or a reader of CNN before Trump turned the US political system into a reality TV show, I had to do some research to see just what you might be talking about.

So.  First Google:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/index.html

 

Well, in this case and using the CNN example Google found for you you're looking at biased lies.

There were 2 official investigations of the Michael Brown case. One by a black, leftist DA. Both exonerated officer Darren Wilson of any wrong-doing although said DA tried to weasel word his way out of admitting it.

You see that picture of Big Mike's friend lionized there at the top of the CNN fabrication they're calling a story. Everything he said was a proven lie.

It was known to be a lie when CNN was doing this in the pic below in regards to the massively proven lie that "the Gentle Giant" and his partner in Crime had been told to put their hands up and pleaded "Don't shoot."

See this:

That's another CNN lie. Or pardon me is it just bias when they lie like that?

Hands up. Don't shoot. Never happened in the Michael Brown case. Saying it did is a lie and some liars still tell it.

Somebody from your side of the aisle here was explaining to me how superior you guys are because you prefer an objective telling of the story.

If that's true I imagine you'll be wanting to hear the DOJ report on the first investigation. Here ya go.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

See what I mean. What CNN told you was a lie or as a superior intellect like yourself might prefer "a bias."

Edited February 15, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

BTW the Corporate Media's telling of the Trayvon Martin story was also a load of crap.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well, in this case and using the CNN example Google found for you you're looking at biased lies.

There were 2 official investigations of the Michael Brown case. One by a black, leftist DA. Both exonerated officer Darren Wilson of any wrong-doing although said DA tried to weasel word his way out of admitting it.

You see that picture of the Big Mike's friend lionized there at the top of the CNN fabrication of a story. Everything he said was a proven lie.

It was known to be a lie when CNN was doing this in the pic below in regards to the massively proven lie that "the Gentle Giant" and his partner in Crime had been told to put their hands up and pleaded "Don't shoot."

See this:

That's another CNN lie. Or pardon me is it just bias when they lie like that?

Hands up. Don't shoot. Never happened in the Michael Brown case. Saying it did is a lie and some liars still tell it.

Somebody from your side of the aisle here was explaining to me how superior you guys are because you prefer an objective telling of the story.

If that's true I imagine you'll be wanting to hear the DOJ report on the first investigation. Here ya go.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

See what I mean. What CNN told you was a lie or as a superior intellect like yourself might prefer "a bias."

The date on the article I quoted was August 15, 2014.  The report you quoted was dated March 2015.  It appears you are lying about the picture at the top of the article.  Not showing bias.  Out and out lying.

Why would the DoJ report be a problem for me?  I'm not arguing about the Michael Brown case.  I'm arguing about the difference between lying and showing bias.  WCM doesn't know the difference, and it appears you don't either.

[Infidel Dog]

And bias can be a lie.

You offered up a good example of that with the picture at the top of the CNN story. As did I with "Hands up. Don't Shoot."

"Michael Brown's friend" in the CNN pic was a proven liar and his testimony was riddled with lies.

CNN pimping him out as some sort of respected witness is a lie told out of bias.

You trying to obfuscate from the well known fact that the "Gentle Giant" myth was a pile of BS by introducing an unrelated argument of the difference between bias and falsehood. I don't know if that's a lie but it's definitely deceptive.

Michael Brown was not a "Gentle Giant." He was an over-sized thug who had just stolen from a convenience star by using his size to intimidate the clerk. When a Police Officer pulled up on him he attacked the officer. "Hands up. Don't shoot," never happened.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Speaking of distraction though, we're getting off topic.

Here let me help bring it back:

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

And bias can be a lie.

You offered up a good example of that with the picture at the top of the CNN story. As did I with "Hands up. Don't Shoot."

"Michael Brown's friend" in the CNN pic was a proven liar and his testimony was riddled with lies.

CNN pimping him out as some sort of respected witness is a lie told out of bias.

You trying to obfuscate from the well known fact that the "Gentle Giant" myth was a pile of BS by introducing an unrelated argument of the difference between bias and falsehood. I don't know if that's a lie but it's definitely deceptive.

