One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What an insult!
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Nov 9, 2019 12:15:21   #
EmilyD
 
The Democrat Socialist Party is using our tax dollars in an illegal attempt to overturn the government and President that the American people elected. The Democrat Socialist's non-stop witch hunt has tried to obstruct Trump at every turn, and his ability to govern for THREE years now. I'll say it again, Pelosi and Schiff and Democrats are using tax dollars of people who v**ed for Trump to smear him and try to oust him! And they will continue to do so up until the e******n.

I am sure they will d**g this out until right before the e******n because it is in the Constitution that while the Senate is holding a trial for impeachment, Democrats who are running for President will not be allowed to campaign (since they are the accusing party). And because of this, the House will not let this go to trial in the Senate until right before the general e******n next November, knowing they will lose in the Senate anyway. If they don't wait and send it to the Senate sooner, they will assure Trump's re-e******n, and they sure as hell don't want to do that! This is just speculation on my part, but it's what I think will happen.

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 12:34:55   #
bggamers Loc: georgia
 
EmilyD wrote:
The Democrat Socialist Party is using our tax dollars in an illegal attempt to overturn the government and President that the American people elected. The Democrat Socialist's non-stop witch hunt has tried to obstruct Trump at every turn, and his ability to govern for THREE years now. I'll say it again, Pelosi and Schiff and Democrats are using tax dollars of people who v**ed for Trump to smear him and try to oust him! And they will continue to do so up until the e******n.

I am sure they will d**g this out until right before the e******n because it is in the Constitution that while the Senate is holding a trial for impeachment, Democrats who are running for President will not be allowed to campaign (since they are the accusing party). And because of this, the House will not let this go to trial in the Senate until right before the general e******n next November, knowing they will lose in the Senate anyway. If they don't wait and send it to the Senate sooner, they will assure Trump's re-e******n, and they sure as hell don't want to do that! This is just speculation on my part, but it's what I think will happen.
The Democrat Socialist Party is using b our tax d... (show quote)


Probably right

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 12:54:12   #
Lonewolf
 
EmilyD wrote:
The Democrat Socialist Party is using our tax dollars in an illegal attempt to overturn the government and President that the American people elected. The Democrat Socialist's non-stop witch hunt has tried to obstruct Trump at every turn, and his ability to govern for THREE years now. I'll say it again, Pelosi and Schiff and Democrats are using tax dollars of people who v**ed for Trump to smear him and try to oust him! And they will continue to do so up until the e******n.

I am sure they will d**g this out until right before the e******n because it is in the Constitution that while the Senate is holding a trial for impeachment, Democrats who are running for President will not be allowed to campaign (since they are the accusing party). And because of this, the House will not let this go to trial in the Senate until right before the general e******n next November, knowing they will lose in the Senate anyway. If they don't wait and send it to the Senate sooner, they will assure Trump's re-e******n, and they sure as hell don't want to do that! This is just speculation on my part, but it's what I think will happen.
The Democrat Socialist Party is using b our tax d... (show quote)


t***p w*nt be runing

Reply
 
 
Nov 9, 2019 13:00:50   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Lonewolf wrote:
t***p w*nt be runing


What! Are you or your cohorts planning to have him murdered before the e******n? I wouldn
t put it past the progressives to attempt that approach.

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 13:05:37   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
no propaganda please wrote:
What! Are you or your cohorts planning to have him murdered before the e******n? I wouldn
t put it past the progressives to attempt that approach.


Me too!!! Nothing will surprise me with this F*****t Party called DEMOCRATS!!!

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 13:06:57   #
woodguru
 
no propaganda please wrote:
What! Are you or your cohorts planning to have him murdered before the e******n? I wouldn
t put it past the progressives to attempt that approach.

Nah, it's more fun torturing Trump and watch him wiggle in his guilt, he's toast and he'll be lucky not to be charged with treason for blocking military aid to the Ukraine in a way that benefitted Putin. Put any single conversation where Putin discussed not providing military aid to the Ukraine in view...and heaven help him, because he'll need it.

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 13:26:44   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
woodguru wrote:
Nah, it's more fun torturing Trump and watch him wiggle in his guilt, he's toast and he'll be lucky not to be charged with treason for blocking military aid to the Ukraine in a way that benefitted Putin. Put any single conversation where Putin discussed not providing military aid to the Ukraine in view...and heaven help him, because he'll need it.
Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?

Reply
 
 
Nov 9, 2019 13:30:04   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?
Are you still h*****g on that lie? br br b Sorr... (show quote)


Great question and a very valid post. Thank you.

