It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Congratulations on being the water carrier for fake news.
Sorry about that, I got caught in the web of your new pretentious method of posting. The quoting system is to quote other members who have posted, you're doing it wrong compadre.
Someone has been spending too much time over at BuzzFeed.
Get back to work cubicle drone. I realize it took over a half a million dollars to get you into a job that pays more than you're worth, but it's truly a disgrace how much of your time on the company dime you spend doing nothing.
CampeadorAgain, you missed the boat, there's hardly anyone left. What is that line about a child wandering into the middle of a movie?
What you call "hating islam" is simply telling the truth about it. Unless of course you can refute anything I've said with anything besides "not all muslims".
Good luck.
That statement is true about all religions. I'm pretty sure you're just afraid of brown people.
By the way, do you know what El Campeador was famous for?
MemeLordThat statement is true about all religions. I'm pretty sure you're just afraid of brown people.
By the way, do you know what El Campeador was famous for?
He fought for Christians then switched sides and fought for muslims?
MemeLordThat statement is true about all religions. I'm pretty sure you're just afraid of brown people.
By the way, do you know what El Campeador was famous for?
All you have are self-loathing false equivalences and left-wing accusations of racism, because in the warped mind of leftist, Islam is a race. And no, that statement is not "true about all religions" you fucking idiot.
Let's see if these statements are "true about all religions":
1. The "prophet" of Islam, Mohamed, was a pedophile and a mass-murderer (not at all unlike the terrorists who emulate him).
2. Muslims are taught to emulate Muhammad as the perfect example.
3. Islam commands that apostates be put to death, and this is carried out regularly.
4. In Islam, women are legally considered to be below men as a matter of faith and practice.
5. In Islam, female genital mutilation is carried out in accordance with prescriptions of the pedophile prophet.
6. In Islam, believers are commanded to kill and subjugate non-believers by force.
Feel free to correct the parts you feel are inaccurate. That was just a primer list. Go ahead and try to deny any of that, you pathetic apologist.
As to the last part, go ahead, give it a shot. We'll see how quickly you can regurgitate Wikipedia.
CampeadorAll you have are self-loathing false equivalences and left-wing accusations of racism, because in the warped mind of leftist, Islam is a race. And no, that statement is not "true about all religions" you fucking idiot.
Let's see if these statements are "true about all religions":
1. The "prophet" of Islam, Mohamed, was a pedophile and a mass-murderer (not at all unlike the terrorists who emulate him).
2. Muslims are taught to emulate Muhammad as the perfect example.
3. Islam commands that apostates be put to death, and this is carried out regularly.
4. In Islam, women are legally considered to be below men as a matter of faith and practice.
5. In Islam, female genital mutilation is carried out in accordance with prescriptions of the pedophile prophet.
6. In Islam, believers are commanded to kill and subjugate non-believers by force.
Feel free to correct the parts you feel are inaccurate. That was just a primer list. Go ahead and try to deny any of that, you pathetic apologist.
As to the last part, go ahead, give it a shot. We'll see how quickly you can regurgitate Wikipedia.
Life must be real difficult when you think 2/7 of the world is out to get you.
As you probably found on wikipedia as well, Campeador conquered Valencia with a Christian and Muslim army, and then ruled over a society of the same mix. No, I don't pretend to be an expert on mideval Spanish history, so because this didn't come directly from breitbart or your ultra-con parents, it must be fAKe NewSSS!!1!
What I love about the Trump administration: Every morning I wake up, excited, to see what hilarious and insane thing he will say and do. Then, watch Stephen Colbert for another take...and Seth Meyers for more comedy.
Seriously; thank you all trump supporters from the bottom of my heart. My mornings have been better than wake and bakes. With Trudeau and Obama, I was so bored listening to the constructive proposals by well educated politicians.
MemeLordLife must be real difficult when you think 2/7 of the world is out to get you.
As you probably found on wikipedia as well, Campeador conquered Valencia with a Christian and Muslim army, and then ruled over a society of the same mix. No, I don't pretend to be an expert on mideval Spanish history, so because this didn't come directly from breitbart or your ultra-con parents, it must be fAKe NewSSS!!1!
