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 shouldnt 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

2020 Race for the White House

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

  • #31
    So hilary isn't running for president.

    Her mouth will be running endlessly, as long as her health & medical issues allow.

    That's a given. But we never know, ... we'll see.

    The coming re-election of president Trump looks better and better every day though.

    Here we have .....

    Six reasons democrats are "stepping in it" with Perez declaring that Fox News doesn't get to host a presidential debate.

    Shortened from article below...

    One:
    This is a tacit admission that the party's presidential field is afraid of tough questioning...

    Two:
    The voting public, other than committed Democrats, already understands that all the other TV networks are heavily biased against Republicans...Refusing to face the one major national network that is remotely interested in challenging untruths or asking hard questions looks like cowardice.

    Three:
    Perez has inadvertently de-legitimized all of the debates that will occur on non-Fox outlets. The new blacklist only confirms that the DNC institutionally recognizes that its candidates need "safe spaces" where only journalists biased in their favor are allowed to question their candidates...

    Four:
    Perez has confirmed that Democrats have nothing to fear from the other networks, because (the obvious implication goes) they are friendly.

    Five:
    A majority of the public doesn't trust the media. Aligning the Democrats with distrusted institutions is not good branding.

    Six:
    Perez has handed the initiative to President Trump, who immediately spotted it. Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces," ...

    So, democrats pull off another stupid move.

    It's looking more & more like they're working behind the scenes, secretively arranging president Trumps re-election !!

    The other choice; They're stupid.

    ...https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...849#post560849

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

    In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump's agenda. The article, entitled "The Making of the Fox News White House," suggested that the news network had become a propaganda vehicle for Trump.

    ..six reasons why this is a gigantic blunder.

    One:
    This is a tacit admission that the party's presidential field is afraid of tough questioning, about, for instance, support for the Green New Deal or for tearing down existing segments of the border wall. Rick Santorum may have been the first to respond with the obvious question: "What are they afraid of?"..."If they are afraid of Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, how can they face Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un?"

    Two:
    The voting public, other than committed Democrats, already understands that all the other TV networks are heavily biased against Republicans, as many polls have revealed for years now (the latest, from Columbia Journalism Review, confirms this). Refusing to face the one major national network that is remotely interested in challenging untruths or asking hard questions looks like cowardice.

    Three:
    Perez has inadvertently de-legitimized all of the debates that will occur on non-Fox outlets. The new blacklist only confirms that the DNC institutionally recognizes that its candidates need "safe spaces" where only journalists biased in their favor are allowed to question their candidates people like Martha Raddatz of ABC News, a moderator of a 2016 debate, whom Trump mocked for weeping on air as election results came in showing that Trump was going to win the election.
    There now will be increased interest in critiquing those debates for the questions that were not asked, or the follow-ups that were not explored.


    Four:
    Perez has confirmed that Democrats have nothing to fear from the other networks, because (the obvious implication goes) they are friendly. He thus drives home the contention that they are fake news media.

    Five:
    A majority of the public doesn't trust the media. Aligning the Democrats with distrusted institutions is not good branding.

    Six:
    Perez has handed the initiative to President Trump, who immediately spotted it. Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces," As Soopermexican of The Right Scoop puts it: "Hilarious. And really, who holds all the cards here? The no-name Democrats that most people have no idea about, or the president of the most powerful country on Earth?" He predicts that Democrats will cave, in order to protect their shot at challenging the incumbent face to face after their nominee is selected

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_mistake.html

    ?


    • #32
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
      So hilary isn't running for president.

      Her mouth will be running endlessly, as long as her health & medical issues allow.

      That's a given. But we never know, ... we'll see.

      The coming re-election of president Trump looks better and better every day though.

      Here we have .....

      Six reasons democrats are "stepping in it" with Perez declaring that Fox News doesn't get to host a presidential debate.

      Shortened from article below...

      One:
      This is a tacit admission that the party's presidential field is afraid of tough questioning...

      Two:
      The voting public, other than committed Democrats, already understands that all the other TV networks are heavily biased against Republicans...Refusing to face the one major national network that is remotely interested in challenging untruths or asking hard questions looks like cowardice.

