Before or after Trump became president?
Printable View
OK, you (understandably) seem to have lost your enthusiasm for this thread so here's a list of Conservative Review's top 10 Republicans In Name Only, their length of service to the Republican Party and the percentage of times they vote along Trump lines.
1. John McCain. Senator from AZ. 30 years - 83.3%
2. Lisa Murkowski. Senator from AK. 14 years - 85.7%
3. Susan Collins. Senator from ME. 20 years - 80%
4. Mitch McConnell. Senator from K. 32 years - 95.9%
5. Orrin Hatch. Senator from UT. 40 years - 96%
6. Lamar Alexander. Senator from TN. 14 years - 93.8%
7. Lindsey Graham. Senator from SC. 14 years - 90%
8. Jeff Flake. Senator from AZ. 4 years - 91.7%
9. Paul Ryan. Representative from WI. 18 years - 100%
10. Kevin McCarthy. Representative from CA. 10 years - 97.9%
Sources: fivethirtyeight.com, conservativereview.com
TBF there isn't much difference between Clinton, Bush and Obama, they are pretty much the same party, just like Blair and Cameron were. Everything run smoothly when new players take over. When people like Trump and Corbyn threaten the established power, things tend to get a little hostile, with attacks happening even within their own parties.
If you say so :biggrin:
GOP Rep. Ron DeSantis revealed Republican leadership blocked him and others from investigating the Clinton-Uranium One deal!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017...vidence-video/
If we accept that you are right about the manipulation of the MSM, are you saying that the manipulation only goes on with one of the two sides in the conflict you are obsessed with? Surely anyone who believes that one side is pure evil and the other is squeaky clean is either naive or a fool, so I assume you accept there is manipulation on both sides? That being the case, that's some claim you make about not being easily manipulated.
Yep, there is manipulation on both sides, and a hell of lot of corruption too. I always look at opposing views and the underlying facts before I jump in on any particular topic. There are also many things I am not sure about, and you won't find me arguing the point so vigourously on such matters.
I've been watching the Russia events for a while now, and I have always said the Trump accusations were mostlly fabricated or a fishing expedition. I feel pretty confident about that. Do you remember the FISA warrants and phoney pee dossier? The recent developments in the Uranium One case are compelling IMO, and actually help to explain the reason for the Trump/Russia narrative.
I find this lady in the video below very bombastic, but she is on point with her observations here, and it is a good recap of current events regarding Russian interference and collusion. Naturally I will get ribbed for quoting Fox as a reference, but there are only a few people covering this story (why?), so I have little choice in the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkJ_ZHpOdxc
Don’t waste your breath. He won’t respond about this. It’s what he does. He posts endlessly about his agenda to show how much cleverer than everyone else he is.. Then when someone tries to get him to commit to something or tie him down to a factual argument he has two methods - either go off on a tangent or revert to “I’m just an observer, let’s wait and see how things play out”
Basically he hasn’t got a clue.
I posted it here because it reinforces my opinion that there is very little difference when it comes down to the core actions of both main parties. The GOP leadership actually told their fellow Republicans to stop investigating the Uranium One deal and any Democrat wrongdoing! Why would they do that? It's going against the people when they involve themselves in the cover-up.
Point proved.
You waffle on, somebody tries to pin you down to something, you waffle some more.
For the record NYC asked you for something specific, your reply basically amounted to “they’re all the same” - classic Gluey.
Good to see that you’ve finally acknowledged that they ARE all the same - even The orange man you’re pinning your hopes on (yeah yeah we know you’re just a neutral observer)
A real page in hilarys book
https://i.redd.it/nxqvuxbgvptz.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeAnarc...hildrens_book/
Gag lifted, very bad news for Mrs C.
Happy Birthday Hillary!
Is this her belated present?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...illary-clinton
I get that notion.
So it doesn't matter - whatsoever - which candidate (and party) we 'choose' from any political 'choice'?
Not at all?
No effect on us either way? Anyway?
Not sure that I'm convince that is truly 100% the case.
I'll stick with 'choice of sh1t' as a descriptor for the kind of choices we seem to be presented with these days though.
:thumbup:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...sparking-fury?
'Fake News' Guardian reporting that Fox is reporting on its own fake news about Clinton?
:shrug:
Does that cancel itself out and make it true? ;)
Though, if Fox itself, or at least one of it's Anchors is apparently admitting that Fox has been spreading horsesh*t about Hilary, that would be a right ol' can of worms eh?
Not sure if it's just a Guardian story so far though.
Hillary says if anybody investigates her it would be an abuse of power.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...abuse-of-power