DNC builds fence (wall?) around convention site?
 

Not even a little bit of irony to see here, nope.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/dnc...nvention-site/

Also, since it's in Philadelphia, and the DNC is honoring the families of those who would murder cops...maybe the mother of Abu Mumia Jamal will give a Thursday night speech. She's a victim, you know.

they like open borders and gated communities :huh:

you have no shame posting misleading stuff do you .. I guess you didn't get this story in your in box




http://www.wkyc.com/news/crews-add-f...ity-/272169062

no irony since Trump is in favor of walls and fences..."HUUUUUUGE ONES"

probable a good idea considering the violence, property damage and mayhem the dem groups have proven themselves capable of....guess they couldn't afford to make it to both conventions so they picked Philly....

precious....

"Bernie Sanders Supporters Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ in Philadelphia Protest Against Clinton"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/0...ainst-clinton/

not a good sign when the people you're hoping to court...want you "locked up"

We should pad lock them once they are all inside and save the tax payers money . The cost of investigations are killing the economy ...ask Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Javier Ruiz, 20, listed the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks, her use of personal email email and her refusal to unconditionally condemn hydraulic fracturing as reasons she should be imprisoned.

I love the last reason .. more than likely the only one she came up with on her own.. Trust me the Democrats base and the GOP base are just different faces on the same coin... there just to stupid to see it

Ummm, maybe you don't know what hypocrisy means.

Republicans are openly in favor of walls for security. SO it' snot surprising that they'd have a fence at their convention.

Now follow closely, here is the important part...

Democrats like to attack Republicans for the fact that we want a wall on the border. Democrats say that we should be building bridges, not walls. And they use this notion at attack Trump.

So if Democrats think it's immoral for Trump to build a wall for security, it's very interesting (read: indefensible bullsh*t) that those same Dems want a wall for their own security.

SO the Dems want a wall to protect them in Philadelphia. But American citizens who live near the Mexican border, are not entitled to the same protection.

Can you explain why that is?

Have fun with that.

Who ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not accusing a democrat protester of being intelligent or informed...:laugha:

I also understand that a photo id is required to get into the Democratic convention. What do you know about that? Somehow, it' not racist when they require it.

A wall, and a photo id required to get past that wall. Sounds a lot like Pat Buchanan to me.

Many of the liberals here say that Republicans who want to require a photo id to vote, are just looking to suppress the black vote. I guess the DNC doesn't want any poor black people to be at their convention, since getting a photo id is such a burden for them. Right?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...er-convention/

wow you can twist stuff around cant you :jump: id love to see you post something that wasn't an email giving you your marching orders

That's a public sector or union thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More from Mr presidential
 

Some joke

Russia, if you're listening,I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing; I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

let see the verbal gymnastics on this one ...

Yes that's more important than selling Russia 25% of our uranium stock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What verbal gynastics?
He didn't ask them to hack into anyone's computer and the 30,000 emails he hopes they find. According to Hillary the 30,000 emails were only the personal emails that she deleted. Could there have been information that wasn't personal that she deleted after all? No, she would never lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So beyond the symbolic hypocrisy here, I have to point out two things:

1) How the hell is the convention supposed to protect its attendees? If they DIDN'T put up a fence and god forbid a couple whack jobs from ISIS made there way in there and caused some crap to happen, you'd all be saying, "Where was the fence? Where was the security?" (And don't say "Democrats hate walls, so they'll have to figure it out themselves... why don't they protect themselves with spoons because once they've taken away all the guns and fences, we're all defenseless" because thats just plain BS and we all know it)

2) The cost of 4 miles of fence around the DNC in Philly vs the cost of a 2000 mile fence are quite different... Like 500x different. Add to that the fact that people would be pole vaulting over an 8' fence on that border, and you have a pretty weak argument. An 8' fence surrounding a convention isn't "huge" and isn't a "wall"... Call a spade a spade and choose a different topic to bend to your own will.

At this point in this race, I'm shocked that anyone can still be lambasting Hillary, because if she loses, Trump wins. You think the rest of the world hates us right now? You think things were bad under the diplomatic policies of Obama, where we tried to settle things with conversation and reason? You think our soldiers were unsafe with Obama calling the shots as the commander in chief?

