Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Both USAID And The CIA Were Behind The Impeachment Of Trump in 2019

TLDR: USAID funded a fake news org, planted journalists and approved stories. A CIA analyst, loyal to Obama gave them a story to run then cited it in a whistleblower complaint to setup the first Trump impeachment.

Why?

Trump was looking at the money trail to Ukraine and trying to figure out what exactly was going on. USAID, swampy Dems and swampy Reps couldn't have that. So they launched a counter attack designed to stop Trump from looking into the money because he'd be too busy defending himself.

And it never stopped.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)

sddefault.jpg

I love that you guys have your own extended universe, but I think getting into Warhammer 40K would be a more productive and rewarding use of your time that would significantly reduce the chances of divorce/not seeing your grandkids, plus there are miniatures!

Edited by Black Dog
Posted
44 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Both USAID And The CIA Were Behind The Impeachment Of Trump in 2019

TLDR: USAID funded a fake news org, planted journalists and approved stories. A CIA analyst, loyal to Obama gave them a story to run then cited it in a whistleblower complaint to setup the first Trump impeachment.

Why?

Trump was looking at the money trail to Ukraine and trying to figure out what exactly was going on. USAID, swampy Dems and swampy Reps couldn't have that. So they launched a counter attack designed to stop Trump from looking into the money because he'd be too busy defending himself.

And it never stopped.

 

You can provide them all the evidence they want and they still won't change their mind. Mind virus run amok

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, West said:

You can provide them all the evidence they want and they still won't change their mind. Mind virus run amok

Lots of Rule 2 going on.

  • Sad 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
27 minutes ago, West said:

You can provide them all the evidence they want

When are you going to start providing evidence? A tweet is NOT evidence. You need OBJECTIVE REPORTING.

27 minutes ago, West said:

and they still won't change their mind. Mind virus run amok

Post all the evidence I want. Duh

Posted
7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

When are you going to start providing evidence? A tweet is NOT evidence. You need OBJECTIVE REPORTING.

Post all the evidence I want. Duh

It's right in front of your damn nose, pal. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

sddefault.jpg

Not just "1 hr ago" lol.

Black Dog regurgitates CNN conspiracy theories 24/7, and has been for years now.

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Both USAID And The CIA Were Behind The Impeachment Of Trump in 2019

TLDR: USAID funded a fake news org, planted journalists and approved stories. A CIA analyst, loyal to Obama gave them a story to run then cited it in a whistleblower complaint to setup the first Trump impeachment.

Why?

Trump was looking at the money trail to Ukraine and trying to figure out what exactly was going on. USAID, swampy Dems and swampy Reps couldn't have that. So they launched a counter attack designed to stop Trump from looking into the money because he'd be too busy defending himself.

And it never stopped.

 

Except we KNOW that the whistleblower was Alexander Vindman, who was listening into the call to Zelensky as part of his DUTIES. None of the other crap in your cite was at all necessary, so the grand conspiracy just fell apart. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Except we KNOW that the whistleblower was Alexander Vindman, who was listening into the call to Zelensky as part of his DUTIES. None of the other crap in your cite was at all necessary, so the grand conspiracy just fell apart. 

You didn't disprove me in any way. The piece of the puzzle that was missing was USAIDs role in creating the false narrative that was used. If Musk is correct, Vindman was being paid by Ukraine so he had a lot to gain and everything to lose if Trump did follow the money. Further, he had connections with Obama and Biden. That gave him ample opportunity to coordinate his "whistleblower message" with high ranking democrats.

Hell, you didn't disprove me. You strengthened my point.

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Not just "1 hr ago" lol.

Black Dog regurgitates CNN conspiracy theories 24/7, and has been for years now.

CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN!

Lol just because you spend your entire life marinating in the glow of cable news doesn't mean the rest of us do you f*cking loon.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Black Dog said:

CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN!

Lol just because you spend your entire life marinating in the glow of cable news doesn't mean the rest of us do you f*cking loon.

Stop regurgitating CNN bullshit and I'll stop accusing you of watching it, Black Dummy.

  • Like 1

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
Just now, WestCanMan said:

Stop regurgitating CNN bullshit and I'll stop accusing you of watching it, Black Dummy.

CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN!

Lol just because you spend your entire life marinating in the glow of cable news doesn't mean the rest of us do you f*cking loon.

Posted
2 hours ago, West said:

You can provide them all the evidence they want and they still won't change their mind. Mind virus run amok

Lol evidence here being a series of extremely thin and entirely circumstantial connections, no actual hard evidence at all that OCCRP report's are false.  

The cherry on top is all this is being peddled by a notoriously unstable drug addict, a guy who faked being a medical doctor and some sort of Lego character named...Dan Bongo?

I mean the idea that Trump, a malignant narcissist with no interest beyond his own enrichment and aggrandisement, was out there pursuing an investigation into Biden that had to be kiboshed with fake charges of influence-peddling is so f*cking absurdly comical it could only come from the kind of people who wear T-shirts depicting the elderly fat musical theatre aficionado as a muscle-bound Rambo character.

29 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You didn't disprove me in any way. The piece of the puzzle that was missing was USAIDs role in creating the false narrative that was used.

There's no evidence that it was false.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol evidence here being a series of extremely thin and entirely circumstantial connections, no actual hard evidence at all that OCCRP report's are false.  

The cherry on top is all this is being peddled by a notoriously unstable drug addict, a guy who faked being a medical doctor and some sort of Lego character named...Dan Bongo?

I mean the idea that Trump, a malignant narcissist with no interest beyond his own enrichment and aggrandisement, was out there pursuing an investigation into Biden that had to be kiboshed with fake charges of influence-peddling is so f*cking absurdly comical it could only come from the kind of people who wear T-shirts depicting the elderly fat musical theatre aficionado as a muscle-bound Rambo character.

There's no evidence that it was false.

Actually, the article lays out how the narrative was fabricated.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN!

Lol just because you spend your entire life marinating in the glow of cable news doesn't mean the rest of us do you f*cking loon.

You spent your life drinking from CNN's urinal, Black Dummy. 

You repeat all of the things that they say, you just pretend to have heard it from "better" sources. 

Guess what fackface... the fact that you got their BS second-hand from MSNBC or Politico doesn't make it less stupid or more truthful. BS is BS, and it's all you believe. 

Whether you got that BS straight from CNN or from one of their lackeys is a distinction without a difference. FYI the people who are married to or are cousins of the prominent Dems mostly work at CNN. They're at the top of the leftard shit-heap. Your sources are mere minions.

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

Ex-Canadian since April 2025

Posted
3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

TLDR: USAID funded a fake news org, planted journalists and approved stories. A CIA analyst, loyal to Obama gave them a story to run then cited it in a whistleblower complaint to setup the first Trump impeachment.

Was this before or after USAID provided food in countries where people are starving, operated the world’s gold-standard famine detection system, used data analysis to predict where food shortages are emerging, bolstered health programmes, such as offering polio vaccines in countries where the disease circulates (thereby deterring a global pandemic), provided medicine and installed clean water supplies to the world’s poorest countries, provided prosthetic limbs to soldiers injured in Ukraine, cleaned landmines, and contained the spread of Ebola in Africa?

What’s this got to do with the US, you ask? Okay, you want to make it about you. Fine. Why should we care about dropping maternal, infant and child mortality rates in foreign countries?

Does the US want to be a global leader or not? Do they want to retreat from the world stage and isolate themselves? Do they want to give up their influence?

Posted
1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN! CNN!

Lol just because you spend your entire life marinating in the glow of cable news doesn't mean the rest of us do you f*cking loon.

Whoops!  Triggered leftie dog is triggered!

yeash @WestCanMan,  now you've got him thinking about marinading himself!!  Go easy on the guy! :P 

  • Haha 1

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
47 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Was this before or after USAID provided food in countries where people are starving, operated the world’s gold-standard famine detection system, used data analysis to predict where food shortages are emerging, bolstered health programmes, such as offering polio vaccines in countries where the disease circulates (thereby deterring a global pandemic), provided medicine and installed clean water supplies to the world’s poorest countries, provided prosthetic limbs to soldiers injured in Ukraine, cleaned landmines, and contained the spread of Ebola in Africa?

