Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am a bit more radical when it comes to the solution in Europe.Then I don't see a problem. I am just pretty much done trying to sway people to the correct view of things...I am more of a violence and war kind of person...I leave the academic and persuasive writing/talking to others who do it better.That is my goal as well.People are either with me or against me. Matters not to me. My ONLY goal is the survival and advancement of the White race.You are never going to get me to go that far.Indeed. I am not a white nationalist. I am a Racial Loyalist. My ideology is Creativity and Racial Socialism. I am sure you have read Benjamin Klassen's books? That's what I adhere to. I am reading the Racial Loyalist Manifesto right now by Matthew Hale. You should give it a read,its interesting so far and I need to buy his other white White Slavery.There are degrees of pro-white activism and white nationalism.
You are extreme even for a white nationalist site.
I am not going to try to stop you from doing what you think you need to do for now because your radicalism helps purge the cucks, but you will be opposed by me directly at some point because defeating Western/white decline is all that we need.
If you were smart you would be more pragmatic and help people like me to move the overton window towards your direction.
Bork was not approved but was given a hearing. The sitting president was allowed to nominate a replacement who was approved
Bork never got a hearing he got a political lynching.
Well deserved. Bork got both a hearing and a vote in the Senate. He failed
Reagan still got to fill the seat. Something Obama was denied
Thomas was approved after getting his hearingThis is NOW the way the game is playedThat is why Republicans stole the court
How did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.
This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.
Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them
Republican tactics are better than Democrat tactics. Democrats try to destroy the lives of Republican Supreme Court nominees.
Republicans took the high road because I would have given him "a hearing", but really I would have made what Democrats did to Robert Bork (especially) and Clarence Thomas look like nothing.
Bork was not approved but was given a hearing. The sitting president was allowed to nominate a replacement who was approved
Republicans denied President Obama the right to fill a vacant seat
That is now the new norm. It will be used against Republucan Presidents
No, the "new norm" began with Judge Robert Bork. He was one of the most qualified justices ever nominated to the Supreme Court and, for the first time, Democrats came prepared to politicize the Supreme Court and created a new term, Borked.
Sure didBork was not approved but was given a hearing. The sitting president was allowed to nominate a replacement who was approved
Bork never got a hearing he got a political lynching.
Well deserved. Bork got both a hearing and a vote in the Senate. He failed
Reagan still got to fill the seat. Something Obama was denied
Shit happens
That is my goal as well.People are either with me or against me. Matters not to me. My ONLY goal is the survival and advancement of the White race.You are never going to get me to go that far.Indeed. I am not a white nationalist. I am a Racial Loyalist. My ideology is Creativity and Racial Socialism. I am sure you have read Benjamin Klassen's books? That's what I adhere to. I am reading the Racial Loyalist Manifesto right now by Matthew Hale. You should give it a read,its interesting so far and I need to buy his other white White Slavery.There are degrees of pro-white activism and white nationalism.And? You only vote democrat doesn't mean you are a democrat...could be a registered socialist,communist,etc could just be a leftist in general which you are. You give me a better option of a political party with a REAL chance at getting elected that ISN'T trying to turn America into a 3rd world cesspool and I would vote for them. I don't vote party I vote for candidate. I would not have voted for ANY other candidate in 2016 other than Trump NONE of the GOP candidates for president would have gotten my vote.
Unfortunately I am an outlier among Trump supporters...I put my race first and if he is doing things that benefit my race great when he doesn't like trying to start a war with Iran I call him out on it...Race comes before all for me.
You are extreme even for a white nationalist site.
I am not going to try to stop you from doing what you think you need to do for now because your radicalism helps purge the cucks, but you will be opposed by me directly at some point because defeating Western/white decline is all that we need.
If you were smart you would be more pragmatic and help people like me to move the overton window towards your direction.
I can’t see it going back to the way it wasThis is NOW the way the game is playedHow did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.
This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.
Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them
Republicans took the high road .
LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?
Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.
I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.
Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more
“not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,”
“Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
-Joe Biden
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
-Chuck Schumer
Also no where in the constitution does it say the Senate has to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing .
I can’t see it going back to the way it wasThis is NOW the way the game is playedHow did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.
This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.
Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them
Republicans took the high road .
LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?
Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.
I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.
Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more
“not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,”
“Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
-Joe Biden
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
-Chuck Schumer
Also no where in the constitution does it say the Senate has to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing .
Robert Bork was treated just like any other nominee. He was given a Senate hearing and a full Senate vote which he lost 58-42I can’t see it going back to the way it was
Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more
As you know, it is Democrats who first brought Politics into the Supreme Court Nominations and even coined a new verb. Borked. That is what was done to easily the most qualified judge ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He was the outstanding nominee of President Ronald Reagan.
On what do you stake your opinion that nine judges are no longer necessary on the Supreme Court? The court has been at nine members since 1869 and it has worked extremely well. Are your points another typical Progressive effort to provide a solution to a problem which does not exist?
Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
will she be able to stay awake?....Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
Trump should appoint me to the court. I’m going to live until I’m 100 billion. Because that’s how nature decides when we kick the bucket.
However even if she lasts as long as she plans to retirement, Trump still replaces her
Fat Donnie could choke on a cheeseburger tomorrowTales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Luckily Comey and the Russians stepped in to prevent that......lol
I am a registered Republican
True story
Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Luckily Comey and the Russians stepped in to prevent that......lol
Which shows how silly they are, they both expected hilary to win, so comey tried to clear her, which he did, and the Russians gave her 145 million dollars in advance of her winning...
Tales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Luckily Comey and the Russians stepped in to prevent that......lol
Which shows how silly they are, they both expected hilary to win, so comey tried to clear her, which he did, and the Russians gave her 145 million dollars in advance of her winning...
Comey announced 2 weeks before the election that he was re-opening the case.
The Russians were very clear that they were hacking the election to try to harm Clinton- and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
He could. You could also jerk yourself off to a coma watching obie speeches tonight. Old sleepy Ruth isn’t setting the timeline here. She can insist on making it five more years. God may decide next Tuesday sounds better.Fat Donnie could choke on a cheeseburger tomorrowTales of her demise are greatly exaggerated
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she has 'at least five more years' on Supreme Court
The notorious RBG isn't going anywhere.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that she intended to stay on the bench for "at least five more years," putting off retirement until after her 90th birthday.
Her reasoning? Well, that's what retired justice John Paul Stevens did.
"I'm now 85," Ginsburg said in New York, according to CNN. "My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years."
And hilary was going to win in a landslide sailing on the unsinkable Titanic...... Sometimes fate takes moments like this and statements like that as a cue to step in.....
Despite rhetoric from individual members of Congress, Hearings and votes have always been given to Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court, that is until the Repugs denied Merrick Garland a hearing. A hearing and a vote doesn't mean that the nominee has to be voted for, but at least be given the opportunity for an up or down vote.I can’t see it going back to the way it wasThis is NOW the way the game is playedHow did they do that? They were just following rules set by Democrats.
This is the way the game is played. Republicans had control of the Senate and were guaranteed to win the White House in November.
Republucan tactics will come back to haunt them
Republicans took the high road .
LOL......do you really pretend to yourself that Republicans refusing to even consider the President's nominee 'the high ground'?
Unfortunately I think that the Republicans probably have shown us the future of Supreme Court nominations- if the Senate is controlled by the party opposite the President- the Senate will refuse to hold any hearings for his nominees.
I don't think it is right- but now that genie is out of the bottle- I don't see how either party will refuse to use it.
Republicans made it clear that filling a vacant seat was political and not a priority
The precedent now is an opposition Senate refuses to consider a SCOTUS candidate regardless of where it occurs in a presidents term
Nine judges is not necessary any more
“not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
“Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,”
“Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
-Joe Biden
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
-Chuck Schumer
Also no where in the constitution does it say the Senate has to give a Supreme Court nominee a hearing .
