DUMB IT DOWN-IMPEACHMENT

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

CNN.  Just amazing.  TDS.

jB7wwbg_d.jpg.f0b428a92721367aa0006d3bd4cc8a0f.jpg

Maybe we should be worried, only 67 votes away now.....

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Oh, wait a minute, that doesn't mean he will be removed, that is for the Senate to decide after a trial....

Edited by SERWIN
ADDED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SERWIN said:

Oh, wait a minute, that doesn't mean he will be removed, that is for the Senate to decide after a trial....

The 67 votes are in the Senate which equals removal from office 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump violated a trust so sacred the Founding Fathers put it directly into the Constitution as a reason for impeachment.

Look up the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.

It was later followed up with legislation, including 52 USC 30121, which makes it against the law to ASK for a "favor" against Trump's election opponent.

  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SERWIN said:

Maybe we should be worried, only 67 votes away now.....

CNN.  What a shame, what they have done with that company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

What does that tell you?  

Maybe you should care more.

Edited by Marcin
typo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gkam44 said:

Trump violated a trust so sacred the Founding Fathers put it directly into the Constitution as a reason for impeachment.

Look up the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.

It was later followed up with legislation, including 52 USC 30121, which makes it against the law to ASK for a "favor" against Trump's election opponent.

 

Did you know the US and Ukraine signed a Treaty (clinton) requiring the US to ask Ukraine for assistance in investigating corruption.

TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

 

Capture.JPG.3f9b21ad070ab3ca61e9e0ee89046a37.JPG

Picture it, Washington DC. Senate Trial:

Chuck Schumer to some unknown witness: “Did you witness President Donald Trump discussing an investigation into Hunter Biden with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky?”

Witness: “Yes, I did. According to the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters passed by Joe Biden and signed by President Clinton at Kiev on July 22, 1998, the conversion was actually mandated.”

 

And lastly ... Just so you know .... Biden is not Trump's opponent.  Biden is a candidate in the Democratic primary for President.  Biden is actually the opponent of Sanders, Warren, Mayor Pete, Bloomberg, etc.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

Did you know the US and Ukraine signed a Treaty (clinton) requiring the US to ask Ukraine for assistance in investigating corruption.

You seem not to understand that the Treaty framework provided a legitimate basis for investigating corruption and the President's actions were outside of this.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, remake it said:

You seem not to understand that the Treaty framework provided a legitimate basis for investigating corruption and the President's actions were outside of this.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Bot

  • Haha 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Blah Blah Blah Blah Bot

It is hilarious, whenever someone smarter shows how intellectually shallow are someone else's arguments, this immortal 'bot' designation is called for salvage.

(It is not personally aimed at you Bob D, you did it for the first time, I am more focused on 100+ times sinners)

Is this only cyber experience of commenters here or it is also used real world ?

Bot at this forum means : "I am too stupid to refute your arguments/your valid arguments do not fit my narrative or point of view, AND it drives me crazy so I will call you bot".

Whenever someone calls other commenter 'bot' please remember about definition above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Is this only cyber experience of commenters here or it is also used real world ?

No sir, if the disagreement is in person then they are most probably Chinese, a Democrat or an environmentalist. When online it is a robot.

Edited by Papillon
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

27 minutes ago, Marcin said:

It is hilarious, whenever someone smarter shows how intellectually shallow are someone else's arguments, this immortal 'bot' designation is called for salvage.

(It is not personally aimed at you Bob D, you did it for the first time, I am more focused on 100+ times sinners)

Is this only cyber experience of commenters here or it is also used real world ?

Bot at this forum means : "I am too stupid to refute your arguments/your valid arguments do not fit my narrative or point of view, AND it drives me crazy so I will call you bot".

Whenever someone calls other commenter 'bot' please remember about definition above.

Marcin ... please do try to think.  I posted a link, inserted the 1999 Letter of Transmittal from Clinton and a rationale for disputing what GKAM44 posted.  I made an effort to provide information.  The BOT writes back "You don't seem to understand" and then you jump on me.  

Get a clue Marcin.  The Bot is designed to argue.  Not debate.  To argue.  I will not argue with IT.  And I didn't.

You don't face off against the BOT because you're politically aligned with it.   The Chinese propaganda machine and you are like peas in a pod.  Think about that! 

