No party line, just the facts mam.Well he has the party line down, anyway.
No party line, just the facts mam.Well he has the party line down, anyway.
LOL What "WE" got, pilgrimWell that is exactly what you got
If you say so, comrade.No party line, just the facts mam.
He wasnt exonerated by the mueller report.LOL What "WE" got, pilgrim
And since he was exonerated by the Mueller report, I'm seeing sour grapes here
Facts matter.If you say so, comrade.
I did read it. And I would simply note that you didn't supply the part that you think I didn't read. What do you think I think it says?The definitions I provided were current. Just a fact.
You should read your wiki link. It doesnt say what you want it to.
You ask "How would you characterize the growing tendency by our democratic "friends" to embrace constant war and authoritarian tactics (such as censorship)?"
I would catagorize that is totally made up BS. Made up right wing propaganda. There simply is no such tendency in the Democratic party. Come back yo the real world.
Right, because Clinton didn’t commit any crimes.It means they have no leverage, nor did they want leverage, to prosecute.
Doing it inadvertently is not a prosecutable offense. To be prosecutable, intent or gross negligence is required.The fact that she was under investigation for mishandling classified information, as confirmed by Comey, which itself is a prosecutable offence, should have given them all they needed.
Comey had Hillary's exoneration statement written up before they even interviewed her. For you to claim this is somehow NOT a double standard adds a new heightened level to partisan blindness.
Given immunity in exchange for saying anything potentially incriminating about Clinton they could.MY double standard? OMG HAHAHA!!!!
How many Clinton associates during the investigation ended up in solitary or got raided at 6 in the morning?
It was a white wash from the moment it started. EVERYONE they interviewed was given immunity from prosecution. Double standard doesn't even start to cover it.
No, she didn’t. She had a handful of emails marked “confidential” (lowest level of classification), all but 3 marked as such after the fact.Hillary had SAP info on her server.
His preferred wording was “grossly negligent” in order to meet the requirements for indictment, but he couldn’t shoehorn her actual behavior into that category.Because his "preferred wording" is not in the statute.
The fix was in.
There were 3 emails that were confidential when sent, including 1 marked as such. Mistakes happen.Nope. What he said was that she was irresponsible but not criminal. None of it was marked classified at the tine it was sent. Which means there was no criminal responsibility on Clinton's part.
On the other hand there was to s of evidence against trump and his people. Read the mueller reporr.
Capitalistic?Word meanings change over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_fascism
How would you characterize the growing tendency by our democratic "friends" to embrace constant war and authoritarian tactics (such as censorship)?
No, it wouldn’t. Congress has power under the 15th Amendment to regulate state elections to prevent racial disfranchisement.This would require a change to the constitution so pipe down all of you because this is not happening
“Big government”=the Wall and the military detention centers, regulation of women’s uteruses, use of government to punish opposition media.I did read it. And I would simply note that you didn't supply the part that you think I didn't read. What do you think I think it says?
Is this one of yours?
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Take out the "radical right-wing" and I'd say that pretty accurately describes the current "progressive" movement.
“Every age has its own fascism” – Primo Levi
Modern progressivism is post-modernist fascism, our current age's "own fascism." Clearly the left is more authoritarian than the right. Big government is the essence of "authoritarianism." If the whole "anyone who doesn't support impeaching Trump is Putin's puppet" nonsense isn't "authoritarian nationalism" I don't know what else you would call it. "Dictatorial power?" How about the whole effort to do away with the Electoral College and all voter ID laws? That is clearly designed to implement a "dictatorship of the proletariat." No one for a minute believes it holds anything but the prospect of a permanent democratic majority (rule) that will run roughshod over the rights of the minority in implementing it's social and economic "justice" agenda. Forceable suppression of opposition? What would you call the whole organized effort to lock Trump up without a scintilla of evidence of any crimes? The vile personal attacks on his administration staffers? Or the efforts to paint anyone who questions global warming as "anti-science" despite the growing evidence that the whole thing is at best grotesquely exaggerated and at worst a complete hoax? And strong regimentation of society - hello, PC uber alles ring any bells? And the economy - what else would you call the Democrats' current platform planks that would both clamp down even more government control over businesses and, in effect, criminalize many business practices? If the shoe fits...
You are joking right?I did read it. And I would simply note that you didn't supply the part that you think I didn't read. What do you think I think it says?
Is this one of yours?
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Take out the "radical right-wing" and I'd say that pretty accurately describes the current "progressive" movement.
..
Wrong, the constitution says only citizens can vote. *Edited*No, it wouldn’t. Congress has power under the 15th Amendment to regulate state elections to prevent racial disfranchisement.
Where in the Constitution does it say only citizens can vote, and, if that is the case, why were aliens allowed to vote in 10 of the original 13 states at the time the Constitution was adopted?Wrong, the constitution says only citizens can vote. Try again kiddy
Do you still believe that 100f is 1/6 hotter than 33f
These are requirements under each state’s laws, not under the Comstitution.
It's the only way Democrats can win elections. Regular taxpayers have had enough of their shit.This means illegals can openly vote. So can 10 year old kids. He is insane.