You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 20729932? ago  (edited ago)

Again, all who wish to - can see your "argument" falling apart, and your "wits" being crushed.

Unless you have a functioning crystal ball, then your argument is ALSO based on Assumptions. Duh!

The difference between MY assumptions and your HYPERBOLE is that mine are based on LOGIC and precedence, while yours are based a false narrative that you wish to promote - which I believe to be: discourage / disparage / distract from the current reality, because you're either mentally lazy a true shill. I don't know which, but I suspect the latter.

Re: expletives.. this is VOAT dumbfuck, deal with it or leave (I know you won't because your a fucking shill and that is the truth of why you are here).

Next?

0
0

[–] 20729955? ago 

I assumed nothing. I said do not count your chickens until they are hatched. Buwahahahahaha

0
0

[–] 20730039? ago  (edited ago)

Wow, for a "witty" guy, you really are stupid. You must be a lefty snowflake.

Let me help you out (pretty simple debunk):

You wrote: I am quite well aware of the impeachment process. You think that the Senate will save the POTUS. Don't count your chickens until the eggs are hatched. It takes 2/3rds of the Senate to vote on a trial. There are 5 RINO's in the Senate that could flip the vote to hold trials.

Assumption: There are 5 RINO's in the Senate that could flip the vote.

Not only is this stupid (as I showed with BASIC math and LOGIC - reflecting REALITY of past partisan voting scenarios), but it's an implication that impeachment could succeed in the Senate which - in this situation - is a totally BS assumption.

Sup witty?