Michael Brown was not a "Gentle Giant." He was an over-sized thug who had just stolen from a convenience star by using his size to intimidate the clerk. When a Police Officer pulled up on him he attacked the officer. "Hands up. Don't shoot," never happened.

 

Yeah, nothing you said there actually makes any kind of argument to any of the points I made.  I certainly never argued any points regarding the case itself.  I did show how CNN showed a left leaning bias when reporting the story.  I saw no lies, and you pointed out no lies.

[Infidel Dog]

"Hands up don't shoot" was a lie. If you're saying I didn't already say so, well, that's a lie.

Just for a couple of examples.

But speaking of Nancy Pelosi and her second lame attempt at impeaching a President there's an interesting tale as to why the Dems didn't call witnesses even though they wanted to...bad.

In a quick sentence Nancy had something to hide. A pretty big something, actually.

Here’s Why the Democrats Didn’t Want Trump’s Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial

Quote

Here’s Why the Democrats Didn’t Want Trump’s Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial

Quote

On Saturday, the Senate voted to approve witnesses in the impeachment trial even after they had agreed to no witnesses. But that is just par for the course for Democrats. Just look at how many promises Joe Biden has broken in less than three weeks, with many more to come. But, then a funny thing happened.

After the Democrats and Republicans that are the same as Democrats insisted they had to call witnesses, they decided not to.

 

What changed so quickly? How could something so vitally important (According to Democrats and RINOs) be cast aside so quickly? The answer is quite simple.

Trump’s lawyers announced they were going to call Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser as witnesses and they could not afford for that to happen. They would have had to answer some really tough questions.

They were warned about possible riots in advance but turned down 15,000 Guardsmen Trump offered several times.

Not only would they have to explain why they refused help, but House managers would also have to explain why someone who wanted a riot would want to bring in 15,000 National Guard troops to make sure no riots would occur. Both knew there was a threat, yet neither one wanted protection against the possible threat. They would have also had to explain what the FBI reported about left-wing groups being involved.

 

Investigative reporter John Solomon has issued an FOIA request with the FBI on what they knew in advance and what they told Bowser and Pelosi of the threat.

The FBI denied his request.

 

Why? What is the big secret?

\The FBI has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party and they really need to be disbanded. And when they are, nobody above the title of agent should be allowed to be hired for its replacement.

https://libertyonenews.com/heres-why-the-democrats-didnt-want-trumps-legal-team-to-call-in-pelosi-to-testify-in-sham-impeachment-trial/

[Infidel Dog]

I wonder how Nancy is going to hide her misdeeds and incompetence when she does this:

Pelosi announces a 9/11-style commission to investigate “domestic terror attack” at Capitol

Best guess is it will be another Shifty Schiff hiding in the basement, perpetrating a closed "Investigation," leaking out the odd Dem gem he approves of, kind of investigation.

Doesn't it seem like she keeps getting more and more desperate the more she fails?

Edited February 16, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[WestCanMan]

21 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Like I said, only a complete fool would not know the difference between lies and bias.  You seem determined to confirm that.  You did achieve one thing though.  As I was not a watcher or a reader of CNN before Trump turned the US political system into a reality TV show, I had to do some research to see just what you might be talking about.

So.  First Google:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/index.html

It’s a case of he said, he said. The accounts of why a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown on a street in Ferguson, Missouri, on Saturday couldn’t be more disparate.  That seems reasonable.

The St. Louis suburb of 21,000 was wracked by violence as protesters outraged over the 18-year-old’s shooting faced off with police.

Although there were reports that some demonstrations were peaceful – protesters held up their hands, as Brown reportedly did, and others demanded a fair inquiry, chanting, “No justice, no peace” – there were also reports of fires, looting, vandalism and attacks on police officers. - Peaceful, and wracked by violence.  No reason both can't be true.  It does look like the violence takes precedence there, but that's just me.

This is where the stories part ways.  Oops, two sides? Might as well report them both.

The chief didn’t explain how Brown got so far away from the car or whether he was surrendering. He said he was declining to disclose certain details because he didn’t want to “prejudice” the case.  Fact, but biased.  Why put quotes around the word prejudice?