And your comment WAS aimed at me so give it a rest.

Arguing with the BOT is similar to the Monty Python Argument sketch!  You and your BOT buddy are John Cleese.  I will not be Graham Chapman.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=department+of+arguments+monty+python&view=detail&mid=5FD913EC49F1515FE88B5FD913EC49F1515FE88B&FORM=VIRE

Edited by Bob D
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Papillon said:

No sir, if the disagreement is in person then they are most probably Chinese, a Democrat or an environmentalist. When online it is a robot.

Greta grate targe gater terga retag great point.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Marcin ... please do try to think.  I posted a link, inserted the 1999 Letter of Transmittal from Clinton and a rationale for disputing what GKAM44 posted.  I made an effort to provide information.  The BOT writes back "You don't seem to understand" and then you jump on me.  

Get a clue Marcin.  The Bot is designed to argue.  Not debate.  To argue.  I will not argue with IT.  And I didn't.

"Argument" is fundamental to debate as it is about what is defensible in your claims however you seem unable to work out that what you posted is actually supportive of the impeachment  process.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Marcin said:

It is hilarious, whenever someone smarter shows how intellectually shallow are someone else's arguments, this immortal 'bot' designation is called for salvage.

(It is not personally aimed at you Bob D, you did it for the first time, I am more focused on 100+ times sinners)

Is this only cyber experience of commenters here or it is also used real world ?

Bot at this forum means : "I am too stupid to refute your arguments/your valid arguments do not fit my narrative or point of view, AND it drives me crazy so I will call you bot".

Whenever someone calls other commenter 'bot' please remember about definition above.

Blah blah blah...😘😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

48 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Get a clue Marcin.  The Bot is designed to argue.  Not debate.  To argue. 

With respect sir I would agree with this user's somewhat confrontational nature, but when you say he ''argues'' he is merely disagreeing or suggesting an alternate view, or put simply this is potentially his form of ''debate'' is it not? This is not entirely directed at yourself sir or the above postings, but it does seem to appear that when he disagrees or posts links or suggests he knows the laws, then people merely accuse him of being this ''bot'', which I still don't fully understand.

Again, not directed at you, but it also seems on many occasions that he has valid arguments as Marcin suggested, that users have no reply at all for, as they simply sometimes don't like what they read. For example, why is this user saying ''you don't seem to understand the Treaty framework...'' (and I have no idea what's true at all by the way) anything other than a suggestion for you to research said framework? Do you see my point sir, I have no idea who is correct here, but surely your reply should be along the lines of ''the framework actually suggests x'', rather than ''you're a bot'' as that merely suggests you have no answer to his point with respect sir. 

As I say, this is not directed at yourself at all, other than that example, but it seems sir that many conversations here go down this route, and at some point the user will maybe have a valid point, the other user has no argument, and comes out with the bot accusation. Mr van Eck and Smith seem convinced of this user and origin and I have no idea technologically what to believe and am clearly misreading something along the way. The suggestion that the Chinese military has made a bot to somehow infiltrate and argue on a pro oil and Republican party forum is still a little bizarre to me as I think the Chinese may have better things to do in fairness, so as I say I think I'm missing something or have read their posts wrongly somehow. 

As I have stated before it appears any opposing view is accused of not being a real person. For example Marcin, who clearly has somewhat of a passion let's say for China, has now been accused. Will I too now be accused as I have argued my opinion regarding this, or Greta Thunberg, or American history and so on? I hope you appreciate my thoughts sir, but with respect on occasion here it seems anyone vaguely opposing almost anything about the USA must be a robot, as how could a person possibly have anything bad to say about this nation, or President, or history? I find this incredibly arrogant from certain users sir with respect, and I exclude yourself from that list of mine. 

Respectfully, Papillon.

37 minutes ago, remake it said:

"Argument" is fundamental to debate

Yes I would agree sir. Arguing even, in effect, is debating. 

24 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Blah blah blah...😘😀

This is sarcastic or intended to prove his point I assume sir in a comical way?

 

Also gentlemen, as DayTrader rather comically suggested, if you do all honestly believe this user to indeed be a bot then why on earth do you continue to converse with it everyday?

