...he won an election they tried to rig! America voted him in -- all 60+ million of us, including women & minorities! And we will do it again in 2020 despite the never-ending LIEberal hysteria over the Russian collusion delusion.
Dems/Libs just can't let it go. Their disguise is being wiped away and they are so pathetically desperate for some sense of control. They won't ever let it go until they are TRULY uncovered as the demonic liars & slanderers they are -- MASKS OFF!
Worth mentioning as well Henry Ford's fascination with Adolph Hitler and his willingness to share the secrets of his River Rouge factory with Hitler's Wolfsburg VW operation.
Oh, Prescott Bush, there are things to be examined there as well.
Meantime, it's off to Home Depot for some Bayer insect lawn poison - systemic...lol...
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spoke of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
How are these people or what they did in any way progressive? Posting what some racist, evil people did isn’t evidence of a progressive movement. That’s just like saying what the Nazi’s did to the gays and Jews was progressive when it was blatantly far right behavior. What nonsense!
The websites that push the Sanger/White Supremacist bullshit are the same ones that have home page columns with titles like "Black Crime Stats" - They have those pages for a reason.
Times change. One day a lot of the so called progressive crap e have now will be looked t and people will think it was really foolish and even oppressive
What they're doing these days isn't progress. It's "regression" back to anarchy and the days of Rome, as well as the Old Soviet Union. I find it insulting that they call anything they do "progressive."
Sorry but the post you're responding to is right. What modern progressives/liberals want is not progress. It is not liberty or "democracy" (even though we live in a constitutional republic). It is a world not unlike that portrayed in "V for Vendetta".
It's hard to take seriously anyone who can't have a debate without the F-word.
A child argues with obscenity. No, it doesn't hurt my delicate sensibilities, it just destroys your credibility. Telling me to fuck off has no power, nor does it help your argument or further your agenda. Just makes you look like an overly emotional, non-intellectual idiot. Which is probably the truth.
I have no idea of the numbers but those who are self proclaimed progressives and socialists are calling for the destruction of the American way of life as we know it. Extensive welfare. Exorbitant taxes. Efforts to extinguish opposition are fully underway. Silencing conservatives. Halting the discourse. The war on Christianity. Government control over healthcare. The long fought campaign towards disarming the American citizen. Liberals already control most of public education and the mainstream media. Schools are no longer teaching history as something to be honored and remembered. Founding fathers are judged not by the things they accomplished and the country they created but are demonized for owning slaves. A complete rewriting of the Constitution will eventually be on the agenda. That is exactly where we are headed.
I have no interest in defending the actions of every GOP politician from years' past. It may be a talking point for you but it is irrelevant to today's world.
I guess Painekiller never heard of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's?
And wasn't aware of the Environmental progress since the 70's?
Or the rights of LGBTQ people from the 80s & now?
Your bullshit about Sanger was debunked a while ago but I guess it's hard to find the truth when you keep regurgitating the lies from the same old debunked sources over & over again as if THIS time, if you type it with EMPHASIS, it will be TRUE!
Or did your encyclopedia not get updated since the 1930s?
Yes, but they can't impeach him simply for winning an election they tried to rig with the aid of the Liberal media in their pockets who claimed that Hillary had a 91% chance of winning the day before election day, 2016 (Why Sure!).
Imagine how excited you guys would be if he really won the election without Russia's interference? Imagine how excited you guys would be if he really won over Hillary by more than 3M votes in the popular vote?
Damn, this is really killing you guys. He couldn't win the popular vote and he certainly couldn't win the electoral without Russian interference.
Imagine if Trump had won and liberals actually acted like adults and accepted it? Rather than acting like spoiled brats who want to derail the whole system just because they lost. You know, like conservatives did when Obama won, twice? Like conservatives did when Clinton won, twice?
Then imagine if Hillary wasn't really in bed with China and Russia and going by Joseph Goebbels' propaganda playbook?
You seem to forget how celebratory Mitch McConnell was when Obama won his first term. McConnell said the Republicans were so excited, that they were going to do their best to make him a one-term President. No 'derailment' there at all.
And then skip ahead to Obama's final year in Office (with all the bullsh!t he put up with from the republicans for the years in between), and McConnell wouldn't even consider his nominee to the Supreme Court. Yep, Republicans were all about acceptance of our First Black President, and working to make our country thrive. Yes, they were all for that!
Do you really want to reminisce on the Clinton years and Newt Gingrich?
The health care debate resumes today, and the big news is that Democrats have opted to cut Republicans out of the negotiating process, a move intended to keep GOP legislators from forcing unpleasant votes or using procedural delaying measures.
Meanwhile, the CEO of C-SPAN has written a letter to House and Senate leadership urging them to allow C-SPAN cameras into the House/Senate negotiations. There's no official word from Congressional leadership, but judging from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' question dodging when asked about televising negotiations, it's unlikely to happen.