I have news for you, this guy is a full on whack job. You can paint the whole "I don't like either one" but the reality is that one of them is going to win. And if its not Hillary, its Trump. The past 8 years have proven that a President with aspirations for social change in this country is borderline powerless, and can't do much along a hard left agenda. The next 4 years under President Trump would be a lesson in how much HARM a president can do to our domestic and foreign status. I don't really like her either, but good god she's a better choice than a guy who openly praises the leadership abilities of multiple foreign dictators and invites espionage from a hostile foreign country to forward his status in a national election.

Give me a break

Hopefully, they find the 20,000,000 emails that were on the RNC's server that the RNC deleted - right?

Unless some foreign entity has the 30,000 missing emails and they use them to influence her. Then let's not forget The pay to play issue with the Clinton Foundation and Bills speaking fees that should alarm anyone with half a brain.

https://youtu.be/YoTn3cHtXxQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More hilarious comments by Trump yesterday. Doesn't know the difference bt Tim Kaine and Tom Kean. Jive and Jibe. Kurds vs Quds.

Why doesn't Ivanka take his phone away?

Not many people knew either Kaine or Kean until he, let's go with the Democratic term, mispoke.
I noticed you didn't have time to view the video. Take 12 minutes and see what the rest of us know.

https://youtu.be/YoTn3cHtXxQ


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those pesky 30,000 personal emails

https://youtu.be/FejTKEyveAA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe the RNC takes security a little more seriously...I mean the other sides servers are just getting hacked left and right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it was ok to use private email accts then but not recently? When did the law change? Do we know the RNC's servers were or were not hacked?

Is there a difference?

Really, not many people knew either? They were major politicians. Trump just made the comment 1 day ago. :biglaugh: So you're saying it is ok for a Presidential Candidate not to know where his rivals running mate comes from?

Who else lied about what they did? That's one difference.

Keep your head in the sand. The problem today is social media. You and the other Hillary supporters are very good at using social media to whip up your troops and get them to the poles. The problem arises when social media exposes what either side is actually saying or doing. The facts are out there to be found and posted to inform others. For instance when it came to getting the vote out Democrats handled it like this.

https://youtu.be/KQfPvQf8ZL4

Now you can ignore the videos I link and that's okay because you not discrediting the videos only shows how valid and informative they are.
Some Americans are waking up to how corrupt this government is and we are not going to stand idilely by and allow the BS to continue without being challenged.

https://youtu.be/iM0VCGCh3Fg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you familiar w/what happened?

Keep your head in the sand - that is funny.

You seem unconcerned that Trump doesn't even know the difference bt the Governor of the state next to where he has lived his whole life and his opponent's VP.

Hope he doesn't try to ship guns to the Quds.

The lesson in how much harm a President can do has grown, and has been demonstrated over the past 100 years of Constitutional deconstruction. The fact that you fear Trump is a result of that deconstruction. It has replaced, to a massive extent, Constitutional government which limits Federal powers in general, and Presidential power in specific, with the Progressive ideal of unlimited central power. That the people now accept this transformation, don't even realize that the transformation has occurred, is a testament to how HARMFUL ignorance is. The Progressives have created the Frankenstein that they now fear. They have been warned, over and over, that the centralized, nearly all-powerful, system (if it can be called a system) of government they have generated to replace the Constitutional order, would eventually be used to harm us in ways that following the Constitution would have prevented. That their own notions would come back to bite them. Along comes Trump. And he has been handed the precedent. They fear what they have created.

Personally, I don't fear Trump as much as Hillary, because he is not irrevocably married to Progressive ideology. I doubt that he is on a mission to thoroughly destroy the remnants of the Constitutional order and to create that unstoppable, unlimited central power which could come back to bite him when he leaves office. Just my opinion, he prefers having enough personal power to influence and "deal" with politicians rather than being utterly dictated to by them.

Besides, if he were to attempt to do something really harmful to this country, he would gladly be impeached by Democrats, and would have the support by most, or enough, Republicans to do so. Hillary, on the other hand, would be the next instrument of the Progressive movement. Her ideology, and her party's, would be the same. Impeaching her would not be possible.

I don't really like her either, but good god she's a better choice than a guy who openly praises the leadership abilities of multiple foreign dictators and invites espionage from a hostile foreign country to forward his status in a national election.

He did not invite espionage from a hostile foreign country. That is spin.