What’s this got to do with the US, you ask? Okay, you want to make it about you. Fine. Why should we care about dropping maternal, infant and child mortality rates in foreign countries?

Does the US want to be a global leader or not? Do they want to retreat from the world stage and isolate themselves? Do they want to give up their influence?

Red herring.

First, you aren't denying that USAID was used to create false charges against a sitting president to cover up political immorality that was and is prevelant.

Second, USAID is not a nonprofit, do-gooder organization. I would even call into question whether the money ear marked for all those things is even going to organizations that actually do those things.

Finally, USAID is just one small part of the government and we are only two weeks in. What happens when we start looking into the Pentagon? Department of education? IRS?

And the democrats a fiercely defending all of it. Why?

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

First, you aren't denying that USAID was used to create false charges against a sitting president to cover up political immorality that was and is prevelant.

I don't pay any attention to conspiracy theories.

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Finally, USAID is just one small part of the government and we are only two weeks in. What happens when we start looking into the Pentagon? Department of education? IRS?

Fine. Believe Trump and Musk over everyone else. See how far it gets you.

Posted
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You spent your life drinking from CNN's urinal, Black Dummy. 

You repeat all of the things that they say, you just pretend to have heard it from "better" sources. 

Guess what fackface... the fact that you got their BS second-hand from MSNBC or Politico doesn't make it less stupid or more truthful. BS is BS, and it's all you believe. 

Whether you got that BS straight from CNN or from one of their lackeys is a distinction without a difference. FYI the people who are married to or are cousins of the prominent Dems mostly work at CNN. They're at the top of the leftard shit-heap. Your sources are mere minions.

Whenever CNN reports are picked up and repeated by competitors, THAT IS CORROBORATION, lDIOT.

Your Canuck OPINION is clearly WARPED.

Posted
30 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Whenever CNN reports are picked up and repeated by competitors, THAT IS CORROBORATION, lDIOT.

 

That is literally the opposite of corroboration. In fact it's precisely why you seek corroboration rather than listening to one source. Having someone else repeat that source doesn't make that source anymore accurate than it was when they said it themselves

Honestly robo, everyone makes fun of you as it is how the hell can you feed that fire by claiming that the definition of corroboration is to have somebody repeat what the first source said? Corroboration is when you get confirmation from an entirely separate source which therefore corroborates the original source. It's not when somebody else picks up the same story

Have you considered a career knocking down buildings with your forehead for a living?

  • Haha 1

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That is literally the opposite of corroboration. In fact it's precisely why you seek corroboration rather than listening to one source. Having someone else repeat that source doesn't make that source anymore accurate than it was when they said it themselves

Honestly robo, everyone makes fun of you as it is how the hell can you feed that fire by claiming that the definition of corroboration is to have somebody repeat what the first source said? Corroboration is when you get confirmation from an entirely separate source which therefore corroborates the original source. It's not when somebody else picks up the same story

Have you considered a career knocking down buildings with your forehead for a living?

Have you considered a brain transplant so you can THINK before posting?

Competitors do their own analysis, they don't just parrot reports without verification. Duh

That is unless they specifically state that the story has NOT been verified by them. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Have you considered a brain transplant so you can THINK before posting?

Would you sell me yours? It must be in pretty good shape, it's completely unused :) 

 

Quote

Competitors do their own analysis, they don't just parrot reports without verification. Duh

No they don't. In fact that's one of the big criticisms of the industry. Nobody around the time or the money they just repeat what somebody else's dug up without even verifying the facts. It's even worse in Canada if it makes you feel any better, you should see what the CBC does, but it's pretty damn bad in America too

And of course there's the fact that writers often sell their stories to more than one paper and even if you see it in more than one source you're actually seeing a version of the same article from the same person

Quote

That is unless they specifically state that the story has NOT been verified by them. 

Nope. That's just not how it works.

I get it, you've said something kind of stupid and now you're trying to find a way to back pedal or somehow make it look less stupid. Just on your mistake and move on, the Deeper you dig this hole the worse it gets and everybody already knows you're wrong so it just gets boring

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,904
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    TheGx Forum
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dave L earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...