      Three:
      Perez has inadvertently de-legitimized all of the debates that will occur on non-Fox outlets. The new blacklist only confirms that the DNC institutionally recognizes that its candidates need "safe spaces" where only journalists biased in their favor are allowed to question their candidates...

      Four:
      Perez has confirmed that Democrats have nothing to fear from the other networks, because (the obvious implication goes) they are friendly.

      Five:
      A majority of the public doesn't trust the media. Aligning the Democrats with distrusted institutions is not good branding.

      Six:
      Perez has handed the initiative to President Trump, who immediately spotted it. Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces," ...

      So, democrats pull off another stupid move.

      It's looking more & more like they're working behind the scenes, secretively arranging president Trumps re-election !!

      The other choice; They're stupid.

      ...https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...849#post560849

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

      In a statement Wednesday, DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited a story in the New Yorker magazine this week that detailed how Fox has promoted President Trump's agenda. The article, entitled "The Making of the Fox News White House," suggested that the news network had become a propaganda vehicle for Trump.

      ..six reasons why this is a gigantic blunder.

      One:
      This is a tacit admission that the party's presidential field is afraid of tough questioning, about, for instance, support for the Green New Deal or for tearing down existing segments of the border wall. Rick Santorum may have been the first to respond with the obvious question: "What are they afraid of?"..."If they are afraid of Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, how can they face Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un?"

      Two:
      The voting public, other than committed Democrats, already understands that all the other TV networks are heavily biased against Republicans, as many polls have revealed for years now (the latest, from Columbia Journalism Review, confirms this). Refusing to face the one major national network that is remotely interested in challenging untruths or asking hard questions looks like cowardice.

      Three:
      Perez has inadvertently de-legitimized all of the debates that will occur on non-Fox outlets. The new blacklist only confirms that the DNC institutionally recognizes that its candidates need "safe spaces" where only journalists biased in their favor are allowed to question their candidates people like Martha Raddatz of ABC News, a moderator of a 2016 debate, whom Trump mocked for weeping on air as election results came in showing that Trump was going to win the election.
      There now will be increased interest in critiquing those debates for the questions that were not asked, or the follow-ups that were not explored.


      Four:
      Perez has confirmed that Democrats have nothing to fear from the other networks, because (the obvious implication goes) they are friendly. He thus drives home the contention that they are fake news media.

      Five:
      A majority of the public doesn't trust the media. Aligning the Democrats with distrusted institutions is not good branding.

      Six:
      Perez has handed the initiative to President Trump, who immediately spotted it. Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces," As Soopermexican of The Right Scoop puts it: "Hilarious. And really, who holds all the cards here? The no-name Democrats that most people have no idea about, or the president of the most powerful country on Earth?" He predicts that Democrats will cave, in order to protect their shot at challenging the incumbent face to face after their nominee is selected

      [URL="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/six_rem/blog...r_mistake.html[/URL]
      The Democrats don't stand a chance because Trump knows how to appeal to his Christian base,"Please Mr, President sign my wife's tits."

      ?


      • #33
        Pretty poor form there, Tom. Even with the majority of 'news' (political propaganda) media against anything non-leftist, that's still not enough of an unfair advantage?

        Dumb ass.

        ?


        • #34
          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          Pretty poor form there, Tom. Even with the majority of 'news' (political propaganda) media against anything non-leftist, that's still not enough of an unfair advantage?

          Dumb ass.
          It's good though.

          These people are so damn stupid, they're destroying themselves !

          They've given themselves over completely to hate for this current president. It has seriously hurt their abilities to think at ALL.

          ?


          • #35
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            It's good though.

            These people are so damn stupid, they're destroying themselves !

            They've given themselves over completely to hate for this current president. It has seriously hurt their abilities to think at ALL.
            Have we forgotten the days when Republicans were attacking Obama for wearing a tan suit in summer because it wasn't presidential? We have come a long way as a country, from demanding that our presidents wear heavy woolen suits in the summer to electing a pussy grabbing tit signer.Hopefully the next generation of voters will be able to strike a balance between dignity and Christian decadence..

