The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Taking his wording too literally? How would you interpret this: “the stupid Democrats can't get over loosing the last election and want Hillary for president so no matter what he does or says doesn't matter to them get over it he won and the country is better off”

Also, you have read Red’s posts. You know there is a difference in spelling, punctuation, and eloquence between his posts and what that trumper typed.

You are really really reaching on both of your “points”

I have to admit that I'm impressed by how loyal you are to Trump and your fellow Trumpers even when it makes you look like an idiot.

Edit:. Here is another gem from that trumper after another person chimed in on our conversation.

Woman who decided to chime in: (speaking to the trumper) Grow up. Name calling is just juvenile. We each have our opinion and are entitled as US citizens. BTW, have you heard of punctuation? Just saying.

Trumper: i can't help it stupid is stupid and punctuation don't count in emails

Lol, he doesn't know the difference between a Facebook post and an email. Apparently he thought we conversing through email.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

This person you are talking to might not understand how things work, or they might be saying that the people who want to impeach Trump are wishing Hillary was president. It doesn't really matter. I still don't believe there are large numbers of people who believe that impeaching Trump makes Hillary president.

And I was kidding about Red. Despite the fact that he is confused about those two words it is pretty clear that he's genuinely anti-Trump.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Cavanaugh happened before impeachment. Impeachment is not a time machine.
The point was that people think that impeachment was about stopping trump from getting future judges put in place silly. Though i guess you are right to think that some trumpers (yourself included) are dumb enough to think that impeachment negates the past.

Also, you are making an assumption about pence not being anle to get cavanaugh appointed. You dont know he wouldnt have made it happen. What would have stopped him from making it happen?

I'm going to have to do an all caps LOL at you thinking it's some accomplishment by Trump to get kavanaugh appointed. You really are a Trump loving fool to think that.

You know how a supreme Court Justice gets appointed? The president nominates the person and then the SENATE (owned by Trump's republican party) votes to confirm. It simply takes a majority vote by some Trumpers. Wow, so incredible that the Republican presidents man got appointed. (Obvious sarcasm)
Confirmation by the Senate allows the president to formally appoint the candidate to the court.
The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as Justice, thus the president may nominate ANY individual to serve the court.

No qualifications at all? That's pretty stupid and should be changed.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

It is sad to see you become as unhinged as the rest of the anti-Trumpers. I have not said anything about a time machine or the other stuff that you are claiming. I'm not even going to read your bizarre post beyond the second paragraph.

 

[fishonjazz]

It is sad to see you become as unhinged as the rest of the anti-Trumpers. I have not said anything about a time machine or the other stuff that you are claiming. I'm not even going to read your bizarre post beyond the second paragraph.

You seemed to give a bunch of credit to trump for getting kavanaugh appointed and said that pence wouldn't have been able to. I was telling you that is a stupid thing to say cause getting kavanaugh, or literally anyone, appointed to the supreme court is extremely simple for a republican president to do while he has a republican senate.
There are no qualifications required for a supreme court justice. All it requires is the president to nominate the person and then the senate to approve it. That's it.

 

[fishonjazz]

It is sad to see you become as unhinged as the rest of the anti-Trumpers. I have not said anything about a time machine or the other stuff that you are claiming. I'm not even going to read your bizarre post beyond the second paragraph.

The time machine comment was used because we were talking about reasons why republicans think that democrats wanted trump impeached. You mentioned the appointment of kavanaugh to the supreme court as a reason. How would impeaching trump have any effect on the appointment of kavanaugh to the supreme court? That happened prior to impeachment. Impeachment is not some form of time travel to where if trump is impeached suddenly kavanaugh to the supreme court doesn't happen silly.
Its really stupid (kind of unhinged to be honest) to think of preventing the kavanaugh appointment to the supreme court as a reason why the democrats would want trump impeached. Almost as stupid as saying the democrats wanted trump impeached so that Hillary could be president.

 

[One Brow]

Can anyone guess when women started being allowed outside the house to work? About the same time they burned their bras in protest, and were allowed to wear jeans to school.

Women have always worked outside the house.

 

[str8line]

Wel , if *Putin* says so, it must be true.

So ****ing brazen it's unreal. Trump is always testing his minion's servitude and has yet to find their limits. Will it all culminate in a shooting on 5th Ave?

 

[The Thriller]

This is a good video on the authoritarian tactics Donald is using:

 

[The Thriller]

The call and now the secret email were perfect! That’s why they were so secret! Witch Hunt!

 

[gandalfe]

Women have always worked outside the house.

Except for maybe briefly from the late 1940s through the mid 1960's.

 

[str8line]

It is sad to see you become as unhinged as the rest of the anti-Trumpers. I have not said anything about a time machine or the other stuff that you are claiming. I'm not even going to read your bizarre post beyond the second paragraph.

Bagadouches gonna douche.

