WestCanMan

Try to be less stupid lol. Nothing here is difficult. FYI getting a job at a news outlet is NOT A LICENSE TO COMMIT TREASON, dummy.

Ukraine is also attacking infrastructure in Russia, it's tit for tat. Iran is trying to do the same thing to Israel, but this is disproportionate on a massive scale. Ukraine is also committing war crimes just as fast as Russia is, stop being such a weasel. They actually started committing war crimes before the "war" started. We will see what happens at 8. Threats and actions are a whole different ball game.

Your post makes no sense, and has nothing to do with Russia. Have you finally lost it?

You said "the first amendment applied" - FYI "the 1st" isn't an international law - so I assumed it was an American journalist. . Then you said "Israeli", now just "Jewish". Regardless of where he is from, no country on earth has constitutional protection for treason. Now tell me about "the Free Press" in Canada, where cops walk into the backs of reporters and then try to charge them with assaulting a police officer.

Now do Canada, where cops walk into the backs of reporters and then try to charge them with assaulting a police officer.

How so? Where?

Treason is a whole different kettle of fish. The "Free Press" isn't a license to commit treason, fool.

Obviously no one is in favour of that. I am personally against it 100%. It would make America no better than Pakistan or Gaza.

Damn, man, you really are stupid. FYI "betraying your gov't during a war" is just not tolerated at all, and the maximum sentence is the noose/electric chair/guillotine, etc. There is no amendment to the constitution that gives anyone the right to aid America's enemies in a war, period, regardless of their status as a reporter or an elected official. The noose awaits anyone who is found guilty of actual treason during a war. And it's not just the US that looks at it that way. Every group of humans since the beginning of time has always considered a direct action to seriously harm their own group as worthy of a death sentence. You can go back to pre-historic tribes, or even groups of chimpanzees. They may not have had a spoken word for treason, but they all had the exact same reaction to it.

That's just stupid, and everyone knows it's stupid, even you. You need to sit back and take a look at all the legitimate criticisms of islam and the demonrats and then compare that to the list of actual GOP flaws... The first things you scream about are: a ridiculous r4pe accusation from an unknown year in the mid-90's, and Epstein documents that Joe Biden and his DoJ had access to for 4 years, which they did nothing with Now you like to say that the Iran war is illegal, they posed no threat, etc. It's all just stupid.

This isn't about a downed jet. It's about leaking the fact that the US gov't was lying when they said that they already got him. Iranians saw the jet go down: it wasn't a secret. There are different kinds of leaked information. Leaking "democrat vs republican information" isn't treason. Leaking "US vs IRAN during a war" information is treason. If you're saying that it was an Israeli journalist that leaked the info about the false rescue announcement, then the Israeli gov't will have to deal with them. Israel's relationship with the US is the key to their survival. The Israelis can't betray the US, and lose that relationship, because they would face certain genocide.

This isn't an example of run-of-the-mill Democrat treason, it's full-fledged aiding the enemy in a war treason, and the 1st amendment doesn't provide protection from that. Not only did their treason greatly endanger the life of the missing airmen, and create a possible hostage/torture situation, it made the rescue mission more dangerous for everyone involved because it kept the heat on. If you think that the 1st amendment gives reporters the right to give the enemy valuable information during a war then you're taking over robo's spot here. FYI, just like you can't say "bomb" in an airport, you can't give America's enemies the information that they want during a war. John Stone's DOJ: "The plans for the nuclear warheads and ICBM's were given to Iran by a reporter, so it's ok. No one will be charged criminally."