            ?


            • #36
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              Have we forgotten the days when Republicans were attacking Obama for wearing a tan suit in summer because it wasn't presidential? We have come a long way as a country, from demanding that our presidents wear heavy woolen suits in the summer to electing a pussy grabbing tit signer.Hopefully the next generation of voters will be able to strike a balance between dignity and Christian decadence..
              Meh. A tan suit was about a stupid as it gets, we can agree on that.

              "pussy grabbing"
              If you look at what Trump actually said, he said that if you are a star you can get away with that. He didn't say he actually did that. Further, with all the revelations from the #MeToo, afflicting more Democrats and Hollyweird Celebutards than anyone else, I'd say clean your own house up first.

              "tit signer"
              The the images posted here, that looks more like up by the collar bone (so upper chest), and not on the tits. Sorry tits are lower on the human body than where he's signing, and rather surprising that you don't know more about human anatomy.

              This from the same Democrats that cheered and applauded a sexual predator as he returned from the hill after being impeached?
              This from the same Democrats that can't police their own, can't bring themselves to condemn antisemitic statements from one of their own? (Omar).

              Yeah, go clean up your own house for a change.

              ?


              • #37
                Today she wasn't interested in impeachment. Why bother the corrupt Trump enablers in the senate are not bothered in the least by his criminality. The Democrats will just continue to muck rake and then leave it to the people to decide if they want a crook and traitor for president. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pe...ent-2019-03-11

                ?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Today she wasn't interested in impeachment. Why bother the corrupt Trump enablers in the senate are not bothered in the least by his criminality. The Democrats will just continue to muck rake and then leave it to the people to decide if they want a crook and traitor for president. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pe...ent-2019-03-11
                  Muckraking. Yeah, that's exactly what the Democrats and their investigations are doing.

                  Not that there isn't a past there, there is. The level of scrutiny is one that they themselves couldn't stand up to, yet hypocritically demand others do.
                  WTF is that? It's BS, is what it is.

                  What was it that the good book said? "He without sin cast the first stone". Well the Democrats certainly aren't with out sin, that's for sure. They just want to redirect attention and distract from it.

                  ?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                    Muckraking. Yeah, that's exactly what the Democrats and their investigations are doing.

                    Not that there isn't a past there, there is. The level of scrutiny is one that they themselves couldn't stand up to, yet hypocritically demand others do.
                    WTF is that? It's BS, is what it is.

                    What was it that the good book said? "He without sin cast the first stone". Well the Democrats certainly aren't with out sin, that's for sure. They just want to redirect attention and distract from it.
                    The latest polls indicate that 57% want to see a change in presidents. It looks good for the Democrats. The Republicans might as well stick with Trump. The whole party is rotten to the core. I'm not free of sin. Iam sure I'm going straight to hell for all the profanities I screamed on the golf course.

                    ?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      The latest polls indicate that 57% want to see a change in presidents. It looks good for the Democrats. The Republicans might as well stick with Trump. The whole party is rotten to the core. I'm not free of sin. Iam sure I'm going straight to hell for all the profanities I screamed on the golf course.
                      The Democrats are going to destroy themselves in in the next 18 months, and we can see this happening real time as Pelosi arm wrestles with the far left extremist socialist idiots for control of the party, AOC (and the like) and her adoring media.

                      Nancy committed a fatal mistake in Democrat and leftist politics, she became unattractive. And what does that say about Democrat and leftist political values? Not much.

                      ?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                        The Democrats are going to destroy themselves in in the next 18 months, and we can see this happening real time as Pelosi arm wrestles with the far left extremist socialist idiots for control of the party, AOC (and the like) and her adoring media.

                        Nancy committed a fatal mistake in Democrat and leftist politics, she became unattractive. And what does that say about Democrat and leftist political values? Not much.
                        Yes the Democrats will probably nominate some crazy leftist who believes it's wrong for a president to sell out the country for money and that black people should be allowed to vote. True that agenda will not attract many Republican Nazi votes but it might draw in a few independents and suburban women.

