The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
Did dumb people become trumpers, attracted to his simplistic misogyny? Or did Trumpers, already simplistic misogynistic douchebags, become dumb people?

It’s just not a coincidence that the dumbest most low information posters throughout social media are always pro Trump. But which came first?
Trump does not have a corner on the market of dumb people. I doubt he has this woman:
And it's clear that he doesn't have you.
 

idestroyedthetoilet

Well-Known Member
Yeah... Trump is really good at business. He's also really good at negotiating. He also has a really smart brain. He's a stable genius, at least that what this one guy (Trump) said.

The ****tard got handed hundreds of millions of dollars by his actually good at business dad. He had investment money in NYC and around the world for real estate projects. All this toddler had to do was sit back and wait for the the right investment opportunities to walk through the front door and beg him for money. He's decidedly mediocre, at best, at the easiest thing to make money at ever. When he's ventured outside that safe little bubble he's failed, over and over.

Trump is dumb. Like really ****ing dumb. He's the kind of billionaire who buys a golden toilet and puts ketchup on his well done steak. There's nothing more to say. The ****er is dumb.
Trump didnt get given hundreds of millions from his dad. Stop believing everything the media tells the sheeple.
 

idestroyedthetoilet

Well-Known Member
What are the facts according to you? What is his real net worth? How much did his daddy give him and when? How much would he have had he invested in an index fund?
Tick tock.
The fact is this dumbass story spread by dumb sheeple is completely false, purposefully deceptive, and outright fabrication. But that doesn't stop the fanatics from thumping their anti trump gospel truths.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
believing, or advocating "the best information available" is, logically, equivalent to believing and advocating a religion.

you're not caring if it's true or not, so long as it's "trending" or has cred as "the best" at hand. People who care more if something is true might do less advocacy and less hating, but it is pretty certain they will do more thinking.

Science in it's basic setup, doesn't "believe" in anything but a process for challenging "the best" theory or explanation currently available.

It also falls short as a method for establishing truth, or Truth.... as some would like it to be.....because it cannot declare anything as "established" beyond all question.

Every article I've even been involved in, and most that I've read in peer-reviewed publications, begins with a survey of various previously published papers with results that point to a new or familiar question that is to be addressed with the presented paper.

While it is rare for fundamental or long-held or widely-accepted ideas to be overturned by a new theory, it is "Science" that provides the stage for doing so.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
believing, or advocating "the best information available" is, logically, equivalent to believing and advocating a religion.

you're not caring if it's true or not, so long as it's "trending" or has cred as "the best" at hand.
It's not often I'm blown away...
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
believing, or advocating "the best information available" is, logically, equivalent to believing and advocating a religion.

you're not caring if it's true or not, so long as it's "trending" or has cred as "the best" at hand. People who care more if something is true might do less advocacy and less hating, but it is pretty certain they will do more thinking.

Science in it's basic setup, doesn't "believe" in anything but a process for challenging "the best" theory or explanation currently available.

It also falls short as a method for establishing truth, or Truth.... as some would like it to be.....because it cannot declare anything as "established" beyond all question.

Every article I've even been involved in, and most that I've read in peer-reviewed publications, begins with a survey of various previously published papers with results that point to a new or familiar question that is to be addressed with the presented paper.

While it is rare for fundamental or long-held or widely-accepted ideas to be overturned by a new theory, it is "Science" that provides the stage for doing so.
That's not true. And you don't care what is true. So there.
 

Gameface

Black Lives Matter
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Trump didnt get given hundreds of millions from his dad. Stop believing everything the media tells the sheeple.
And you focused on the smallest point in my post.

You completely skipped over the part about Trump being the kind of billionaire who buys golden toilets and puts ketchup on his well done steak.

If that doesn't tell you who Trump is then nothing will.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
That's not true. And you don't care what is true. So there.
you wouldn't know.

you're 100% advocate, 0% fact.

You get your education from some damn daily talking points list, and you believe **** like Snopes and other paid, as in bought and paid-for, indoctrination sites that work very hard on missing the facts and keeping in line with the propaganda.

Truth is, it's hard to actually get any facts, and harder still to actually deal with them objectively. People who keep the question open are either deliberately evading the chore, or less trigger-happy than advocates.

I'm not sure what you "advocate" exactly, because it comes off with so little thought on your part you are entirely unconcerned about your own inconsistencoes./

Maybe it's just Wilkow's "History of Now, Forget Tomorrow" theory of liberal media working on your mind. Propaganda media trying to instruct the stupid sheeple who will still listen, all fifteen of them here on JFC.


who could ever know.

The same mainstream media that could broadcast Hillary denying she deleted/destroyed subpoenaed matter from her computers, phones, and server with a brazen "What do mean, "cleaned"? I wiped them with a cloth?", and calling Mitch's handling of Trump's impeachment in open daylight "a cover-up". Pelosi found nothing impeachable, and found no evidence to support it, and it just doesn't deserve any more attention. The witnesses she had have gone into hiding, don't want to defend themselves, or be known to history.

You have never really dealt with any of the hundreds of such obvious inconsistencies while you've been beating the drums to resist, or impeach, Trump.

Look at "Xi" in China as a comparison. He's moved into Mao's old digs, which had been set aside as a historic site for while. He's reneged on the deal with Britain over Hong Kong wherein China agreed to political and judicial autonomy for Hong Kong for 50 years, he's got his secret police all over Hong Kong, he's inserted his people into the Hong Kong police, and he's got a puppet Mayor who won't stand up for the treaty requirements. I think you could actually develop some facts about how Xi is doing stuff that is abhorrent or fascist a lot easier than making up ****, or believing whatever **** there is being put out there on Trump.
 
Top