I never believed any of the women who claimed Trump sexually attacked them. To me, it seemed obvious that he has far too high an opinion of himself to resort to such tactics. He prefers to "win" through his own skill set.
The following article (which I've linked) exposes the origin of such tall tales. As I guessed, a lot of money changed hands to get these ladies to make fictional claims.
And that is why people are innocent until proven guilty and proof is required beyond just a woman's story.
The Times article referred to in the post was published on Dec. 31, 2017. It was about the efforts of BOTH major parties to use allegations of sexual misconduct to attack politicians. BOTH parties have provided support and financial backing to such women, and the NYT article was about how this money could make the claims suspect. The article never said that Clinton was giving money to Trump attackers and never mentioned Soros' name at all. Read it yourself. The Red Pill News lied to create false political propaganda. Scanning some of their other articles showed me that they are totally unreliable. Which is sad. It seems to me that if you have to make up lies to support your cause, your cause probably doesn't deserve support. But that's just me. 8->
I don't keep a subscription the the NY Times, so I couldn't access the article. I did find one on the topic in "The Hill" and began to write a reply...
I presently have a five page manifesto (and still going strong), ragging about the Democrats and their many plots against Trump! Lol! It shall end up novella length, to be sure.
Problem being, when I look at this issue, I have difficulty separating it from the entire steaming pile of shennanighans involving the Democrats and their Trump derangement syndrome. It's been one thing after another with them from the moment the man won the election.
It is, however, a marvelous manifesto -- full of sarcasm, and dare I say, wit? But it might be a tad (that's an understatement) offensive to liberal readers. You already know I have a personal ax to grind with the Dems -- so you know how vehement I get when it comes to them. But this is exceptionally brilliant prose, if I do say so myself! Shame it will never see the light of day!
Alas! We don't know who reads this board and some kook might take umbrage. These days, best not wave red flags at raging Democrats.
If I can contain myself, I will try to write a more vapid reply.
>It's been one thing after another with them (Dems) from the moment the man (Trump) won the election. The Reps were (and still are) much worse with Obama. Remember all the death threats, pics of effigies being lynched, etc.? It just seems silly for Reps to complain now about Dems doing the same things the Reps did for 8 years.
That opinion will not hold up when the Durham report comes out. He and Barr are busy constructing an iron clad case and "the word" is that all roads lead to Obama.
It will be a big shock to average democrats when they find out that their party leaders are not the paragons of virtue they think they are -- but personally, I think Democrats will continue in their state of denial no matter how much evidence is presented. They are far worse than anyone imagines.
I'm speaking here of the "man on the street" average Democrat. The Democratic Communist weasels in Washington know they have no ethics and are under no illusions about themselves. That's what spawns all these desperate hoaxes. For example, fingering a CIA asset as a "Russian agent" falsely to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. And then jocky this action into a full blown "Russian Hoax". They're trying to keep the heat off of themselves.
I know you don't believe anything is happening in terms of holding the Dems to account. Today's news announced YET ANOTHER top Den has "cancer". It seems that there's a real epidemic of this non-contagious disease in the swamp lately.
Funny how all of a sudden Democrats are dropping like flies. You'd almost think something else was on the table. Maybe a chance to "go out" with a public reputation intact "ala McCain".
Oh there are some Republican weasels-- MCCain was one, Ryan another, Mittens a third. But we are trying to vote RINOS out.
Dems on the other hand-- elect suspected spies (Omar), communists, (Bernie and AOC), and do-nothing politicians who ruin the cities they run!(Almost every major large city run by Dems). And they THINK this is a good thing. How delusional!
They are letting people take dumps in the public library reading room. Dems don't consider public defecation a chargeable offense! It is a public health hazard. What is wrong with Democratic leadership? No push for "diversity" of lifestyle justifies piles of steaming crap in a library reading room!
The Democrats were always goofy, but now they are getting dangerous. They consistently choose evil. And they need to be stopped by being voted out of office.
I can't wait until Durham releases his report, so that they can round up these idiots and put them in the slammer.
Last Edit: Dec 30, 2019 1:26:23 GMT -5 by debutante
>Funny how all of a sudden Democrats are dropping like flies. ---Actually, I think if you count them, there are many more Reps saying that they will not run in 2020.
>Dems don't consider public defecation a chargeable offense! ---Curious. Where does this come from? As I often say, even if some Dem somewhere did this, it's not a reflection on the entire party. Certainly no Dem that I know personally would support this idea.
Durham Report Remember the Horowitz report and all the claims the Trump people said that it would reveal. While Horowitz found some serious errors and omissions, he concluded that there was no evidence that the investigation had been tainted by political bias. None.
As to the Durham report, I would lower my expectations if I were you. Plus, Barr says that it won't be released for several months. Reps are likely waiting for a political-timed event to take attention away from some other new Trump nonsense. In any event, opposing someone politically is not a crime in itself. The only question is whether anyone committing an actual crime while opposing Trump. You can't commit treason against an individual, only against the nation. And the Dems are putting together their own reports to show that Trump is a traitor. He certainly seems to be in the pocket of Putin, whether by choice or by blackmail. We'll see.