For one thing, secrecy makes the legislative sausage-making process even uglier. Without public scrutiny, politicians just aren't going to be as accountable. Democrats pay lip service to this idea all the time — the C-SPAN letter notes that "Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-files members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming health care." Obama has declared that his administration "is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
But as important, I think, is that without reporters and recorders in the room, we'll miss out on the historical record, which is both useful (in terms of understanding the legislative process) and interesting (as political narrative). That's important for any bill, and it's especially true with a bill of this size and this sort of transformational impact. When future generations — or, hell, current generations — ask how we got the system we have, we'll be able to tell part of the story...
reply share
Why is that? T-rump promised throughout his campaign the FIRST thing he was going to do in Office was 'repeal and replace' Obamacare. T-rump claimed he would take care of that within his first week in Office, as that was the easiest thing to take care of as the new President.
Two and a half years later, the only thing he has successfully repealed and replaced has been his administration.
reply share
No, you're just a whiny butthurt child who's upset that his/her (whatever you are) candidate didn't win. If your candidate had won by virtue of the electoral college, you'd be singing a different tune. Luckily, those old white guys that wrote the Constitution were a lot smarter than you.
I didnt vote for ayone because I didnt support anyone, and would complain about all of them.
Im not going to "just pick one" out of a misplaced sense obligation.
Anyway, the principle is that if you voted for someone, you are responsible for them, and cant complain.
Therefore, no vote = Full complaint rights.
I also refuse to participate in a system that geographically inflates/deflates votes. That concept no longer means anything like it did nearly 250 years ago.
I dare ypu to try tp explain why the electoral system is NECESSARY in our modern country.
Necessary! Disliking the fact that urban votes tend to be majority-Democrat is thus not a valid necessary reason.
Please do try to justify the outdated archaic practice designed for a sparsely populated country in its infancy.
My favorite thing about arrogant idiots is how they ALWAYS do that: Argue and argue until they are asked to explain, and then suddenly they have no time or you're not worth it.
The electoral college was intended to prevent the events that led to the Civil War. It was intended to prevent the highly populous cities from dictating policy to everyone else. It's part of what makes the US a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Which is basically the equivalent of mob rule.
No, I don't expect you to get it. You're more concerned with winning and getting your way than for it to be fair for everyone. You people give no thought to the future and unintended consequences. Only getting your way today.
Do you know yet why vote inflation/deflation is tied to local population density?
While I'm waiting SO LONG for you to post simple pieces of information about something you claimed to know so well, I have a few things for you.
"It's part of what makes the US a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Which is basically the equivalent of mob rule."
You realize the electors are human beings and citizens, right? So they are part of the mob. They're just a smaller mob.
I'd love it if you could explain HOW the E.C. avoids mob rule when Electors are part of the population. I also want to point out that avoiding "mob rule" suggests there is a correct vote, and an incorrect vote, in Presidential elections.
If that was true, THERE WOULD BE NO VOTING. Can you understand this?
You obviously don't understand the distinction between a pure democracy and a republic. No doubt a product of the modern leftist public education system.
You do know Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton both won another term because of the electoral college right? Chances are in the future a democrat will win in the future because of the Electoral college.
I was merely pointing out that other presidents won because of the electoral college. Frankly, it's very possible with how far left the Democrats are going with people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Cortez more people may end up voting for Trump the next election. Frankly I really don't want a socialist country like Venezuela.
Yes your point is redundant because the current laws REQUIRE winning the electoral college. Youre stating the most obvious point possible: The opening premise of the discussion!
So you see, thats why... ah screw it, nevermind. You really veered off the subject in the rest of your reply, so any more attempted communication is going to be wasted time.
So you see, thats why... ah screw it, nevermind. You really veered off the subject in the rest of your reply, so any more attempted communication is going to be wasted time.
I can't stop laughing at this! LOLOLOL!
reply share
Probably a better place that you get yours from...undoubtedly some de-institutionalized nutcase with a blog or streaming website where they spew hate-filled invective, false information, and near-seditious antagonism against the American government. Or it's best equivalent: Fux News.
I know what you mean. You can't impeach someone just because you don't like them. If there was a law that allowed that, we would have WAY more than 45 presidents right now, and we would be having too much trouble with anarchy going on. He also hasn't really committed any crimes that are impeachable offenses, though I could think of several the last buffoon did that he SHOULD have been impeached for.
So, pretty much, everyone in the news and Washington that's screaming to impeach are morons trying to get attention. Imagine how quickly they would die if they couldn't talk or type on a keyboard.
No one is talking about impeachment without CAUSE, FFS.
You could think of SEVERAL impeachable offenses from Obama's term? Really? Could you?
GO AHEAD AND NAME THEM.
I dare you. Cite the Law. SEVERAL OF THEM? Several instances or counts of ONE law he violated? or SEVERAL INDIVIDUAL LAWS? Go ahead. Cite the Legal Statute.
Or are you just a moron typing out of your ass?
(No need to hurry to respond, darling. We've seen your posts & know the arse is well blown out by now.)
AmeriGirl is an absolute nutcase, I believe an actual legitimate right-wing kook who probably only watches Fox News and is afraid of accidentally seeing something that disputes her worldview....
GUARANTEED she will not respond to our messages. She's not here for political discussion, that is what I've found, but it doesn't stop me from trying to get through her intense deliberate ignorance.
Plus there's the racism.... I don't remember specifically but I am feeling it's been at least twice.