Russia wins again

[demi-conservative]

Indeed, we now have a new approach in Syria, because we want results and we want to work closely together with all our partners including the United States. We have one main goal which is to eradicate terrorism, no matter who they are, we want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution,” Macron said. “I do not require Assad’s departure, that’s no longer a prerequisite for France.

The French President stressed the importance of maintaining good relations with Russia, especially with regard to solving the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.
https://www.rt.com/news/396258-trump...n-talks-paris/

Did Macron flip???

[demi-conservative]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg

[demi-conservative]

[Tassman]

Did Macron flip???

Russia's been winning throughout. Thanks to the moronic president that Putin helped install in the WH, US politics is now in total disarray. And now, what with Trump responding so eagerly to the only European leader to acknowledge his existence, i.e. Macron, Putin's getting his way in Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwijJfVbBg

I suppose it's too much to hope that a womanising, moral reprobate like Trump can stop his constant pawing of the French First Lady.

[demi-conservative]

Russia's been winning throughout.

Get used to losing, prog!

Thanks to Trumpslide, US progs are now in total disarray.

Fixed!!!

And now, what with Trump responding so eagerly to the only European leader to acknowledge his existence, i.e. Macron

I suppose it's too much to hope that a womanising, moral reprobate like Trump can stop his constant pawing of the French First Lady.

[Mountain Man]

So liberals sneer at a "womanising, moral reprobate like Trump" but had no problem with Joe "Handsy" Biden who was like the lecherous uncle you warned your daughter -- and wife! -- to stay away from.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Secretary.html

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-...rticle/2560311

[rogue06]

So liberals sneer at a "womanising, moral reprobate like Trump" but had no problem with Joe "Handsy" Biden who was like the lecherous uncle you warned your daughter -- and wife! -- to stay away from.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Secretary.html

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-...rticle/2560311

Nothing new there.

They have completely discredited themselves on this subject in that only if it is a Republican who has been charged with misconduct do the they organize, protest and demand resignations (Tower [89], Packwood [‘91], Thomas [‘95] and Schwarzenegger [‘03]...). Democrats not only get a free pass, the very same folks often defend their conduct (Clinton). This has caused liberals and feminists to ignore a parade of female victims that Clinton seduced (Lewinsky), flashed (Jones), groped (Willey) and possibly raped (Broaddrick) because he shared their political views.

For example, former Texas governor Ann Richards helped to lead a protest rally against Schwarzenegger’s campaign because he groped several women over the years, yet in 1998, she defended Bill Clinton: "If we try to retire every man from office who’s done what he did, we wouldn’t need affirmative action."

Bill Whitaker pointed out on the CBS Evening News that "feminist groups that rallied around President Clinton" were then rallying against Schwarzenegger. Spotlighting the hypocrisy, Whitaker asked Katherine Spillar of the Feminist Majority Foundation: "Isn’t this a case of selective outrage?" Spillar incredibly claimed that Clinton’s actions were all consensual sex rather than sexual harassment.

Feminist “foremother” Gloria Steinem’s defense of Clinton was particularly notorious. In a op-ed she wrote for the New York Times, Steinem claimed that Clinton had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so therefore there was no sexual harassment -- just "boorish" behavior. Her position was roundly dismissed as a scholastic contortion of logic, performed to protect her ideological friend. Even the New York Times’ editorial page, the very paper in which she presented her argument, accused Steinem of selling out her cause.

[demi-conservative]

[Mountain Man]

A common sense reaction to a hoax.

[shunyadragon]

So liberals sneer at a "womanising, moral reprobate like Trump"

Excellent description of Trump!!!!!

[Mountain Man]

Excellent description of Trump!!!!!

Don't get too excited. I was quoting one of your clueless liberal colleagues.

[Sea of red]

Nothing new there.

They have completely discredited themselves on this subject in that only if it is a Republican who has been charged with misconduct do the they organize, protest and demand resignations (Tower [89], Packwood [‘91], Thomas [‘95] and Schwarzenegger [‘03]...). Democrats not only get a free pass, the very same folks often defend their conduct (Clinton). This has caused liberals and feminists to ignore a parade of female victims that Clinton seduced (Lewinsky), flashed (Jones), groped (Willey) and possibly raped (Broaddrick) because he shared their political views.

For example, former Texas governor Ann Richards helped to lead a protest rally against Schwarzenegger’s campaign because he groped several women over the years, yet in 1998, she defended Bill Clinton: "If we try to retire every man from office who’s done what he did, we wouldn’t need affirmative action."

Bill Whitaker pointed out on the CBS Evening News that "feminist groups that rallied around President Clinton" were then rallying against Schwarzenegger. Spotlighting the hypocrisy, Whitaker asked Katherine Spillar of the Feminist Majority Foundation: "Isn’t this a case of selective outrage?" Spillar incredibly claimed that Clinton’s actions were all consensual sex rather than sexual harassment.

Feminist “foremother” Gloria Steinem’s defense of Clinton was particularly notorious. In a op-ed she wrote for the New York Times, Steinem claimed that Clinton had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so therefore there was no sexual harassment -- just "boorish" behavior. Her position was roundly dismissed as a scholastic contortion of logic, performed to protect her ideological friend. Even the New York Times’ editorial page, the very paper in which she presented her argument, accused Steinem of selling out her cause.

Is going back to Clintons affairs all you conservatives can do when criminal behavior and lies in your camp begin to become apparent? Good grief, let go of it already. Nixon got off in Watergate, Reagan got off in Iran-Contra, Bush got off with his lies with the Iraq War and torture of POW's at Gitmo, and Trump will likely only have to resign worse case scenario in this, so you guys have no room to talk.

[Starlight]

Is going back to Clintons affairs all you conservatives can do when criminal behavior and lies in your camp begin to become apparent? Good grief, let go of it already. Nixon got off in Watergate, Reagan got off in Iran-Contra, Bush got off with his lies with the Iraq War and torture of POW's at Gitmo, and Trump will likely only have to resign worse case scenario in this, so you guys have no room to talk.

One commentator I enjoy listening to says the problem started with Nixon: Once Nixon got off, it set a clear precedent that powerful people in the US never go down for their criminal acts. Unfortunately that remains true today, with all the things you list, plus nobody on Wall St going to prison, except of course the guy who leaked their wrongdoing, because 'merica.

[Mountain Man]

Is going back to Clintons affairs all you conservatives can do when criminal behavior and lies in your camp begin to become apparent? Good grief, let go of it already. Nixon got off in Watergate, Reagan got off in Iran-Contra, Bush got off with his lies with the Iraq War and torture of POW's at Gitmo, and Trump will likely only have to resign worse case scenario in this, so you guys have no room to talk.

I suppose it was an honest mistake that you left obvious suspects Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and bunch of other high profile Democrats off your list.

However, things are a little different with Trump. You see, there's no evidence he has done anything illegal. Probably just another honest mistake that you failed to mention that, right?

[demi-conservative]

In other words, Russia was against Trump in the 2016 Election - and why not, I want strong military & low oil prices. Witch Hunt!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...53798500487168

Also they say Jill Stein involved with Russia too!!

Russia controls everyone!!!