Countryroads89 is still running
- Thread starter WVU80ate_rivals
- Start date
Hasn't answered me yet! Predicting Trump gets impeached next week, but can't tell us if Dems have 218 votes to do it?
Can't even name what Law he broke to earn his impeachment?
Country took off and even I couldn't get my stopwatch out fast enough.
go country...go. (Notice country turned Black?)
Can't even name what Law he broke to earn his impeachment?
Country took off and even I couldn't get my stopwatch out fast enough.
go country...go. (Notice country turned Black?)
it won't answer you because it can't....you damn racist trouble maker:boxing:Hasn't answered me yet! Predicting Trump gets impeached next week, but can't tell us if Dems have 218 votes to do it?
Can't even name what Law he broke to earn his impeachment?
Country took off and even I couldn't get my stopwatch out fast enough.
go country...go. (Notice country turned Black?)
I like making country run hard....fast....and for long periods of time Snow Sled Baby! Matter of fact you could call me country's "slave master". I say "run" and country asks "how far away atl?" [winking]
I keep waiting on him to give a thoughtful, intelligent & fact based answer to many of your intelligent & fact based questions....but it hasn't happened. I bet he is just waiting on the right time , he is afraid of hurting your feelings....yep that's it ..
Why do you think country is so desperate to win this bet? If I loose, country will feel emancipated....like Steven just granted country's freedom from the plantation!
@countryroads89 you don't have to stay here and listen to that Negro make fun of your ignorance anymore...you are free to go!
country what will you do if:
- Nancy delays the vote because she is short?
- Nancy postpones the vote because she is short?
- Nancy reschedules the vote because she is short?
- Nancy refuses to call for the vote because she is short?
- Nancy holds the vote, but it fails because she is short?
Now I know what I'm going to do if I should lose this bet. I'm going to celebrate the guaranteed Republican takeover of the House, expansion of their numbers in both the House and Senate, and Trump's landslide re-election. I'll wait a year, then come back shortly after the election to celebrate all of that!
If you win, all you get is relief from my daily dissection of your intellectual vapidity on this forum, but your party will get annihilated and decimated to the point that YOU may not be here when I come back!
So either way you lose. Now do you get it? It's a sucker's bet!
HAHAHAHAHAHA. You poor, stupid, ignorant, dumb, desperate fool. You keep hanging on to that hope. LMAO!
Time reveals all Truth, and over time I've come to see the Truth about you as a stone cold lying racist. It would actually be my pleasure not to have to deal with your ignorant racist rants for a year, and even more fun to return to see you with your racist tail tucked between your arrogant cellulite posterior in a state of deep depression over Trump's landslide re-election and veto proof majority in Congress.[winking]
That'd be worth waiting a year for. You probably won't even be here to take all of the abuse while we celebrate.
thoughtful intelligent fact based...those words do not exist in the lib socialist dictionary ,,,,and KKKuntry can't read them if they did
since you refuse to look at the hard numbers, I did your homework for you.
Inside this link, any ignorant racist can see Democrats DO NOT have enough votes (218) required to pass these two worthless articles of impeachment not even you can name violated any US statutory Laws.
Read the link, and understand why Nancy will spend time this weekend on the phone trying to convince (threaten) members of her own caucus to join this ill fated cause and vote for their own replacements in the next election.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Just for kicks here's something else to chew on for you
Democrats agree on one thing, they're very, very nervous
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/Donald-Trump-2020.html
excerpt:
The stock market is roaring. Unemployment is at a record low. The economy added 266,000 new jobs in November. Though these things are objectively good, of course, they are less good if you are a Democrat and you don’t want the current president to get credit for anything that might help him get re-elected.
Earth to Country ........President Donald Trump will not be removed from office before his term is complete.
Hasn't answered me yet! Predicting Trump gets impeached next week, but can't tell us if Dems have 218 votes to do it?
Can't even name what Law he broke to earn his impeachment?
Country took off and even I couldn't get my stopwatch out fast enough.
go country...go. (Notice country turned Black?)
@atlkvb...Do you think country would give Usain Bolt a challenge? [winking]
I'm not blinded by propaganda. Facts are meaningless to you. You refuse to engage anything that penetrates the fantasy world of Leftist utopianism you exist in. That's fine. My party doesn't lie to me , and doesn't have to lie for my vote.
Why doesn't yours?