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 13:32:35   #
eden
 
EmilyD wrote:
The Democrat Socialist Party is using our tax dollars in an illegal attempt to overturn the government and President that the American people elected. The Democrat Socialist's non-stop witch hunt has tried to obstruct Trump at every turn, and his ability to govern for THREE years now. I'll say it again, Pelosi and Schiff and Democrats are using tax dollars of people who v**ed for Trump to smear him and try to oust him! And they will continue to do so up until the e******n.

I am sure they will d**g this out until right before the e******n because it is in the Constitution that while the Senate is holding a trial for impeachment, Democrats who are running for President will not be allowed to campaign (since they are the accusing party). And because of this, the House will not let this go to trial in the Senate until right before the general e******n next November, knowing they will lose in the Senate anyway. If they don't wait and send it to the Senate sooner, they will assure Trump's re-e******n, and they sure as hell don't want to do that! This is just speculation on my part, but it's what I think will happen.
The Democrat Socialist Party is using b our tax d... (show quote)



His “ability” to govern? Surely you jest.

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 14:47:06   #
CarryOn
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?
Are you still h*****g on that lie? br br b Sorr... (show quote)


Excellent and information post, as usual, Blade …

Reply
Nov 9, 2019 20:19:45   #
bggamers Loc: georgia
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?
Are you still h*****g on that lie? br br b Sorr... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Nov 10, 2019 09:35:02   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are you still h*****g on that lie?

Sorry, Joe: Team Obama refused to arm Ukraine

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress — with Biden sitting directly behind him — Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared “one cannot win a war with blankets.”

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine.” Why?

Team Obama feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of rocket-propelled grenades, we provided food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, “What kind of message does that send anyway?”

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and Obama and Biden refused — the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles.

In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter “Finally this day has come!” and personally thanked Trump “for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems.”

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden’s watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine’s president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump?

Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let’s recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the ­annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration’s failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons by Syria.

In March 2013, Biden declared, “Because we recognize the great danger Assad’s chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we’ve set a clear red line against the use or the t***sfer of those weapons.”

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Team Obama did nothing, failing to carry out even “unbelievably small” military strikes — a decision Biden publicly defended. “We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system,” Biden said. “Well, you know, big nations can’t bluff.”

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did — and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign-policy debacles of the post-Cold War era.

So it should come as no surprise that, when Team Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff. Putin knew Biden and his boss didn’t have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump’s delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it’s fair to ask: Why didn’t the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine?
Are you still h*****g on that lie? br br b Sorr... (show quote)


I'm betting peckerwood needs a t***sfusion after that thrashing. Lie v. T***h! Light v. Darkness. Trump v. Obama is no contest!

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 09:58:16   #
TrueAmerican
 
woodguru wrote:
Nah, it's more fun torturing Trump and watch him wiggle in his guilt, he's toast and he'll be lucky not to be charged with treason for blocking military aid to the Ukraine in a way that benefitted Putin. Put any single conversation where Putin discussed not providing military aid to the Ukraine in view...and heaven help him, because he'll need it.


President Trump is no more worried about you and your ilk than the first pimple he ever got on his ass !!!!!!

Reply
Nov 10, 2019 10:36:59   #
CarryOn
 
TrueAmerican wrote:
President Trump is no more worried about you and your ilk than the first pimple he ever got on his ass !!!!!!



Reply
Nov 10, 2019 10:48:48   #
kemmer
 
EmilyD wrote:
The Democrat Socialist Party is using our tax dollars in an illegal attempt to overturn the government and President that the American people elected. The Democrat Socialist's non-stop witch hunt has tried to obstruct Trump at every turn, and his ability to govern for THREE years now. I'll say it again, Pelosi and Schiff and Democrats are using tax dollars of people who v**ed for Trump to smear him and try to oust him! And they will continue to do so up until the e******n.

I am sure they will d**g this out until right before the e******n because it is in the Constitution that while the Senate is holding a trial for impeachment, Democrats who are running for President will not be allowed to campaign (since they are the accusing party). And because of this, the House will not let this go to trial in the Senate until right before the general e******n next November, knowing they will lose in the Senate anyway. If they don't wait and send it to the Senate sooner, they will assure Trump's re-e******n, and they sure as hell don't want to do that! This is just speculation on my part, but it's what I think will happen.
The Democrat Socialist Party is using b our tax d... (show quote)

Trump lost the elction by 3,000,000 v**es.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.