E Jean Carroll herself said that Trump did not r4pe her, and no one can argue her point. By her own story, and the verifiable facts of the case, she was a 52 yr old woman, out walking the streets of NYC by herself in 4" heels, an the middle of winter. That's not a crime, she had every right to do that, but she just looked like a ho, and she got propositioned like a ho: Trump made a profoundly sexual overture right in the first moments they made contact Carroll played coy, but by her own admission she consented to his request to "model lingerie for him", because she took lingerie into a changeroom where he simply "closed the door behind him" Now, her bringing him into the changeroom with her to model lingerie for him does not not constitute "implied consent for rough, full intercourse", but it was by any reasonable reckoning "implied consent for him to try to go to the next base", which he did by pushing her against the wall and kissing her. In her own words, she never described offering any resistance at all at that stage, she said that "she just giggled" I dunno if they made out for 30 seconds or whatever, but they did it for long enough for him to get his fingers into her cooter, and again, she never described offering any resistance at all to him at that stage, she said that she just "giggled again" At this point, he's standing in the changeroom with her, his fingers are in her cooter, he starts fumbling with his belt or whatever, and she did the exact opposite of what robo would have done in that situation: she gave the very first sign that she was rejecting his advances, by pushing him with one arm By her OWN STORY, the 120-lb, 52-yr-old lady, in 4" high heels, pushed him one time, with one arm, and was able to exit the changeroom. He's 6'3 and weighs 225 lbs by the WH medical records. That's not her escaping, that's him letting her go instantly. So tell me robobigot: at what point above did that alleged encounter rise from the level of "sleazy encounter" to "r4pe"? Was it r4pe when she brought him into the changeroom? Did he commit "kiss-r4pe", when he kissed her and she giggled? Was it "giggling finger-b4ng r4pe" when she giggled as he put his fingers into her va-j-j? Was it r4pe when she shoved him and then he let her go? Describe for me, at what point of her own story, did she get r4ped? FYI she even said that she never considered it a r4pe until her friend suggested it was a possible r4pe. How does a woman not know that she was r4ped herself, the day it happened, and for days after, but you do, after only hearing of it 25 years later? Is it considered "r4pe" in your books whenever a guy tries to get to the next base and is rebuffed? What if he pretends to go back to the previous base and then tries for the next base again when he feels like she will go for it? Is trying twice r4pe, robobigot? Robobigot, I don't need a judge to tell me what a r4pe is. And I read her story, and she never called it a r4pe either. This is an alleged incident from "either 1995 or 1996" it allegedly happened in an extremely public place at the very busiest time of year but somehow there were zero witnesses the accuser hasn't described a r4pe of any sort she never considered the alleged incident a r4pe, her friend suggested it to her and no one in the entire history of the United States is considered a r4pist under those circumstances. For your edification, here is an example of a "non-r4pe" by a member of the Kennedy family: The William Kennedy Smith r4pe case is the high-profile legal matter often associated with the Kennedy family compound in Palm Beach, Florida (sometimes metaphorically referred to as "Camelot"). On December 11, 1991, a jury acquitted William Kennedy Smith, the nephew of Senator Ted Kennedy, of all charges after just 77 minutes of deliberation. Incident Details Date & Location: The alleged assault occurred in the early hours of March 30, 1991, on the grounds and beach of the Kennedy family’s oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Florida. The Parties: The accused was William Kennedy Smith, then a 30-year-old medical student. The accuser was Patricia Bowman, a 29-year-old single mother. The Lead-up: Earlier that evening, Smith had been out at a local nightclub called Au Bar with his uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, and his cousin, Patrick Kennedy. Smith met Bowman at the club, and she later drove him back to the Kennedy compound. The Allegation: Bowman alleged that while walking on the beach behind the estate, Smith tackled her and forcibly r4ped her. She testified that she repeatedly said "no" and that Smith called her a "b1tch" during the attack. The Defense: Smith maintained that the sexual encounter was entirely consensual. He testified that Bowman became upset and slapped him only after he mistakenly called her by the name of a former girlfriend, "Cathy". Key Trial Highlights Excluded Testimony: The prosecution attempted to call three other women who claimed Smith had previously assaulted them in the 1980s. However, Judge Mary Lupo barred their testimony, ruling it did not establish a specific enough pattern of behavior to be admitted under Florida law. Physical Evidence: A hospital examination documented bruises on Bowman's body and semen in her vagina, which the prosecution argued supported a forceful attack, while the defense argued it was consistent with consensual sex. Kennedy Involvement: Senator Ted Kennedy was called to testify about the family's activities that evening, drawing further global media attention to the "Camelot" legacy. Key differences: specific date and time of day, vs unknown year lol several witnesses that the two actually met vs no witnesses that they ever met during that entire "season" defendant's admission that at one point during the encounter she slapped him vs Trump saying he was never even with her victim feeling that it was an attack, while it was happening, vs victim playing along in a very sexual manner and then only giggling while the encounter was happening, and never offering any resistance until the exact moment it ended victim goes directly to the police with bruises all over her body and calls is a r4pe vs victim doesn't even consider it a r4pe for days, until a friends suggests that it might have been one. Do you see how hard it is to get an actual r4pe conviction? What you are describing between Trump/Carroll is nothing more than "he said/she said" story. By using that farcical story as an accusation of a r4pe, you are lying again, robobigot. You actually have no clue whatsoever whether or not she was even treated disrespectfully in said encounter, or if they ever even met at all.

You just ignored the elephant in the room: tens of thousands of pregnant women - who are not American citizens - just travel to the US every year to drop babies, for a free citizenship ticket, and it's not sustainable. That is the topic at hand, not your rah-rah BS about the American dream that is totally of topic. Left4rds only care about "American values" when they have a hidden agenda. Aside from that it's "F AMERICA! PUT THESE OTHER PEOPLE FIRST!!!!"

No, a simple google search instantly brings up several different sources saying the same things about Swallwell. By YOUR OWN STANDARDS, which we've seen you apply to Republicans over and over again, you have to say "SWALLWELL IS GUILTY! HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED MULTIPLE TIMES!" Think of Swallwell as your latest fallguy, robobigot, like Al Franken: a guy that you can throw under the bus to give your future accusations of sexual harassment some MUCH needed credibility. If you don't like it, then you should have thought about your future need for accountability on days like this, back on all those occasions when you said "ANONYMOUS SOURCE MEANS "GOSPEL TRUTH" YOU LOSERS!" That's actually a promotion from his other hobby as a genocide apologist.

The Democrats are the only party that thinks that women's accusations are more important than the Iran war you f'ing stupid bigot. You can't even cheer for America VS Iran because you're so concerned about some random hoes' personal/unsubstantiated accusations. I don't Republicans screaming: "THE ACCUSATIONS OF A COUPLE OF WOMEN IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW!" in the morning and then saying "Let's keep a lid on all of these accusations" in the afternoon Do you see the hypocrisy in that? Demt4rds are saying "Trump only started this war to draw attention away from the Epstein files (which Biden had for 4 years and did nothing with)" and then they vote to keep sexual harassment allegations secret.

Same as a terrorist supporter from the ME who never grew up here. If you look for any post from him that says anything patriotic you'll be waiting a really long time. And pro-LPoC and patriotic are not the same thing at all, even if the LPoC has a patriotic moment once in a while.

let's see if a bunch of women claiming that he's a predator matters to Dems

Looks like the range of Irans missiles has a massive effect on your willingness to ignore their evil.

You're just an evil piece of shit, robobigot.

"No kings, we want an ayatollah" - the left

If you really think about his posting history here, and what he does/doesn't support, do you think he's more likely air force or al qaeda? If he was in an air force, it definitely wasn't Canada's.

"When in Rome, doing as Romans do, you're guilty of cultural appropriation, you racist piece of shit." - Ketanji Jackson, from the SC, last Tuesday.