Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Impeach 45 !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

    Indeed. A liberal caught in an honest moment, a rare occurrence.
    I hope that all your children turn out to be people of sterling character just likr Donald Trump. I'm sure you hold him up as the ideal role model.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

      I hope that all your children turn out to be people of sterling character just likr Donald Trump. I'm sure you hold him up as the ideal role model.
      Trump is a bad role model. But serious people had to ignore that out of desperation to get a president that would represent them since neither party had done that in decades. A fact dems choose to ignore disconnecting them from reality.

      This yields stupidity which is repugnant given it is willful stupidity

      I am voting for tulsi so no trumpster here but he saved us from Hillary thank God and fed up working americans
      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-29-2019, 07:53 PM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by redrover View Post

        I hope that all your children turn out to be people of sterling character just likr Donald Trump. I'm sure you hold him up as the ideal role model.
        I've never made the claim that you attributing to me.

        My children are people of sterling character, and Trump was never a part of any of that.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by redrover View Post

          We know you members of the immoral majority have no problem with Russians participating in American elections. Like Trump you don't believe Mueller on the question of Russian meddling, you believe Putin, and you support Trump's policy of doing nothing to safeguard future elections.
          What we do not believe is that Russian's efforts were particularly intensive, and that there is absolutely NO evidence that it had any actual impact on the outcome of the election. Russia has been "interfering" in our elections for decades (as we have in theirs), and their efforts since the cold war have been relatively half-hearted.

          I find yours (and the entire left's) outrage over this to be hypocritical and utterly contrived. Have you uttered a syllable of criticism for the people who were actually in power when this was going on, and they at least knew enough about it happening that they used it as an excuse to spy on a domestic political opponent? No.

          Has a single democrat in the Congress who has declared Russia's efforts to be an "act of war" introduce a declaration of war against Russia? NO.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

            What we do not believe is that Russian's efforts were particularly intensive, and that there is absolutely NO evidence that it had any actual impact on the outcome of the election. Russia has been "interfering" in our elections for decades (as we have in theirs), and their efforts since the cold war have been relatively half-hearted.

            I find yours (and the entire left's) outrage over this to be hypocritical and utterly contrived. Have you uttered a syllable of criticism for the people who were actually in power when this was going on, and they at least knew enough about it happening that they used it as an excuse to spy on a domestic political opponent? No.

            Has a single democrat in the Congress who has declared Russia's efforts to be an "act of war" introduce a declaration of war against Russia? NO.
            w
            Ironically the Russia hysteria had done more to harm America than Russia could ever do

            The dems.were dimwit pawns for putin which is so surreal

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              w
              Ironically the Russia hysteria had done more to harm America than Russia could ever do

              The dems.were dimwit pawns for putin which is so surreal
              Actually, if you take the initial intelligence assessment (which was the unhyped, non-politically driven one), which said that the goal was just to sow general discord and to weaken Hillary Clinton (who Russia like everyone else simply assumed was overwhelmingly likely to be elected) politically as president, then the left has been the textbook "useful idiots" in helping Russia meet their objective.

              That assessment of Russia's objective (sowing general discord in the U.S. electorate) is perfectly consistent with the relatively half-hearted effort they made. Much more so than the post-election, retconned contrived argument that flipped it from the intent to "hurt Hillary" and treating it as though it is the same as wanting to "help Trump get elected". That was a bait and switch, heavily politicized assessment POST election, to try to explain away Trump's stunning victory, weaken HIM politically, and retroactively justify their own malfeasance which was now more at risk of exposure because Trump would be president and not Hillary.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Actually, if you take the initial intelligence assessment (which was the unhyped, non-politically driven one), which said that the goal was just to sow general discord and to weaken Hillary Clinton (who Russia like everyone else simply assumed was overwhelmingly likely to be elected) politically as president, then the left has been the textbook "useful idiots" in helping Russia meet their objective.