Edited by Papillon
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

@Papillon, @Marcin I recommend you look up wumaos 

Fact is, getting paid a trifle to argue with people one on one has been replaced with utilization of AI chatterbox software. That got too easy to spot, so the latest algorithms by companies like Next IT (sound familiar "Remake It"?) have learned to tone down the chatter. In fact the best chat bot algorithm utilizes single sentence replies. @remake itoversteps with generally grammatically correct sentences that are too long with no punctuation. 

Edited by Ward Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Papillon said:
22 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Blah blah blah...😘😀

This is sarcastic or intended to prove his point I assume sir in a comical way?

I do love a bit of sarcasm, sir.  Especially when I read a comment of 4 or 5 paragraphs complaining about how people argue, or don't argue.  
What is it abot, er, about?  One can only surmise that one doesn't have the mental faculties to effectively challenge one's bot accusers.  Or that one has bored his accusers to tears and they simply give up.  No they don't; they don't know what they are talking about.  Yes they do, they most certainly know what they are talking about.  Says you; NO, says you!  I say...

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2019 at 2:11 PM, remake it said:

Back on topic we are likely to see House Democrats impeach the President perhaps as early as Wednesday and this is a taint over this President which is perpetual.

No, it is a taint on the Demoncrats and that will become more clear as the full story of their evil  plots unravel for all but the most brainwashed. It will be a real joy to see. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BOT is spurring a posting frenzy.  Watch the video!!  Arguing with the BOT is similar to the Monty Python Argument sketch!  The BOT supporters and your BOT buddy are John Cleese.  I will not be Graham Chapman.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=department+of+arguments+monty+python&view=detail&mid=5FD913EC49F1515FE88B5FD913EC49F1515FE88B&FORM=VIRE

 

Here are the last two comments by the BOT.  No information, no debate, simple contradiction.  And remember I didn't address the BOT.  

"Argument" is fundamental to debate as it is about what is defensible in your claims however you seem unable to work out that what you posted is actually supportive of the impeachment  process."

"You seem not to understand that the Treaty framework provided a legitimate basis for investigating corruption and the President's actions were outside of this."

I'm "unable to work out" or "seem to not understand".  Not debating or arguments or information or facts.  Straight contradiction.

This is the "is not", "is too", "is not", "is too" of today's chat rooms!

Blah Blah Blah Blah BOT!

 

 
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Fact is, getting paid a trifle to argue with people one on one has been replaced with utilization of AI chatterbox software.

But what is the point in it sir?

And Mr Warnick you have rather confused me. Therefore I must be a robot too presumably? Sorry if I have bored you to tears but not enough to not respond sir? I still maintain that it is rather odd for you all to converse with him everyday if you believe this, is it not? 

Edited by Papillon
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

No, it is a taint on the Demoncrats and that will become more clear as the full story of their evil  plots unravel for all but the most brainwashed. It will be a real joy to see. 

I think it is actually a tea bag over a taint.  But who's who?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bob D said:

I'm "unable to work out" or "seem to not understand".  Not debating or arguments or information or facts.  Straight contradiction.

As @Papillon pointed out it is incumbent on you to offer a defense of your stance and you have not whereas your post of the Treaty inter alia provided the basis for Biden to condition massive funding to the Ukraine under the former administration and this significantly related to removing a key figure ostensibly fighting corruption but instead doing the very opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2019 at 4:08 AM, Rob Plant said:

I think barring internal disasters within China this is highly likely.

I like your timescale as well Marcin. Mostly the hegemony change has been mooted as being imminent ie within 10 years which I disagree with strongly, it will be as you say 30-40 years.

Fortunately I will either be dead or in an old people's home drinking through a straw in my incontinent pants when this happens, so I wont give a sh*t by then.

Hopefully the Chinese people will have overthrown their communist party masters within the next thirty years. That is plenty of time to reflect on how the free world lives compared to their life as servants of the state. I would prefer it come sooner rather than later. Coming technology is in our favor and it is coming fast. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Papillon said:

But what is the point in it sir?

And Mr Warnick you have rather confused me. Therefore I must be a robot too presumably? Sorry if I have bored you to tears but not enough to not respond sir? I still maintain that it is rather odd for you all to converse with him everyday if you believe this, is it not? 

There, I googled it for you

Chinese call them wumaos because that's a (Chinese) nickle, supposedly how much they make per post. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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