As I already knew, you have nothing at all to say.
Also, Rodrigo Diaz wasn't named "Campeador", it's not a name. It's an old Castilian title given to exceptional masters of the field of battle (campo de batalla), Rodrigo Diaz, El Cid Campeador, being the most well known bearer of that title from early Medieval Spain.
Again, typical of smug leftists, you haven't the slightest clue. I would hesitate to use Wikipedia as a reliable source, but looks like you've already jumped into the shallow end head first.
Lastly, it's quite telling how you weren't able to refute a single one of my arguments on islam, you're probably the most pathetic of all the islamophilic leftists on here.
freestyler540What I love about the Trump administration: Every morning I wake up, excited, to see what hilarious and insane thing he will say and do. Then, watch Stephen Colbert for another take...and Seth Meyers for more comedy.
Seriously; thank you all trump supporters from the bottom of my heart. My mornings have been better than wake and bakes. With Trudeau and Obama, I was so bored listening to the constructive proposals by well educated politicians.
What exactly is the conspiracy of Trump and Russia? That Trump paid Russia to "help" him out? Or does this have to do with people in his administration working with Russia? Or does no one really know but everyone wants to pretend it's a big deal
Hahahaha anyone who still defends this trainwreck of a presidency is either missing their prefrontal cortex or is a direct result of inbred lineage. Worst approval ratings of all time. Pathetic!
milk_manWhat exactly is the conspiracy of Trump and Russia? That Trump paid Russia to "help" him out? Or does this have to do with people in his administration working with Russia? Or does no one really know but everyone wants to pretend it's a big deal
Trump's the one who's furiously triggered about the whole thing, ask him!
TheHamburglarHahahaha anyone who still defends this trainwreck of a presidency is either missing their prefrontal cortex or is a direct result of inbred lineage. Worst approval ratings of all time.
From the same inbred who believed those same polls about Hillary winning in a landslide. The only people looking like they were missing their heads were you and your pathetic friends on election night.
One of the only reliable polls is Rasmussen. He's still doing just fine despite the 24/7 barrage from the left-wing globalist media. That is downright impressive.
All you have are lies and innuendo.
Bless your poor heart. These are going to be rough years for you.
You can still move to a diverse neighborhood in France under president Maricon, they're still taking even the lowest scum trash.
Let's use 538 because people love to rag on them for "getting it wrong".
On the night of the election, 538 gave Hillary a 71.4% chance of winning versus Trump's 28.6%. Source.
This doesn't guarantee Hillary a victory because it's a value greater than 50%, it's telling us there is ~3/4 chance she wins, a ~1/4 chance Trump wins. Not that complicated.
If I were to tell someone that there was a 1/4 chance they could win $1,000,000 and a 3/4 chance their worst enemy would win it, I imagine they'd jump at the opportunity. I know I would.
And to Milk_Man, the Russian narrative has come about because of the questionable ties of former Trump campaign members to Russia. Manafort, Stone, Page, Sessions and Flynn all have had contact with/worked for Russian state operatives/affiliated agencies. In November Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax News (Russian news) that there had been contacts with his team during the campaign.
There is no doubt that Russians, be it state or independent agents, flooded the web with fake news. It's not just targeting the US however, it has targeted France and is now targeting Germany.
There is a lot of questions surrounding these actions, which is why so many people (excluding most House and Senate GOP members) on both sides of the political spectrum want there to be an investigation. A Fox News (yes, I'm using Fox because it's a conservative site which goes to show how big an issue it is) poll during March of 2017 showed that 40% of GOP voters, 90% of Democrats, and 60% of Independents want an investigation into the combination of meddling and collusion.
Who knows what will come of it. If it's nothing, then the Democrats will look foolish. If it's something, well, then there are bigger issues on hand. But the public support is behind it.
People claim there is nothing, but there is a Senate Intelligence Committee who recently subpoaened Flynn and his associates, the FBI which raided a GOP PAC HQ, and ongoing investigations by both the House (which has been stonewalled) and Senate. But given the partisan nature of politics in this day and age, people want an independent investigation.