                That assessment of Russia's objective (sowing general discord in the U.S. electorate) is perfectly consistent with the relatively half-hearted effort they made. Much more so than the post-election, retconned contrived argument that flipped it from the intent to "hurt Hillary" and treating it as though it is the same as wanting to "help Trump get elected". That was a bait and switch, heavily politicized assessment POST election, to try to explain away Trump's stunning victory, weaken HIM politically, and retroactively justify their own malfeasance which was now more at risk of exposure because Trump would be president and not Hillary.
                I often thought that the leftists really thought it was their time, and that they'd not be denied, with Hillary in the White House. That Trump was elected was a total affront and repudiation of them and their policies. Not getting what they wanted, Hillary as President, it has been more than once that I've thought that they are acting out to such a level and extent that they and their policies won't be denied in the future for fear of similar, or worse, acting out. In essence extorting the nation with their bad behavior if they don't get what they want, ever more political power to impose their 'will' (SJW insanity) on others via public policy and enforced by the barrel of the government gun.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Today it was learned that because you might hate the president, that alone is not enough to impeach him

                  They tried

                  The president told four American imbeciles - who other foolish Americans elected - to go back to the countries they came from

                  He told them to leave because of the many well documented hateful things they have said about our country

                  He told them to leave because of the many well documented lies they have told

                  Their lies and hateful statements are easy to locate online in this new age of technology where people like these four will be held to account for the garbage they speak

                  So the president told them to leave if they think it's so bad here in America

                  Of course liberals thought about it for a second and said; "Racism !!! We'll call the president a Racist again !!"

                  Yes the retards are on the racism rampage once again LOL

                  But they don't get to impeach the president

                  So... it's probably back to the Russia hoax a bit more... for awhile at least

                  Then we can find another reason to call him a racist

                  In the meantime, .. no impeachment, sorry....


                  =-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  "Impeachment of your President...., is now OVER. This should never be allowed to happen to another President of the United States again!," Trump tweeted.

                  Green had failed twice before to get an impeachment resolution passed, but Wednesday marked the first time the full House had addressed the matter since Democrats took the majority earlier this year.

                  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has long tried to restrain Democrats from initiating the impeachment process against Trump, pending a House Judiciary Committee probe into whether he colluded with Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election and obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the matter.


                  ...

                  https://www.newsmax.com/headline/hou.../17/id/924899/

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                    Today it was learned that because you might hate the president, that alone is not enough to impeach him

                    They tried

                    The president told four American imbeciles - who other foolish Americans elected - to go back to the countries they came from

                    He told them to leave because of the many well documented hateful things they have said about our country

                    He told them to leave because of the many well documented lies they have told

                    Their lies and hateful statements are easy to locate online in this new age of technology where people like these four will be held to account for the garbage they speak

                    So the president told them to leave if they think it's so bad here in America

                    Of course liberals thought about it for a second and said; "Racism !!! We'll call the president a Racist again !!"

                    Yes the retards are on the racism rampage once again LOL

                    But they don't get to impeach the president

                    So... it's probably back to the Russia hoax a bit more... for awhile at least

                    Then we can find another reason to call him a racist

                    In the meantime, .. no impeachment, sorry....


                    =-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    "Impeachment of your President...., is now OVER. This should never be allowed to happen to another President of the United States again!," Trump tweeted.

                    Green had failed twice before to get an impeachment resolution passed, but Wednesday marked the first time the full House had addressed the matter since Democrats took the majority earlier this year.

                    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has long tried to restrain Democrats from initiating the impeachment process against Trump, pending a House Judiciary Committee probe into whether he colluded with Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election and obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the matter.


