Hmmm, to get on topic. This statement is predictable. There is nothing to be gained by perusing any other course of action.
Alright! A series of questions should quickly sort it out. Did you vote for or against Trump because of any thing the Russians did? Do you think I voted for Trump because of anything the Russians did? Do you have even the smallest suspicion that the deplorable(s) could be persuaded to vote for Clinton? Do you think foreign affairs should be dictated by the minority party? Do you think the pet affront of the minority party should be investigated and dominate the political discourse of the nation until it no longer pleases them? Do you think we should work out in public for the world to see, including our perceived advisories, the appropriate action to take for a perceived affront to the minority party? Do you want to go to war to protect the honor of the minority party in this country? If you answer, no to all questions, is it time to carry on? If you answer, Yes to any question, are you willing to risk civil war in the US? Here is a possible Yes for those straining to answer yes. Weyden seems to like this investigate thing and the dissension it generates. Will you vote for him again even if he and his kind push us into war like actions?
Look at Trump... Giving Putin his palm up in submission... How To Lose A Negotiation With Just One Handshake In a business interaction, if you notice that your companion is trying to give you a handshake with their palm facing downwards, you should immediately strategize on how to get out of this. Why? Because a handshake is supposed to be a greeting gesture that symbolizes both parties are on equal grounds, yet allowing your palm to face upward while your companion's palm is facing downward is basically allowing them to have the upper-hand, meaning they are now in control and you are not. This is a bad move during negotiations. The vibe between the two of you have already been established with that first handshake and everything you say from this moment forward will always have the "lower-hand" to their "upper-hand," especially if they were trying to intimidate you with this handshake. "[It] is the most aggressive of all handshakes because it gives the receiver little chance of establishing an equal relationship," according to Westside Toastmasters, a non-profit organization aimed at helping people improve their public speaking and leadership skills. Toastmasters shared three techniques on getting out of these overbearing handshakes: 1. The Step-to-the-Right Technique. Basically, if you're right-footed ("The natural position for 90 percent of people when shaking with the right hand), you'll have more of an advantage when you step into the handshake with your left foot, and vice versa. When someone extends their hand for a dominant handshake, you can prevent this interaction from happening by first stepping forward with your left foot. Next, step forward with your right leg and into the other person's personal space. You can then cross your left leg across your right leg (Although, we've tried this and it's a little awkward). "This tactic allows you to straighten the handshake or even turn it over into the submissive position. It feels as if you're walking across in front of him and is the equivalent of winning an arm-wrestling bout. It also allows you to take control by invading his personal space." 2. The Hand-on-Top Technique. As you're going in for the dominating handshake, respond with your palms up at first; then, place your other hand - the left one - over your companion's hand to form a "Double-Hander" and simply straighten the handshake to a more equal position. This technique is easier for women to use. 3. The Last Resort Technique. If all else fails, and you feel as though your companion is trying to intimidate you, grab their hand from the top and shake it. But only do this as a last resort since it can shock the other person and is a very obvious maneuver.
Two things barf. There actually was harm caused by the ineptitude of the Obama/Clinton team at Benghazi. People died, not to mention the lies they spouted to cover it up. Republicans were not the minority party at the time. They held the house and the Senate and should have impeach both Clinton and Obama for the fuckup and lies.
But they didn't. Why is that? Is it because 1. Republicans are incompetent 2. Republicans are corrupt 3. There wasn't an impeachable offense, contrary to your claims I don't see any other possibilities, do you? barfo
Didn't it also take 67 when Clinton was impeached? Yet the Republicans did it anyway. So I don't think I buy your theory. barfo
...and now you can follow along the Russian propaganda assault on social media! Useful tool for EVERYONE! --> http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/
