Jump to content

DynamiteCop!

Lemming
  • Content Count

    21,982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

DynamiteCop! last won the day on October 14 2019

DynamiteCop! had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,589

About DynamiteCop!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,007 profile views
  1. Was he not sitting next to and likely in the company of a Ukrainian which Trump did know? Could this person have introduced him as "This is my whatever guy in Ukraine" and so on and so forth? Give it a rest, this whole shit show mess is going to be closed out next week, Trump is still going to be the President and you fags are going to have to go back to the drawing board to again make up some new horse shit while he's getting sworn in for a second term. Give up, dreams dead Marx, the world is moving on without you.
  2. Because he doesn't give a fuck, and he doesn't have to give a fuck. It's a private dinner and dude was no doubt in the company of someone he trusts likely the Ukrainian guy next to him, and If someone in that persons company says this is going on, that she's bad mouthing him, is from the Clinton administration and is clamoring about his impeachment he can fire her at will. He doesn't have to evaluate it, he doesn't need to investigate it, he doesn't need to waste time or money messing with it, that's more than enough to can her ass, this isn't a fucking union, son. Case closed.
  3. Pretty simple, because the whole table is having a conversation about Ukraine, he interjected and drew the attention to himself and his knowledge of the ambassador and how she's a problem, then someone else says "She'll be gone tomorrow" to which Trump says shortly after some other words "Get rid of her, get her out tomorrow, I don't care. Take her out". As a note there's absolutely zero reference as to who that statement is being directed to, and given the vocal positioning of Trump when he was talking to Parnas it would appear he's saying it to someone else likely to his right whereas Parnas is across the table, likely that someone else who said "She'll be gone tomorrow." You're grasping at so many straws here my guy.
  4. He interacts with thousands and thousands of people on a regular basis, invites he doesn't know, people under his administration he doesn't know, interactions that couldn't even be recollected. You guys think everything is devious in nature and it's getting really tiring and old, and it's leading to nothing yet again. Take your 20th L and just shut the fuck up, no one wants to hear anything from you faggots anymore.
  5. Talking and interacting with someone also doesn't mean you know them, I can't even recount how many dinner parties I've been to with +1's and other people in attendance that I've discussed things with but wouldn't be able to recollect their faces, names, the conversations, anything. Also ambassadors are part of the executive branch which the President controls and can fire anyone for any reason at any time. It's pretty clear that she was talking poorly and touting impeachment behind his back while working under him, being a detractor and a remnant of the Clinton administration. She's not someone who should be working under his administration and is a negative influence so he told them to get rid of her. Where's the controversy? You people are hairbrained fucking wack jobs.
  6. I work with and see people every single day that I don't know. You morons are beyond reproach.
  7. Him withholding aid is not proven as being tied to anything Biden related, that's not proven in any capacity whatsoever. Try to stay on point baby brain. Him publicly saying that other countries after the fact should investigate him also has nothing to do with anything, is completely unrelated and is not an aspect of the impeachment. You're trying to blur lines between two different things as if one implicates the other as proof of something. You're nauseatingly fucking dumb.
  8. None of it is proven, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself or lash out like a petulant child not getting his way.
  9. None of that is proven, you're catastrophically retarded and a danger to intellectual conversation.
  10. It's not a leak, they fucked up. This is like the third time they've done this.
  11. Withholding aid for reasons which cannot be proven as illegal is not a crime, withholding aid in general is not a crime. There's not even a crime in withholding aid to investigate a political opponent, we can withhold aid for literally any reason we see fit, what's the lawful statute which was broken? There's no way to leverage abuse of power because there's no actual evidence of a criminal act taking place. It there were a crime it would be very simple for these people to rattle off federal statutes which had been broken, and yet none have been presented by any of them. What's also cute is how you're now saying "Blackmail" which was a term coined by fucking focus groups lol, what's being leveraged against him is not even blackmail so it makes absolutely no sense. Also there is no obstruction because he was not required to cooperate with the Democrat oversight and judiciary committee as they held no power of subpoena or required cooperation from the White House for an impeachment inquiry until a floor vote is taken which renders the inquiry official. So not only do you not have a crime as that has yet to be substantiated and proven in any capacity, you have no obstruction because the way things were being managed was not officially recognized. Tulsi Gabbard was right, Democrats should have censured him, it would made a lot more sense, would have actually of made him look bad, and wouldn't have had the ripple effect of GOP attorney's publicly tearing the Democrats case to shreds on national TV and bolstering Trump in the process. I'm not smart enough? I'm not the one here backing a farce without merit and a losing impeachment battle; you are. You people aren't even up shit creek right now, you're going over the damn waterfall.
  12. There's not games made for either, what is the determinate is what One/PS4 games are supported for the Pro/X. This graph is meaningless because there's no breakdown of who voted merely how many, 4,000 developers of unknown origin out of a field that encompasses hundreds of thousands of developers. The fact is in a years less time of availability the X garnered more developer support than the Pro and in practice landed more enhanced games, and no doubt continues to as the gap has grown further since the last time I brought it up. Pro: 0.45 enhanced games per day One X: 0.68 enhanced games per day The X not only surpassed the Pro in frequency, it surpassed it in volume.
  13. Oh you better believe they will be, and not just them, I have a feeling a lot of people in the House are going to come under investigation over this as well.
×