Posted on 11/17/2019 9:04:51 AM PST by jazusamo
I care. Amnesty and climate matter. She does not get a pass on these two treasonous topics just because she is standing up to Schiff.
Notice how he blinks even faster when he’s getting pi**ed
He looks like a hostage blinking morse code
Yeah well care again after the impeachment hearings.
Here we go again with the purity test in EVERY SITUATION.
They are trying to KICK TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE.
So let’s not want her to stop fighting because of hew views THAT DONT MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS HITTING BACK AT THE DEMS RIGHT NOW.
SHEESH
BTW, I enjoy your posts very much and one disagreement doesn’t enemies make :)
Every time they publicly fight back, it makes it easier for others in Congress to join them, and it definitely rallies Trump supporters to see somebody fighting for us for a change
I’m not saying it is true, but, c’mon, sources are involved. If that doesn’t give it an air of credibility, I don’t know what does. The question is, can the Clintons take a chance? That’s what I always say. Well, I don’t ALWAYS say that. That would be weird.
I am enjoying the thought that we might somehow have The Clintons ‘resolve’ the Conway Problem for us, free of charge!
I hope the info is accurate.
As a refugee from the RAT Party I can’t say I’m a “pure” conservative on every issue, but my views, for example, on amnesty and abortion have hardened to the point that I’m strongly against both. I do believe a new GOP will be formed that will be more nationalistic and populist with less of an internationalist view as a result of the Trump presidency. A lot of people would be interested to join that newly constituted Republican Party who aren’t necessarily conservative, especially on social issues. The first priority is to defeat the current Democrat(ic) Party. It is the clear enemy of the American people, and all our efforts need to be directed to weakening their grip on this country.
It’s abusive to me and incredibly disrespectful publicly
Snakehead was far smarter and more respectful when his wife’s party held power and she had public gigs
She didn’t back down.
I've learned from my puppet masters at Faux News how to cherry pick which stories I swear an oath of fealty to and to not divulge certain information until it's been independently verified, substantiated and proven without a shadow of a doubt based on the evidence provided, (i.e., the name of the so-called "whistleblower") and which stories to run with based on hearsay, wild speculations, and unnamed sources (i.e., the accusations against President Trump). It's a heavy load to bear.
You're welcome.
“ God bless the Hon. Elise Stefanik!”
Lord, thank you for her courage in the impeachment hearings
Also Lord, protect us from her RINO proposals on immigration. Please convert her to the MAGA cause
Amen and Amen
Agreed.
And I think as long as a majority of those voting R lean more conservative like we do, the other will STILL vote R and not dem because of a few issues that do NOT directly affect them and theirs.
And actually, if they did research, they would know those policies HURT them
Amnesty isn’t a purity test
It’s a survival test. Amnesty will kill the GOP
Agreed that it’s not a purity test.
I just am not as concerned about her positions right now as I am someone hitting back at Rs.
I also cannot directly vote for her so I can’t do anything about her positions unless she runs for higher office.
She voted against the tax cuts because eliminating state and local deductions hurts New Yorkers whom she represents
She is too moderate for freeper tastes though no question
“A friend of mine works with a guy who overheard someone say that his neighbor has a distant cousin who was told by a source that George Conway has dirt on the Clintons.”
Isn’t it illegal to indirectly murder someone?
Not 100% sure. I dropped out of Pre-Law. Well, I didn't exactly drop out, I just never went to class. Or signed up for class.
But, from what I've gathered over the years in lunch room discussions with well-informed groundskeepers, there are extenuating circumstances that must be disseminated on a case-by-case basis.
The Founding Fathers, in their wise wisdom, set a very high bar to be cleared for that very reason. They believed it would be a more grievous situation if one innocent person was imprisoned than if ten guilty people were left free.
Likewise, For instance, is the target of the accusation a Republican or a Democrat? This is a very serious consideration. It would be a travesty of justice if a person went to jail for a crime he committed and then it was later determined he or she was Democrat.
I’m on the Stefanik team too, for just the reasons you cite. Her questioning of Yovanovitch was handled in a way that made her answer truthfully and with grace. Y seemed relieved to tell the whole truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.