Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, Trump KNEW about Russian interference - of course, he did. He actually was complicit in it.
lol someone has been watching too much Rachel Maddow. So what did Trump bring to the table? His expert hacking skillz? Oh wait, the DNC was never hacked; that's all been proven a myth.
Knowing all of this, why should I want someone like him running for President? Why should I listen to Pat Buchanan or heed anything he says? What do I have to gain from it?
You have or would have had alot to gain if you served in the military or still serve in the military, Pat Buchanan is as anti interventionist as any far left wing peace activist, many right wing people were isolationist and still are. The military has been used as cannon fodder for such insane interventions like the invasion of Iraq and pretty much the whole history of post ww2 interventionist fiascos from Vietnam, Korea,Reagan landing marines to be executed in the heart of Lebanon, on and on and on
Pat has said he starts his day reading justin raimondos site Antiwar.com , one of the best sites on the internet and should be read daily by everyone.
Globalists love war and intervention, mass immigration and demographic change, outsourcing jobs and a "global" economy, etc.
We have over 800 bases all over the world and treaties all over to draw us into more wars and a rising and rising military budget and for what? Can anyone name one real victory since WW2 that hasnt drawn us deeper and deeper into foreign conflicts , any real victory at all?
Our founding father warned us about this, this is why many of the founding fathers didnt even want a standing army
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
"Washington in his Farewell Address that we might “trust to temporary alliances” in extraordinary emergencies but“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
Alliances and treaties Washington believed, were transmission belts of war. Yet we have alliances and treaties all over the planet. close to 30,000 troops on north koreas border, air ,naval , and missile forces right on the North Korean border."
If colluding with the Russians to win an election isn't a crime, then there is no reason to investigate Russian interference in the election.
Yes, there is. It provides motive for Trump wanting to shut down the Flynn investigation - i.e., OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by datfeelguy
lol someone has been watching too much Rachel Maddow. So what did Trump bring to the table? His expert hacking skillz? Oh wait, the DNC was never hacked; that's all been proven a myth.
Nothing you state is relevant. The issue of collusion IS irrelevant as it provides a motive to obstruct justice. And, iirc, there is some obscure law - i.e., treason - about cooperating with a foreign power - but Trump has had too many buffers, so they won't get him on that.
The issue is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the Flynn investigation.
You have or would have had alot to gain if you served in the military or still serve in the military, Pat Buchanan is as anti interventionist as any far left wing peace activist, many right wing people were isolationist and still are. The military has been used as cannon fodder for such insane interventions like the invasion of Iraq and pretty much the whole history of post ww2 interventionist fiascos from Vietnam, Korea,Reagan landing marines to be executed in the heart of Lebanon, on and on and on
Pat has said he starts his day reading justin raimondos site Antiwar.com , one of the best sites on the internet and should be read daily by everyone.
Globalists love war and intervention, mass immigration and demographic change, outsourcing jobs and a "global" economy, etc.
We have over 800 bases all over the world and treaties all over to draw us into more wars and a rising and rising military budget and for what? Can anyone name one real victory since WW2 that hasnt drawn us deeper and deeper into foreign conflicts , any real victory at all?
Our founding father warned us about this, this is why many of the founding fathers didnt even want a standing army
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
"Washington in his Farewell Address that we might “trust to temporary alliances†in extraordinary emergencies but“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.â€
Alliances and treaties Washington believed, were transmission belts of war. Yet we have alliances and treaties all over the planet. close to 30,000 troops on north koreas border, air ,naval , and missile forces right on the North Korean border."
By that logic, we shouldn't support anything American, because America had slavery, and not just in the South.
So no supporting Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, the Daughters of the American Revolution, etc.
No supporting Lincoln. After all, he said that if he could preserve the union by keeping slavery, he would do so.
Northern hypocrisy is quite amazing.
Uh, nice try, but it won't work. There is a big difference in why the colonies wanted to break from Britain and why the South wanted to break from the USA. The American Revolution wasn't started over a desire to have slavery in the colonies. The Confederate secession, however, was deeply rooted in trying to keep slavery.
I don't care what Lincoln was about. I know he was no friend of the Black man. I care that the South was so intent on keeping slavery that it was willing to wage a war to keep it. Llncoln's feelings do not negate or refute anything the South was about.
Again, why would Confederates be considered honorable?
I notice you ignore other posts in which I responded to you.
Uh, nice try, but it won't work. There is a big difference in why the colonies wanted to break from Britain and why the South wanted to break from the USA. The American Revolution wasn't started over a desire to have slavery in the colonies. The Confederate secession, however, was deeply rooted in trying to keep slavery.
I don't care what Lincoln was about. I know he was no friend of the Black man. I care that the South was so intent on keeping slavery that it was willing to wage a war to keep it. Llncoln's feelings do not negate or refute anything the South was about.
Again, why would Confederates be considered honorable?
I notice you ignore other posts in which I responded to you.
The South had slavery and wanted to keep it. Check.
The United States as a whole had slavery up until the Civil War and wanted to keep it. Check.
There is no difference in culpability between the United States with its American flag, and the Southern Confederacy with its Confederate flag. Both had slavery.
To pretend that slave owners Washington and Jefferson were less guilty than Jefferson Davies is absurd, especially in view of what Lincoln said.
Descendants of confederate soldiers, most of whom didn't own slaves, have a perfect right to honor their ancestors and have them respected, just as the descendants of Revolutionary War soldiers do.
This nasty rubbing of the face of the South in its defeat is truly despicable in addition to being hypocritical. I call it "being a sore winner." Which, of course, is much worse than being a sore loser.
There were plenty of reasons to impeach Obama: Solyndra, DACA, pallets of cash being shipped to Iran, trading five high-level terrorists for a deserter, apology tour, lies about Obamacare, lies about Benghazi, etc.
The Republicans didn't do anything because they were afraid of being called "racist."
The Leftists seem not to realize (or care) that DACA was illegal. The Congress rejected it; but, Obama implemented it by E.O. He went around Congress (which is an illegal use of Executive Orders, as well).
We could mention many more things that he could have been impeached for, but as "The first black Prisident" they would have been painted as "racists."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks! I always enjoy a good laugh first thing in the morning with my coffee!