                    ...

                    https://www.newsmax.com/headline/hou.../17/id/924899/
                    Adam Schiff, who voted to table the Impeachment resolution, has been extremely vocal for years that he has seen unequivocable evidence that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses. How can he reconcile the two, if he believes Trump has colluded and committed acts making him morally, ethically, and/or legally unfit for office, doesn't it make Schiff unfit for office to vote to table the impeachment?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                      Adam Schiff, who voted to table the Impeachment resolution, has been extremely vocal for years that he has seen unequivocable evidence that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses.
                      Adam has made a fool of himself.

                      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                      How can he reconcile the two, if he believes Trump has colluded and committed acts making him morally, ethically, and/or legally unfit for office, doesn't it make Schiff unfit for office to vote to table the impeachment?
                      Squif as been unfit for HIS office for as long as he's been IN it.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                        Adam Schiff, who voted to table the Impeachment resolution, has been extremely vocal for years that he has seen unequivocable evidence that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses. How can he reconcile the two, if he believes Trump has colluded and committed acts making him morally, ethically, and/or legally unfit for office, doesn't it make Schiff unfit for office to vote to table the impeachment?
                        He is an example of a lying politician with no integrity elected by people who are just like him.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Tonight on the see B.S. [ CBS ] evening news they said democrats are now pursuing impeachment proceedings . . "conducting an impeachment inquiry"

                          They showed slob nadler yapping about it

                          These people are sick

                          Thought it was over ? Mueller failed. Meullers report failed... onto impeachment anyways...

                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said at a separate press conference that his panel has already "in effect" been conducting an impeachment inquiry of the president — and said in a court filing that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the Committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made."

                          Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Friday afternoon, Trump slammed Democratic "impeachment nonsense."

                          "These people are clowns," he said. "The Democrats are being laughed at all over the world. I watched Nancy Pelosi tried to get through that with the performance that Robert Mueller put on where I don't think he ever read the agreement, or document...."

                          "There's no collusion, there's no obstruction. It's a disgrace," said Trump, who said that Congress should look into a book deal made by former President Obama, rather than investigate him, which he said they were doing "for political reasons."



                          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...shion-n1035051

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            Actually, if you take the initial intelligence assessment (which was the unhyped, non-politically driven one), which said that the goal was just to sow general discord and to weaken Hillary Clinton (who Russia like everyone else simply assumed was overwhelmingly likely to be elected) politically as president, then the left has been the textbook "useful idiots" in helping Russia meet their objective.

                            That assessment of Russia's objective (sowing general discord in the U.S. electorate) is perfectly consistent with the relatively half-hearted effort they made. Much more so than the post-election, retconned contrived argument that flipped it from the intent to "hurt Hillary" and treating it as though it is the same as wanting to "help Trump get elected". That was a bait and switch, heavily politicized assessment POST election, to try to explain away Trump's stunning victory, weaken HIM politically, and retroactively justify their own malfeasance which was now more at risk of exposure because Trump would be president and not Hillary.
                            I think that non ppolitical .accessment was the truth and agree with what you said

                            Russian meddling wasn't as extensive as many would have us to believe

                            The dnc email was leaked to assange by rich and his brother as assange told that fox reporter.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?



                            • Deputy AG Rosenstein: No evidence election results were impacted
                              https://www.cnbc.com/.../deputy-ag-r...ts-were-impact...
                              Feb 16, 2018
                              At a press conference, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein speaks about the indictments of 13 Russian ...

                              Read Transcript of Rod Rosenstein's Russian Hackers Indictment | Time
                              https://time.com › U.S. › Justice Department
                              Jul 13, 2018 - Read what Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein said about the indictment of Russian ... In fact, both were created and controlled by the Russian GRU. ... There is no allegation that the conspiracy changedthe vote count or affected any ...

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • The new racists... that we voted for.. we elected !!!!

                                Great job America !

                                The NEW KKK is here to hang whitey, and they aren't mincing words ! "Impeach the mother**&^*r" etc

                                They hate and call OTHERS "haters." They've got the language games solid. Or they think they do. People see through it though . .