                        ?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          Yes the Democrats will probably nominate some crazy leftist who believes it's wrong for a president to sell out the country for money and that black people should be allowed to vote. True that agenda will not attract many Republican Nazi votes but it might draw in a few independents and suburban women.
                          Lots of accusation. Very little fact in there. Just a parroting of issued leftist media talking points. So sad.

                          It's highly likely that Hillary sold out the US while SoS.
                          Where has any Republican ever been said, in context and a full quote please, that 'blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote'? The leftist media would have drummed them out of DC in a heartbeat.

                          You may be right. It may be that 'a few independents and suburban women' have been so brainwashed to believe that Socialism in the US isn't going to drive the US straight to Venezuela. More than likely all the young who have been indoctrinated in liberal / progressive ideology for what laughingly is called education these days, that they'll vote for whatever AOC tells them to vote for.

                          When you are ready to have 60% - 70% of your income confiscated to be re-distributed to other so that they can enjoy the pasting of writing poetry, let me know.

                          For me? Thanks, but I want to keep what I earn. I'm puzzled why so many are voting to have what they earn confiscated so easily.

                          If you are going to confiscate the rewards from working hard, you are also going to take away the motivation to work hard, go the extra mile, and will receive mediocrity in return. That's hardly a winning path to a future that is anything but bright, but more so a bleak one.

                          ?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            Lots of accusation. Very little fact in there. Just a parroting of issued leftist media talking points. So sad.

                            It's highly likely that Hillary sold out the US while SoS.
                            Where has any Republican ever been said, in context and a full quote please, that 'blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote'? The leftist media would have drummed them out of DC in a heartbeat.

                            You may be right. It may be that 'a few independents and suburban women' have been so brainwashed to believe that Socialism in the US isn't going to drive the US straight to Venezuela. More than likely all the young who have been indoctrinated in liberal / progressive ideology for what laughingly is called education these days, that they'll vote for whatever AOC tells them to vote for.

                            When you are ready to have 60% - 70% of your income confiscated to be re-distributed to other so that they can enjoy the pasting of writing poetry, let me know.

                            For me? Thanks, but I want to keep what I earn. I'm puzzled why so many are voting to have what they earn confiscated so easily.

                            If you are going to confiscate the rewards from working hard, you are also going to take away the motivation to work hard, go the extra mile, and will receive mediocrity in return. That's hardly a winning path to a future that is anything but bright, but more so a bleak one.
                            It's why socialism always fails.

                            But we have another group of dummies that think they can make it work... chasing the stupid pipe dream again no matter the long history of socialist failure.

                            Consistently stupid seems to be what humans prove of themselves when they attempt these things over & over in spite of history

                            ?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              It's why socialism always fails.

                              But we have another group of dummies that think they can make it work... chasing the stupid pipe dream again no matter the long history of socialist failure.

                              Consistently stupid seems to be what humans prove of themselves when they attempt these things over & over in spite of history
                              We have interesting choices. We can either go with socialism or Trumps Nationalist party. Roger Stone has a tattoo of Nixon on his neck. I'm going to put a tattoo of Trump on my buttocks, so when my puckered anal sphincter gives forth it will look like it's coming out of Trump's puckered little mouth.It's going to be a dirty campaign.

                              ?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by redrover View Post
                                We have interesting choices. We can either go with socialism or Trumps Nationalist party. Roger Stone has a tattoo of Nixon on his neck. I'm going to put a tattoo of Trump on my buttocks, so when my puckered anal sphincter gives forth it will look like it's coming out of Trump's puckered little mouth.It's going to be a dirty campaign.
                                You're even more unwholesome and unhealthy a character than that Trump fellow it looks like LOL

                                Since you see this as a contest of rancid & nasty, why don't you sign up and join these guys - https://www.gwar.net/

                                I think you'll be able to make them even worse... which is really better for THEM !

                                You'll fit right in. Let us know how it goes - if you get time to ; )

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X