From a popular left-wing forum - you are poorly informed indeed

I frequent several left-wing communities and invariably run into posts/comments I disagree with. Sometimes those posts are intelligent, rational, thoughtful and make some persuasive arguments. Other times, those posts are so audacious (and frankly comical) I feel the need to share them as well as a rebuttal.

My intent isn't to "call out" any specific member of that site (or the site itself), so I've censored as much as possible.

In this example, the members were discussing their opinion of the right-wing, and voicing their disapproval with the election results. Finally, the last post comes in. In it, they admonish the "poorly informed" voting public. They then express their astonishment that such a "large segment [of us] still believe Hillary Clinton can be impeached."

The funny part of all this is that, in fact, she could still be impeached despite failing to win the Presidency. She can be impeached retroactively as SOS


view full size

I always find it amusing when someone rails against "the uninformed other" while providing a timely and highly relevant example of their very-own ignorance. It all goes back to pots calling kettles black, something they should never do.

"Collusion" "Treason" "Impeachment" "Soviets under the bed and in the closet" Oh boy, some people never miss an opportunity to show off their arrogant, condescending and clearly superior intellect

Thanks Obama

a reply to: Butterfinger


Agreed, thanks DINC (Divider-in-Chief)

I got bored after 'Frequent'...didn't you hear the news? Trump won little buddy! Surely you must have something better to do in this new golden age than spending your time on left wing internet sites.

The tone and message is exactly the same as you read on right leaning places like ATS though. Every day we get post after post about how liberals are libtards and retarded and stupid and uninformed and are the real fascists, etc, etc.

So I'm not sure what your point is OP? There's name calling on all sides of the spectrum?


And do you not think if Hilary could be impeached, Trump wouldn't have done it by now? He's certainly had more than enough catastrophes on his hands that he needed the distraction.

a reply to: JBurns

Yes good topic she can be impeached and probably should so that any of her actions taken that are against the security or stability of the united states are prevented from being carried out.

They could do a complete audit of all her decisions and then quarantine the negative actions taken.

MULLER is coming. The end is near. And he's a conservative.

originally posted by: Painterz
The tone and message is exactly the same as you read on right leaning places like ATS though. Every day we get post after post about how liberals are libtards and retarded and stupid and uninformed and are the real fascists, etc, etc.

So I'm not sure what your point is OP? There's name calling on all sides of the spectrum?


And do you not think if Hilary could be impeached, Trump wouldn't have done it by now? He's certainly had more than enough catastrophes on his hands that he needed the distraction.

Newsweek is back to running their story about how Hillary could still be president though. I would imagine some of those posts are by people who consider that the height of informative.

Most credible people ought to realize that even if Trump and even Pence were to go down in flames, even if this were to occur after the Democrats manage some kind of wave and we end up with senile ole bat Pelosi as president ... that still doesn't mean anyone would think to put Hillary in there.

I don't think Pelosi would. Do you? Really?

What happened to the tick tock meme.

I get my laughs from reading the comments on breibart, what ever floats your boat op.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think Pelosi would. Do you? Really?

Amen to that

She'd hold on to power at all costs, by my estimates. Of course that makes her exactly like Clinton, having little to offer other than influence in government and public policy. But I certainly don't see her giving up any power to Clinton

a reply to: Elvis_Is_Dead
Doesn’t that mean Trumpites should be doing something better than constantly making threads about Hillary? Ya know... the loser.

Snap, I cant register there, the sysop needs to fix their captcha.. :/

ERROR for site owner:
Invalid domain for site key

a reply to: badw0lf


B T W, they ban all non far-left posters. If you're pro-Trump or centrist Democrat (like I was), they'll ban you for not being a loser extremist sychophant.

a reply to: hoss53


No he's not.

a reply to: JBurns

The funny part of all this is that, in fact, she could still be impeached despite failing to win the Presidency. She can be impeached retroactively as SOS

What's really funny is that this theory has never been tested out. No former official has ever been impeached retroactively.

So you are making comments yourself that you cannot confirm with legal precedence.

Makes you wonder who the arrogant and condescending ones are...

a reply to: YungMahn

Yes I agree actually, although I have to confess I haven't seen many of them recently but perhaps I'm overlooking them.

a reply to: JBurns

I to frequently visit left wing forums called Facebook and Twitter and I too calmly reply to them with Logic and instead get attacked on where I work which is always brings a smile to my Face since that ends the debate right there and proves why the Democrats lost since they always attack where you work, or bring up the race or sex card to shut you up.

originally posted by: Painterz
The tone and message is exactly the same as you read on right leaning places like ATS though. Every day we get post after post about how liberals are libtards and retarded and stupid and uninformed and are the real fascists, etc, etc.

Exactly. I looked at that and thought it mirrored things I saw on right-leaning forums.

And do you not think if Hilary could be impeached, Trump wouldn't have done it by now? He's certainly had more than enough catastrophes on his hands that he needed the distraction.

I think there's a great misunderstanding about the word "Impeach." It has two meanings:

call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice):
"there is no basis to Searle's motion to impeach the verdict"
synonyms: challenge · question · disparage · criticize · call into question · raise doubts about · cast aspersions on
US
charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct:
"the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud"
synonyms: indict · charge · accuse · lay charges against · arraign · take to court · put on trial · prosecute

The first has no meaning here and the second... Clinton isn't in office. Therefore she can't be impeached.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Painterz
The tone and message is exactly the same as you read on right leaning places like ATS though. Every day we get post after post about how liberals are libtards and retarded and stupid and uninformed and are the real fascists, etc, etc.

Exactly. I looked at that and thought it mirrored things I saw on right-leaning forums.

And do you not think if Hilary could be impeached, Trump wouldn't have done it by now? He's certainly had more than enough catastrophes on his hands that he needed the distraction.

I think there's a great misunderstanding about the word "Impeach." It has two meanings:

call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice):
"there is no basis to Searle's motion to impeach the verdict"
synonyms: challenge · question · disparage · criticize · call into question · raise doubts about · cast aspersions on
US
charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct:
"the governor served only one year before being impeached and convicted for fiscal fraud"
synonyms: indict · charge · accuse · lay charges against · arraign · take to court · put on trial · prosecute

The first has no meaning here and the second... Clinton isn't in office. Therefore she can't be impeached.

She can still be charged with Grossly Negligence though which is a Felony.

You mean "gross negligence", speaking of uninformed.