And now, with the Director of the FBI being fired who was leading the FBI's investigation and Trump telling Lester Holt that his decision was partially influenced by this investigation, there are a lot more questions.
.MASSHOLE.And now, with the Director of the FBI being fired who was leading the FBI's investigation and Trump telling Lester Holt that his decision was partially influenced by this investigation, there are a lot more questions.
If trumps former campaign people colluded with Russia outside of his knowledge, what can they do about it? Can they punish him for their actions? Comey told trump that he isn't under investigation. Meaning that he, himself isn't in harms way from this investigation. So what do people except the outcome to be should they find evidence of collusion, or whatever?
Let's use 538 because people love to rag on them for "getting it wrong".
On the night of the election, 538 gave Hillary a 71.4% chance of winning versus Trump's 28.6%. Source.
This doesn't guarantee Hillary a victory because it's a value greater than 50%, it's telling us there is ~3/4 chance she wins, a ~1/4 chance Trump wins. Not that complicated.
If I were to tell someone that there was a 1/4 chance they could win $1,000,000 and a 3/4 chance their worst enemy would win it, I imagine they'd jump at the opportunity. I know I would.
And to Milk_Man, the Russian narrative has come about because of the questionable ties of former Trump campaign members to Russia. Manafort, Stone, Page, Sessions and Flynn all have had contact with/worked for Russian state operatives/affiliated agencies. In November Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Interfax News (Russian news) that there had been contacts with his team during the campaign.
There is no doubt that Russians, be it state or independent agents, flooded the web with fake news. It's not just targeting the US however, it has targeted France and is now targeting Germany.
There is a lot of questions surrounding these actions, which is why so many people (excluding most House and Senate GOP members) on both sides of the political spectrum want there to be an investigation. A Fox News (yes, I'm using Fox because it's a conservative site which goes to show how big an issue it is) poll during March of 2017 showed that 40% of GOP voters, 90% of Democrats, and 60% of Independents want an investigation into the combination of meddling and collusion.
Who knows what will come of it. If it's nothing, then the Democrats will look foolish. If it's something, well, then there are bigger issues on hand. But the public support is behind it.
People claim there is nothing, but there is a Senate Intelligence Committee who recently subpoaened Flynn and his associates, the FBI which raided a GOP PAC HQ, and ongoing investigations by both the House (which has been stonewalled) and Senate. But given the partisan nature of politics in this day and age, people want an independent investigation.
And now, with the Director of the FBI being fired who was leading the FBI's investigation and Trump telling Lester Holt that his decision was partially influenced by this investigation, there are a lot more questions.
Looks like you've degenerated back into your "it puts the lotion on its skin" mode.
What you fail to mention in your intellectual bankruptcy is the fact that even the "fair-minded" creep at 538 had Hillary above 80% for most of the general election. And lets not forget the predictions from the NYT that had even higher margins, or the beautiful one over at the Huffington Post.
Oddly enough, these seem to be the same sources you rely on in your attempts to sound like you've got even the slightest clue what you're talking about.
You also failed to mention the creative poll sampling used by "news" organizations like the Washington Post and ABC. Seems like they were following a similar playbook to the Atlas Project. Not a stretch at all to conclude that these highly partisan propaganda would "adjust" the results to fit their narrative.
It's also not a stretch at all to continue assuming that these far-Leftists, who have learned nothing at all from the election and have doubled-down on their fanaticism, are using the same polling methods to undermine the Trump presidency. No wonder fewer people than ever take them seriously, and hence Trump's resiliency in one of the only honest polls done over at Rasmussen.
Obama would've crumbled in a week under the same amount of pressure from the corporate fakestream media, instead they kissed the ground he walked on. Also worth noting is that all the "Russian fake news" had no discernible impact on the election, and that leftists are just as likely (if not more) to believe fake news.
A more interesting investigation would be into the outright collusion between the corporate press and the Clinton campaign (or any left-wing candidate for that matter, except poor Bernie).