                                "Members of the Squad are not exempt from the rules of common courtesy because of their status as "persons of color." The very use of that phrase should be repugnant in our democracy. The tacit suggestion is that "people of color" constitute a special class beyond criticism, no matter how outrageous their actions or words."

                                Members of this imaginary group - "people of color" - are just as duty bound to act like civilized people as the rest of us are !

                                Their skin tone DOES NOT EXEMPT THEM FROM ACTING LIKE CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS !!!!!!!!!!!!!


                                "In our race-blind democracy, no one should be using a phrase like "people of color," and when one does, he should be held to account. As Rep. Kelly pointed out, the phrase is inherently meaningless. We are all "people of color," and none is entitled to special treatment. Minority supremacy is not at all different from white supremacy, and both are abhorrent."

                                "I long for the day when America becomes a truly color-blind nation - where it will not even occur to anyone to notice the racial background of another citizen.

                                The Squad, by its members' rhetoric and actions, is not furthering this goal.

                                Just the opposite: By suggesting that they are entitled to special status as "persons of color," these women are deepening the racial divide. Everyone in America should be working to overcome that divide."


                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Even after some foul-mouthed attacks on the president of the United States, the Squad members thought they should be immune to criticism. That's the problem: not the president's pushback, but the Squad's apparent belief that, because it comprises "people of color," those people are immune to the rules that apply to everyone else.

                                That, unfortunately, has been the assumption for too long now. Minorities achieved legal equality in the 1960s, and they proceeded to claim the equivalent of reparations in the form of affirmative action, minority set-asides, preferential admissions based on race, and thousands of informal arrangements in the workplace granting preference in terms of evaluations and workload.

                                As minorities gained these preferences, some became more aggressive. Some version of the Squad's tactic of calling out whites and daring them to talk back became commonplace across society.

                                Many have seen minorities promoted ahead of more experienced whites with the idea that minorities need to be "represented." But what we see now is different. It is not just society helping out those who have been disadvantaged in the past. It is a form of aggressive prejudice against, disdain for, and potential violence against whites.

                                It's fortunate we have a president who recognizes what these women are about and is willing to stand up to them. President Trump's tweet last Monday called the Squad "a very Racist group of troublemakers who are young, inexperienced, and not very smart." Much of what the president tweeted is simply a matter of record: the four members of the Squad — Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts — are in fact "young" and "inexperienced." The fact that members of the Squad have repeatedly labeled the president of the United States a "racist" attests to their willingness to play the race card, an action I would call "racist." The group's apparent bias against Israel also appears to be motivated by bias against a particular race or religion. As to their level of intelligence, that is a judgment call. Have they been acting rationally? Have they demonstrated good judgment and thoughtfulness in the past?

                                the Squad's behavior seems inappropriate because it appears to reflect disdain for those of a different race. Contempt for others based on race is the definition of racism. As the president pointed out on July 22, the four congresswomen have violated the rules governing behavior of members of Congress, and they should be reprimanded. "The Democratic Congresswomen have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate, & yet they get a free pass," he wrote on July 16.

                                ...the Squad's behavior is now too common among minorities. It's no longer just about claiming equality. Minorities are equal and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, there are many who are not just interested in equality. They are demanding to be treated as superiors, and in doing so, they reveal their belief in racial superiority.

                                ....they expect whites to bow down and keep their mouths shut even when their actions are offensive or disrespectful of others. That is exactly what has happened in the so-called feud between the president and the Squad.

                                Or are the Squad really interested in something else? Like children in the schoolyard, they are goading the president to the point that he must respond. They seem to think they, as "people of color," have the right to say whatever they like, no matter how offensive, and that no one has the right to correct or challenge them. If someone does challenge them in any respect, such a challenge is inherently racist. That tactic of racial shaming, I would say, is the essence of racial superiority. It is an attitude that is now familiar in American society, and it needs to end.


                                https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._equality.html


                                words.jpg

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X