You literally bet the POTUS would not be impeached...and are still holding out hope he wont.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
F'ucking hilarious.
Yes because I can count. You refuse to admit Democrats as we speak today DO NOT have the votes to impeach him. If you're confident of that, tell me how many votes they have?
I'm telling you they don't have 218. I showed you how many remain "undecided". What's your rebuttal to that? All you do is call me names and talk about how hilarious I am but you never refute anything I've posted.
Why not?
Ans: Because you can't
DUDE, use your common sense. If they didn't have the votes, the vote would not be scheduled for next Wednesday.
You are the stupidest mother f'ucker on the planet. It is amazing.
See this kind of filth I will not miss. You are so ignorant of political realities you don't even recognize the reason they rushed this through is so those "undecided" Democrats won't have to go home during Christmas break and get an earful of complaints!
Now ask yourself, what changed from this initial impeachment "inquiry" on 'quid pro quo' into "obstruction of Congress" or "abuse of power"?
If you don't understand it's because of the reluctance of Democrats in your party to vote on impeachment of something that can't be proven explain to me what crimes Trump has committed they are voting now to impeach him on?
I'll 100% guarantee you cannot name one Law that was violated, or one crime cited in those articles voted onto the House floor. I won't post the running meme here, because I know you're already in full stride.
My mother is a God fearing woman still spry after 85 years of a blessed Life from Almighty God. She'd wash your filthy mouth out with Octagon soap for disrespecting her heavenly bundle of joy (me) granted to her by Almighty God himself as my one and and only Mother.
I don't know who your Mother is, or if she was or may be a believer. But I do know she did not raise you well to disrespect someone else's Mother by such language. If she did teach you better, then you didn't listen to her very well and you today disrespect her proper instruction to you each time you fix your lips to spew the filth that erupts from them.
Last edited:
You find so many words to call me names, you find so many descriptions to insult me, you come up with so many ways to characterize my lack of intellect yet for some strange reason you NEVER are able to come up with a logical, well reasoned, factual rebuttal to anything I post or question you on.
Don't you find that puzzling if not altogether stupid, if I'm all of the things you claim about me?
What is so smart about me that keeps you so muted with factual rebuttals to your claims of my stupidity? I must be doing something correct, I shut you up almost every time I post to you.
Like right now?
I asked YOU a direct question. How many votes do Democrats currently have to impeach Trump? If you don't know just say so. I don't know, but I do know it's NOT 218. There isn't one count out there showing that. If so, link me.
Who's stupid?
So by enough you mean at least 218, correct?
Fine. Can you show me something to back that up or are YOU the one who's delusional? I'm telling you they DO NOT have 218 votes, and I've linked you to several pieces showing that to you.
Where's your factual rebuttals to what I've posted?
@countryroads89
You are convinced Democrats have the votes to impeach Trump correct?
Yes atl they have enough.
OK, so can you tell me what crimes Trump has committed and Democrats will pursue his conviction on in the Senate? What Laws did Trump violate which are spelled out in those articles enough Democrats are ready to impeach him on? Do you know?
atl, take a look at my sig pic and honestly tell me I look like I'm even half way equipped to answer your questions. Really atl?
Yeah, guess 'ya got me on that one country...sorry.
You are convinced Democrats have the votes to impeach Trump correct?
OK, so can you tell me what crimes Trump has committed and Democrats will pursue his conviction on in the Senate? What Laws did Trump violate which are spelled out in those articles enough Democrats are ready to impeach him on? Do you know?
atl, take a look at my sig pic and honestly tell me I look like I'm even half way equipped to answer your questions. Really atl?
Yeah, guess 'ya got me on that one country...sorry.
Hey *****, if you don't like it, leave. Oh, that's right, you will leave late next week.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I didn't say anything about "not liking it". I was simply pointing out how your responses represent the exact dearth of intellect you consistently ascribe to me.
Facts are stubborn things. You supply the evidence of your own stupidity.
Not if you don't have 218 votes. Do you? Your refusal to answer proves you DO NOT!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHA.
You think the vote would be scheduled if they didn't have the votes? Like I said, you're a f'ucking moron, Radio.
So country how is it that you're 100% convinced Democrats have enough votes to impeach Trump yet you can't say how many that is?
How can you be certain Democrats have a successful case to remove Trump for his crimes yet you can't name even one of them as it relates to violations of statutory US law?