Another interesting point is all the Red Scare bullshit over Russia, when leftists frequently try to influence foreign elections. Obama himself attempted to influence the elections in Israel, and more recently in France, in addition to the Brexit referendum.
No outrage over that? It just proves that all your outrage is fake.
milk_manIf trumps former campaign people colluded with Russia outside of his knowledge, what can they do about it? Can they punish him for their actions? Comey told trump that he isn't under investigation. Meaning that he, himself isn't in harms way from this investigation. So what do people except the outcome to be should they find evidence of collusion, or whatever?
The question is whether they were outside of his knowledge or not. That's what needs to be determined. They were part of his inner circle so they certainly had influence.
Comey wouldn't have said Trump was innocent, he would have breached DOJ and FBI protocol. Regardless, it is an ongoing investigation and there is no way Comey could know at this stage whether or not Trump was involved.
All he has publicly said is that the FBI is investigating the possible ties between Russia and Trump's campaign.
If there was collusion, it'd likely be treason. I imagine the prosecutor would attempt to link influencing a campaign/candidate as an act of war but I'm just armchair QBing here.
Emma told Katie that she reported at the age of 13 that she had been raped, but authorities chose to do nothing - and told her not to mention the ethnicity of the assailants.
"But as soon as I said the names, I was made to feel as though I was racist and I was the one who had the problem."
A 70-year-old Swedish woman in Dalarna is being prosecuted for hate speech after claiming on Facebook she saw migrants defecating in the streets and setting fire to cars
The beginning of Sweden's total economic collapse.
From next year, estimates the country's municipalities and county councils, SKL tax base developed much more slowly, even though the population is growing. By the year 2020 it is estimated the gap between income and population's need for welfare services to be about 40 billion - if nothing is done.
Emma told Katie that she reported at the age of 13 that she had been raped, but authorities chose to do nothing - and told her not to mention the ethnicity of the assailants.
"But as soon as I said the names, I was made to feel as though I was racist and I was the one who had the problem."
This is not even remotely liberalism or anything like it. Actual liberalism is the cure to all of this.
What you keep criticizing amounts simply to bad ideas and their implementation. I think we would all be better off keeping nonsensical identity politics out of it and simply judge the events for what they are- bad ideas. Bad ideas don't follow a party line, and both sides are guilty of committing them.
Charlie_KellyCompeador still contends Nixon was innocent as well!!!
Less guilty than Barack Obama and his cronies, they make Watergate look like the Boy Scouts.
Who knows the actual extent of the spying he did on Republican candidates?
Honestly, if there were even the slightest shred of evidence, Obama's holdovers would have leaked it by now to one of the globalist propaganda networks.
onenerdykidThis is not even remotely liberalism or anything like it. Actual liberalism is the cure to all of this.
What you keep criticizing amounts simply to bad ideas and their implementation. I think we would all be better off keeping nonsensical identity politics out of it and simply judge the events for what they are- bad ideas. Bad ideas don't follow a party line, and both sides are guilty of committing them.
Actual liberalism is not what liberals today represent though.
onenerdykidThis is not even remotely liberalism or anything like it. Actual liberalism is the cure to all of this.
What you keep criticizing amounts simply to bad ideas and their implementation. I think we would all be better off keeping nonsensical identity politics out of it and simply judge the events for what they are- bad ideas. Bad ideas don't follow a party line, and both sides are guilty of committing them.
We both understand the definition of classical liberalism, which in many ways is the opposite of the way liberalism is represented today.
By liberalism I am referring to the euphemism used to describe those on the far-Left here in the United States, although the new and preferred euphemism is "progressive".
This liberalism is larger than just a few bad ideas and poor implementation. It consists of deeper attempts to mold what people are allowed to think and not to think (or say), shifted towards a left-wing social justice narrative.
The ideas from the Left, especially in Europe, are downright cancerous. These ideas have led to tragic situations like Rotherham, these ideas have allowed (and encouraged) the migrant "crisis" to perpetuate, these ideas have led to an accelerated demographic replacement of ethnic Europeans in various countries, these ideas have led to increased amounts of islamic terrorism and less security.