 

[JazzGal]

Except for maybe briefly from the late 1940s through the mid 1960's.

So there were no secretaries, nurses, waitresses and school teachers during this period of time? Amazing.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sorry, guys, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If it involves a particular comment or comments, could you provide me the comment number?

"Than is used in comparisons as a conjunction, as in "she is younger than I am," and as a preposition, "he is taller than me." Then indicates time. It is used as an adverb, "I lived in Idaho then," noun, "we'll have to wait until then," and adjective, "the then governor."

"A good trick to keep track of these words is that then is usually used to indicate time. Both thenand time have a letter “E” in them. Than is used to make comparisons. Both than and comparison have a letter “A” in them."

I know the difference in the two words and their usage. But if I made a mistake in the usage, I'm sure it would not be the first time. Also I'm assuming all this cannot be critical to any argument or point made in this thread, but if you could direct me to the comment, at least I could better know what you are referring to.

Or not. I'll live if I remain clueless about what you are talking about. My guess is that whatever the point is, it doesn't affect this thread at all, and really doesn't need elaboration for my sake. You just naturally made me wonder what this was all about. I do remember an instance, long ago, not sure which thread, in which @Joe Bagadonuts pointed out a misuse by myself of the usage of either then or than.

It's almost like a digital signature on your posts to use these two words wrong. I've seen it extremely frequently.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Thing is, if trump is innocent and didn't want to be impeached then he could have easily prevented impeachment. He must have wanted to be impeached.
Otherwise he would have simply handed over all the documents being requested and encouraged the witnesses such as Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton etc to give their testimony. Then there could be no obstruction charge and those witnesses and documents would prove his innocence, right?
Wonder why he didn't allow those people to testify and didn't turn over the documentation that would have shown he was innocent of the abuse of power charge.
Hmmmmmmm........

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

It might be because the Dem's and their media buddies have been trying to reinterpret every single thing he does in the worst possible way since before he won the election and he wanted to give them the middle finger.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You seemed to give a bunch of credit to trump for getting kavanaugh appointed and said that pence wouldn't have been able to. I was telling you that is a stupid thing to say cause getting kavanaugh, or literally anyone, appointed to the supreme court is extremely simple for a republican president to do while he has a republican senate.
There are no qualifications required for a supreme court justice. All it requires is the president to nominate the person and then the senate to approve it. That's it.

If you watched those hearings and you considered that process extremely simple then we see things so differently that we will never be able to effectively communicate on issues like this.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The time machine comment was used because we were talking about reasons why republicans think that democrats wanted trump impeached. You mentioned the appointment of kavanaugh to the supreme court as a reason. How would impeaching trump have any effect on the appointment of kavanaugh to the supreme court? That happened prior to impeachment. Impeachment is not some form of time travel to where if trump is impeached suddenly kavanaugh to the supreme court doesn't happen silly.
Its really stupid (kind of unhinged to be honest) to think of preventing the kavanaugh appointment to the supreme court as a reason why the democrats would want trump impeached. Almost as stupid as saying the democrats wanted trump impeached so that Hillary could be president.

OMG. I'm not eating any more of your word salad. I never made the argument that you are claiming that I did.

 

[gandalfe]

So there were no secretaries, nurses, waitresses and school teachers during this period of time? Amazing.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have data from before 1950, but the labor participation rate of women has increased a huge amount since then.

https://statusofwomendata.org/explo...t-and-earnings/#WomensLaborForceParticipation

Oddly, I noticed that the graph only shows 1960 and on, but the page talks about 1950. Weird, but I'm not going to dig too far, because I'm basically lazy.

 

[str8line]

It might be because the Dem's and their media buddies have been trying to reinterpret every single thing he does in the worst possible way since before he won the election and he wanted to give them the middle finger.

Right, reinterpret, you're so right. Because so much of what he does requires reinterpretation to make him look like the psycho he is.

 

[str8line]

If you watched those hearings and you considered that process extremely simple then we see things so differently that we will never be able to effectively communicate on issues like this.

You mean simple like interpreting the words coming out of Donald's mouth? Or Rudy's mouth? That seems complicated for you.

 

[fishonjazz]

It might be because the Dem's and their media buddies have been trying to reinterpret every single thing he does in the worst possible way since before he won the election and he wanted to give them the middle finger.

By getting himself impeached? Well it makes sense given how stupid Trump is I guess. Good point Joe

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

If you watched those hearings and you considered that process extremely simple then we see things so differently that we will never be able to effectively communicate on issues like this.

I told you the process. Was I wrong about how a supreme Court Justice gets appointed?

Trump (or any president) chooses someone, anyone, to nominate.
Then the Senate has to agree or disagree with the choice. Now Trump chose a crappy person, which he can do since he can he can literally choose anyone, and so there was a longer process than normal maybe but in the end the Senate is owned by Trump and they were going to do what he wanted.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app