How do you call someone else stupid without taking the credit first for yourself?
How can you be certain Democrats have a successful case to remove Trump for his crimes yet you can't name even one of them as it relates to violations of statutory US law?
How do you call someone else stupid without taking the credit first for yourself?
You think scheduling the vote means it's automatically going to pass? I'm not going to call you a name but I am going to suggest you are insufferably ill informed.
Hey country do you remember early on in this process when you insisted Democrats didn't need to hold a "formal vote" to open an inquiry into impeaching Trump?
You insisted it wasn't needed to make their case, but that changed remember that?
Then the argument went they didn't have to hold the hearings in an open forum, yet that changed too...remember that?
Then the argument went Democrats had "first hand proof" in the form of the whistle blower of Trump's impeachable offenses...that changed too remember that?
Then the argument went Democrats had "devastating eyewitness testimonies" of Trump's impeachable offenses, that changed too remember that?
Then the argument went Democrats had Trump on quid pro quo, but that changed too remember that?
Then the argument went Democrats had Trump on "extortion" or "bribery"... still that changed too remember that?
Now the argument is Democrats have enough votes to impeach Trump. Yet you don't think that will change?
OK.
No, it didn't change. They didn't need a vote to initiate the impeachment inquiry.
No, that didn't change either. They first took depositions in secret, which is normal because you don't want some witnesses to see the testimony of other witnesses. That is exactly how they caught Ambassador Sondland giving false testimony, then they gave him the opportunity to revise his testimony and not press charges and he revised his testimony. Then they gave all the witnesses the opportunity to provide open testimony, which was televised but none of you trumpers watched and they gave the President's counsel the opportunity to participate, but they declined.
No, that didn't change either. Every witness who testified, confirmed the statement by the whistle blower.
No, that never changed either. Mr. Holmes testified he was in the public restaurant in Kiev when he heard the President himself ask Ambassador Sondland, on his personal cell phone, unsecured, if Zelensky was going to make the public announcement about the investigation.
No, that never changed either. Ambassador Sondland, the guy who bought the Ambassador seat from trump for $1 million, (LMAO), testified under oath and under penalty of perjury to the question about quid pro quo and he said, "The answer is yes." I even posted video of it on this board. Are you retarded? Surely you saw it?
No, that never changed either. A constitutional scholar, a law professor from Harvard, Noah Feldman, testified under oath that trump did in fact commit the crime of bribery.
No, it won't change. They wouldn't schedule the vote if they didn't have enough votes. LMAO.
********! You were wrong 8 times in one post. That is IMPRESSIVE. You are one dumb mother f'ucker, Radio. I'm gonna miss making fun of you. Well dumdave will still be here. LOLs.
No, it didn't change. They didn't need a vote to initiate the impeachment inquiry.
No, that didn't change either. They first took depositions in secret, which is normal because you don't want some witnesses to see the testimony of other witnesses. That is exactly how they caught Ambassador Sondland giving false testimony, then they gave him the opportunity to revise his testimony and not press charges and he revised his testimony. Then they gave all the witnesses the opportunity to provide open testimony, which was televised but none of you trumpers watched and they gave the President's counsel the opportunity to participate, but they declined.
No, that didn't change either. Every witness who testified, confirmed the statement by the whistle blower.
No, that never changed either. Mr. Holmes testified he was in the public restaurant in Kiev when he heard the President himself ask Ambassador Sondland, on his personal cell phone, unsecured, if Zelensky was going to make the public announcement about the investigation.
No, that never changed either. Ambassador Sondland, the guy who bought the Ambassador seat from trump for $1 million, (LMAO), testified under oath and under penalty of perjury to the question about quid pro quo and he said, "The answer is yes." I even posted video of it on this board. Are you retarded? Surely you saw it?
No, that never changed either. A constitutional scholar, a law professor from Harvard, Noah Feldman, testified under oath that trump did in fact commit the crime of bribery.
No, it won't change. They wouldn't schedule the vote if they didn't have enough votes. LMAO.
********! You were wrong 8 times in one post. That is IMPRESSIVE. You are one dumb mother f'ucker, Radio. I'm gonna miss making fun of you. Well dumdave will still be here. LOLs.
All right country if I'm wrong, why aren't any of those things that "didn't change" part of these articles of impeachment?
I'm not going to refute you point-by-point on all of your inaccuracies but I will point out this one which is demonstrably 100% false!