Hey osama never hit 50 and he was the greatest pres in the world according to the experts....lol.
PRESIDENT Trump should never be compared to Osama. How would you compare them....accomplishments?
osama had one, soon to be none. Trump killed that with the tax mandate. What else....pick an issue ....the VA, military matters....raises, defense of our nation, sanctions on Russia and Iran, the border wall in progress, trade barriers lifted, USMCA, China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, North Korea talks 1st time in 25 years a PRESIDENT confronts NK and gets our soldiers back, Embassy in Jerusalem finally where it belongs ,Space Force a new vision for tomorrow, Criminal reform, lower taxes, deregulation, consumer confidence so high even the Fed backed off when he asked, illegal immigration dwindling to a crawl.....ad infinitem.
And then there's osama who did nothing for his own race. His legacy is coming and it's literally going to be a black mark on the 8 years of our history.
Someone said 'regular' folk. No such animal....there are those who are informed with a knowledge base, and those who depend solely on sentiment.....on any subject. The former provide insight, the latter provide occasional utterances with no real impact. That's as transparent as it gets, but you do see how the left loves using their catch words as an introduction to the conversation. The hit and run comment usually signals a desire to be seen and not heard, sufficient for the loon but reminiscent of a child. Forums would be a better spot for the readers digest mentality.
Bulls eye mic.....the Constitution provides for 'checks and balances'....its the heart of this issue....is it Constitutional, or in the case of the liberals, Constipational'.
When will they get it through their heads and not their hearts? Liberals only defer to the Constitution as sentiment when it suits them. But reading it verbatim and interpreting it is beyond their ken.
They do try though....lol, they do try. Unfortunately, the adults in the room are in charge.....
Sssshhh......they're thinking.....s l o w l y.....lol. Oh no...not another leak, is it....but, but....but can they find out if it's TRUE before they vote....can we force a delay.....is it admissible? Surely they'll believe this happened....after all....its Bolton....(Coincidentally whose testimony has been a #1 priority).
Poor gullible snowflakes.....lol.
Famous fatherly saying when I was a wee lad:
"Son, you can buy em books and buy em books, but you just can't get em to read".
Yep, I'm consistently being quoted. Hell, if you need some help I might even switch sides and take the opposition. So far none of you are gaining ground on any topic. You at least try for solid ground, but slip back when you run out of rationale. If that high ground wasn't so steep and littered with such fools, it would be easier footing. Set your sights on being more conservative in what you seek to accomplish.
[there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions.]
She was one out of nine votes from the Committee. Had one out of nine of those votes objected to the sale, president osama would have had to override. The in-situ sale went through.
Above are the facts of the sale. Yet my point was the relationship Bill Clinton had with Frank Guistra, the owner of Uranium1. Fact....he and the Clinton's knew each other in early 2005. Fact....Guistra donated approximately 1.45 million to the Foundation. Fact...Guistra introduced Bill to Putin prior to his $500,000 speech. My statement was that the Clinton's had far more beneficial ties to Russia then President Trump. I can't help it if someone throws a hissy fit about my pointing it out. Typical over reaction I'd say.
Well, sign me up again there Harvard.....Complicity 101....I'm in. BTW.....linking to a Congressional report and asking the viewers to read it to support your opinion....kind of a weak ticket don't you think? That's a hit and run violation of ' Sorry, my heads up my a**".
Here's the answer, not that it makes any difference but:
"The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote. Now this is what we've been saying all along...the call for a vote to resolve was never made to the HJC. She violated process.....
And here's the kicker. If Trump wants to contest it on Constitutional grounds, and wins.... HE AIN'T IMPEACHED!
Agreed Shawn.....moves like these sometimes signal electability rather than sensibility. Still, for every Van Drew, there's a Flake. He chose to quit because he couldn't win again.
Perhaps snowflake.....Perhaps. But my credentials are solid, and not an embellished profile of a gypsy selling trinkets and empty curses in a kiosk on the boardwalk....lol
Once this nonsense is over we'll hear more from Barr. This is why the loonies have prolonged their death march.... once again, distraction as served up by the Soros media. Believe me, there will be accountability even for them. If not for the corrupted media, none of this nonsense would have taken so long. Time to put the CNN/Soros communists down for good.
Frontnine35 Blog Comments (223)
RE: Mexico IS Paying For The Wall !!!! PRESIDENT TRUMP WINS YET AGAIN (and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN!!)
Glad you caught that.....