Meanwhile, Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, didn’t need to know his identity to direct some pointed words at the man who shot the son she knew as a “gentle giant.” Fact, but biased.  She undoubtedly said it, and she probably believed it, but CNN didn't have to tell us.  They chose to include that.

Most of the article is taken up with two different stories of the same event.  CNN reports on both, but by the end of the article, I know which way they want me to lean.  That's bias.

You seem to need CNN to be liars, in order to justify your crackpot beliefs.  They are not.  They are a news reporting outlet with a left wing bias.  The people you go to for news are probably liars.  That's why you thought the election was rigged.  They lied to you. 

 

OMG that's one article sap.

CNN referred to M Brown as a gentle giant for years, then they started calling G Floyd a gentle giant as well. 

It wasn't a lie to show his mom's quote that Brown was a gentle giant, it was a lie to propagate the myth for 6 years.

I'm sure that every mom has a cute nickname for her kid. Should CNN call Jeffrey Dahmer sweety-pie and Ted Bundy cuddles? 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG that's one article sap.

CNN referred to M Brown as a gentle giant for years, then they started calling G Floyd a gentle giant as well. 

It wasn't a lie to show his mom's quote that Brown was a gentle giant, it was a lie to propagate the myth for 6 years.

I'm sure that every mom has a cute nickname for her kid. Should CNN call Jeffrey Dahmer sweety-pie and Ted Bundy cuddles? 

Did they?  I could be wrong about this, because I wasn't watching or reading CNN at the time.  Did they ever call him a gentle giant without a reference, or putting the phrase in quotation marks?

Same with Floyd.  I have no idea, but I would like to see it.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

"Hands up don't shoot" was a lie. If you're saying I didn't already say so, well, that's a lie.

Just for a couple of examples.

But speaking of Nancy Pelosi and her second lame attempt at impeaching a President there's an interesting tale as to why the Dems didn't call witnesses even though they wanted to...bad.

In a quick sentence Nancy had something to hide. A pretty big something, actually.

Here’s Why the Democrats Didn’t Want Trump’s Legal Team to Call in Pelosi to Testify in Sham Impeachment Trial

https://libertyonenews.com/heres-why-the-democrats-didnt-want-trumps-legal-team-to-call-in-pelosi-to-testify-in-sham-impeachment-trial/

I don't remember saying you didn't already say "Hands up don't shoot" was a lie.  Where was that?  Are you lying?

I also don't think we were speaking of Nancy Pelosi and her second lame attempt at impeaching a President, but I've slept since we last discussed anything so I could be wrong.

Edited February 16, 2021 by bcsapper

[Infidel Dog]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't remember saying you didn't already say "Hands up don't shoot" was a lie.  Where was that?  Are you lying?

  

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I saw no lies, and you pointed out no lies.

Look your deceptive distraction and obfuscation tricks aren't working. Get back on topic, will you.

Here's something to consider. 

What did Nancy know and when did she know it?

There are those starting to think they impeached the wrong person.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

First of all you’ve already been shown proof of them condemning the violence yet you continue to repeat your lie. 

 

Where was the proof? Are you talking about sapper's quote?

They merely mentioned the violence. They didn't condemn it at all. 

"Hitler killed some Jews." - not condemnation.

"In one of history's most heinous and evil acts of bigotry, Hitler and his Nazis forced millions of innocent Jews to cruel deaths."  - condemnation.

 

 

I actually told the 100%, verifiable truth, as usual. You just don't have a very good understanding of the English language.

Quote

Although there were reports that some demonstrations were peaceful – protesters held up their hands, as Brown reportedly did, and others demanded a fair inquiry, chanting, “No justice, no peace” – there were also reports of fires, looting, vandalism and attacks on police officers.

This just half-justification, half facts. There's no condemnation there.

It's like: "Millions of Nazis believe that the bigotry of Jews contributed to the abject poverty of Germany during the depression, after Germany was forced to pay punitive reparation payments for their role in starting WWI. There are reports that the Nazis put some Jews into concentration camps and killed them." - Everything I said was true enough, but it is just a smattering of irrelevant  or minor facts and a glossing over of the crimes against Jews with no hint of condemnation. 