In fact, the Left's current platform goes completely against the most basic purposes of government, to ensure the natural rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property.
Can you honestly say that the governments of Sweden or Germany, to continue with those examples, are protecting the rights of their citizens to life, liberty, and property?
I would argue that letting in millions of parasitic islamic migrants does exactly the opposite. Therefore, these governments have failed in their most basic of functions.
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
The revelation comes as Trump faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.
One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details about an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.
For most anyone in government discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.
“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
The CIA declined to comment and the National Security Agency did not respond to requests for comment.
But officials expressed concern with Trump’s handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States’ and its allies’ ability to detect future threats.
“It is all kind of shocking,” said a former senior U.S. official close to current administration officials. “Trump seems to be very reckless, and doesn’t grasp the gravity of the things he’s dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it’s all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia.”
In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day,” Trump said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.
Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States only learned through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence gathering method, but described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State’s territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.
The Washington Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.
“Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling,” said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.
The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said that the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia’s presence in Syria. Moscow and would be keenly interested in identifying that source and possibly disrupting it.
Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“Russia could identify our sources or techniques,” the senior U.S. official said. A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, “I don’t think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out.”
At a more fundamental level, the information wasn’t the United States’ to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments — and even individual agencies — are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.
The officials declined to identify the ally, but said it is one that has previously voiced frustration with Washington’s inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.
“If that partner learned we’d given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first that is a blow to that relationship,” the U.S. official said.
Trump also described measures that the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.
The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.
Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. “Can you believe the world we live in today?” he said, according to one official. “Isn’t it crazy.”
Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.
A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.
Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout.
Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner.
One of Bossert’s subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump’s discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.
Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian Prime Minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for lax attention to security at his Florida retreat Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.
U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points, and often ignores those.
“He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it — and that has big downsides,” the second former official said. “Does he understand what’s classified and what’s not? That’s what worries me.”
Lavrov’s reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.
Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration’s ties to Russia. Trump’s initial national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and misleading statements about them. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI’s Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.
“I’m sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details” he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.
The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.
“Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria,” the summary said. Trump also “raised Ukraine” and “emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.”
How exactly did this get out? Assuming it's true it would have to come from another leak, correct? It seems the deep state rats are the only ones jeopardizing national security.
“The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation,” said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. “At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.”
Also, any article that lists nothing but anonymous sources, or sources "close to administration officials", is total bullshit. The laptop threat has been known for a while, more fake news and illegal leaks to undermine the president.
He said sources or methods, not information. Big difference. No one ever claimed that he disclosed sources or methods, they claimed he disclosed relevant information from sources.
I assume you mean the "highly classified" information regarding islamic state laptop bombs, besides the fact that information has been known for months.
Perhaps you should stop to think next time before posting another gossip column.
It's not good to let propaganda outlets do all the thinking for you. Although I do realize sitting in a cubicle all day must be making your brain soft.
I always ask myself, "how would the right react if Obama/Hilary/etc. did this?"
They would be demanding the President's head if this went down (which they've done for far less) and it is completely hypocritical that they aren't calling for the same now.
I yearn for the day that politicians are objectively judged based on their actions and not what political party they belong to.
If you are ok with any of this happening, you are either trolling or blinded by the party line.
onenerdykidI always ask myself, "how would the right react if Obama/Hilary/etc. did this?"
They would be demanding the President's head if this went down (which they've done for far less) and it is completely hypocritical that they aren't calling for the same now.
I yearn for the day that politicians are objectively judged based on their actions and not what political party they belong to.
If you are ok with any of this happening, you are either trolling or blinded by the party line.
Remember the drama around Obama's beige suit?
This is just nuts. If it was any Democrat, Chaffetz, Gowdy, and McConnell would have drafted the articles of impeachment already.
This is a clear play on words by McMaster and Tillerson.l. McMaster even said "the story, as reported" which screams that part of the story is correct when read in continuity. He doesn't deny that top secret information from our allies was divulged, only that methods and sources were not disclosed.