Quote

 Secondly your argument is false because supporting something and failing to sufficiently condemn something are not the same.

Have you not seen the Dems' support for BLM and Antifa? Bailing them out, painting their slogans, Kamala saying the protests 'should not let up', Michelle Obama saying that kids should "stay angry, focus their anger, and not let anyone tell them not be angry", Dem politicians calling their takeover of CHAZ "the Summer of Love" etc? On CNN they said things like: "Who says protests need to be peaceful?" (Chris cuomo). 

That's blatantly "SUPPORT". I'm 100% correct, as usual, and you're wrong again. 

Quote

I mean it’s not like they tweeted you’re special we love you” to the rioters  the way Trump did to his terrorist followers.

Trump denounced the rioting 3 times while it was happening, which was just 95 minutes. He never told them to keep doing it, or bailed them out, or pardoned them. 

Quote

It’s not like the Democrats invented the cause the mob was rioting for the way Trump did.

The Dems and CNN turned lawful arrests of men who attacked police into "crimes against black men" and let the "genocide against black men" narrative go unchecked. 

Quote

It’s not like the Democrats planned, organized, funded and delivered incendiary speeches at the event that turned into the riot the way Trump did

It’s not like Democrats continued with their plans to host rallies even after they were warned that some of their followers were planning to commit violence then way Trump did

Its not like the Democrats continued to egg on the mob with incendiary tweets even after they know it had turned violent. 

its not like BLM rioters were believed to believed they were doing Obama’s bidding and were monitoring their phones expecting instructions from Obama,  they way Trump rioters in the Capitol thought they were doing Trumps bidding and were expecting to receive further instructions tweeted from Trump

The Dems and CNN lionized BLM while they were busy editing videos to make police look bad, taking over areas of Seattle, chanting to "fry pigs like bacon", etc. The Dems even painted BLM on city streets.

The CNN/Dem supporters were attacking GOP politicians in the streets, they even shot some Republicans, the Dems kept their violent rhetoric  up. 

Your twisted version of history is a perfectly accurate representation of the CNN/Dem idiocy of the last 6 years. You drank their kool-aid and now you projectile vomit it out to the world. Pelosi and Chris Cuomo both give you a gold star. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

  

Look your sleazy distraction and obfuscation tricks aren't working. Get back on topic, will you.

Here's something to consider. 

What did Nancy know and when did she know it?

There are those starting to think they impeached the wrong person.

 

Hahaha, you pointed out something that was figured out to be a lie a year later.

I repeat:  I saw no lies in that article.  Please point one out (and try and make it one that CNN knew was a lie, this time)  Dear me!

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Look your sleazy distraction and obfuscation tricks aren't working. Get back on topic, will you.

Which, while certainly referring to the thread topic, is a sleazy distraction and obfuscation trick to try and extricate yourself from the hole you are in regarding your "lies" lies.

[Infidel Dog]

The testimony of the guy CNN was pimping out as a reliable witness was riddled with lies. The incident report from the DOJ showed that.

Look, Mike Brown wasn't a Gentle Giant hero. He was a dumb hood who liked to push his weight around. He was dumb enough to try to grab a cop's gun and his stupidity earned him a trip to the morgue. End of story.

Now, if you'd ever like to discuss the actual topic of this thread this is interesting:

WINNING: Trump Approval RISES Among Republicans Following Partisan Impeachment

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

The testimony of the guy CNN was pimping out as a reliable witness was riddled with lies. The incident report from the DOJ showed that.

Look, Mike Brown wasn't a Gentle Giant hero. He was a dumb hood who liked to push his weight around. He was dumb enough to try to grab a cop's gun and his stupidity earned him a trip to the morgue. End of story.

Now, if you'd ever like to discuss the actual topic of this thread this is interesting:

WINNING: Trump Approval RISES Among Republicans Following Partisan Impeachment

Yes, a year after they showed the video/reported what was said, in article where they put the other side of the story too.  Not without bias, but then, that's my claim, not yours.  You wrongly accused them of lying.

If I want to discuss anything else with you, you will be the first to know.