I wanted to address your Putin concerns separately.
You do know that the USSR broke up in December of 1991, don't you? So this is not my parent's generation of "Russia", but rather an infinitely smaller and less economically prosperous version thereof. Assuming of course, that you bought into the propaganda that they were ever that prosperous and threatening in the first place.
I believed it, of course -- as did every child in the sixties who NEVER QUESTIONED what the nightly news told us. But we grew up as a nation and those of us who have reached a certain level of sophistication now realize that certain interested parties may have their own purpose for wanting us to believe something. And we are now aware that the nightly mainstream news is a steaming pile of crap.
So let's look at Russia today captured in a series of photographs that aren't picture postcard perfect. Or taken to create the impression that this is the BOGEYMAN with his nation of BOGEYMEN.
Actually, it looks to me like a place where they don't have the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out. Not terribly surprising, when you consider all the decades they were forced to exist under communist socialist standards. Loosely translated, that means everyone has an equal share of NOTHING.
So pardon me if I have the common sense not to shake in my shoes over a country that looks as if its people are lucky to get a good meal now and then.
But they are proud (as I suppose they should be as it is their country after all) so they put a good face on it and pretend it is better than reality.
We have the strongest economy in the world. A lot of it is the result of our advances in the energy sector under Trump. That put us in direct competition with the Russians and has not worked out well for them.
This is hardly something Trump would do if he were under Putin's thumb.
It was, after all, Obama who got caught on a hot microphone saying,"Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after the election."
I agree that the old "Red Scare" days of the 1950s-60s exaggerated the strength of the Soviet Union. It was the best way for Congress to get people to OK tax money for a military and weapons that we didn't need, but sent pork back to their home states and districts. And, yes, Russia today is not exactly a worker's paradise. It is a dictatorship, controlled by a handful of rich families, including Putin.
But you can't give Trump credit for advances in energy. Private businesses did that. Trump's (and Congress') contribution has been to give lower taxes and billions in taxes as subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. (And consider Trump's crazed rants about how windmills cause cancer.) The Russian energy biz is doing just fine. They have many markets, like North Korea. But Trump's abandoning of our Kurdish allies in Syria got thousands of Kurds killed, made the US look bad and gave Russia almost total control of that nation as they pushed in to fill the vacuum left by the US. Good news for Putin. And despite 17 different US intelligence agencies presenting proof that Russia and Putin interfered in the 2016 election, Trump said that it wasn't true because Putin told him so.
It's not so much that Russia is a great danger to the US, it's that Putin seems to have control over Trump. There are other examples, but the overall conclusion is that either Trump is stupid about world politics or he's being blackmailed or both. Now that's scary.
That's a Democratic viewpoint. Here's the thing. Elections have consequences (or so said Bathhouse Barry). The problem with Dems is that they want their policies when they win and they ALSO think they should have their policies when they lose.
It doesn't work that way.
If career people in foreign service (read that as entrenched liberals) don't like Trump's policies too bad, so sad. It is NOT their job to set policy. It is Trump's job to set policy. If they don't like it -- they can get the hell out and flip burgers at Micky D's.
The days of the POTUS groveling, bowing, and capitulating to every foreign ruler are OVER. Either they deal with it, or get the hell out of the way.
As to all those dead Kurds -- Well, assuming you believe the mainstream media which I've already said delivers a nightly stream of steaming crap-- I can see why this would seem like a huge issue to people who buy into the garbage. But so happens, it is fake news.
As usual, mainstream media left out one little fact that changes everything. There are Kurds and Kurds. Surely, you didn't believe everyone in the region espoused the same views and were all allies of the United States?
That's as silly as saying all Democrats are patriotic Americans when we all know their present leadership is rife with Communists! (By the way, do those idiots really believe that their recent remarks on getting rid of single family dwellings are going to win them friends? Let them JUST TRY and take people's private property! They are going to lose so big in 2020!)
To give you the information the mockingbird media left out regarding those Kurds you are so concerned about -- here's a link to an article dating to time period this event occurred.
If it were just a matter of "private industry" why were we under the thumb of the Arabic nations for oil for most of my adult life? Why did the Dems fight so hard to keep us there by stopping any attempt to develop our own industry in terms of offshore pipelines (remember how Obama signed something mere days before Trump was inaugurated to prevent that?
And notice now that we are "energy independent" and the strongest economy in the world -- which party is pushing a "green new deal" to cripple our economy again? The Dems, of course, the same party with all their past intelligence agency heads who just happen to have all kinds of ties to the Middle East! Nobody is that stupid that they can't see the connections.
It was Trump that got rid of the crippling regulations that were purposely put there to bring the United States to its knees. What we have now -- we have because we finally have a president who is a patriot.
About Putin -- I saw an interesting interview where he spoke about decadence in the world. And he took a decidedly Christian perspective. Frankly, if he was being sincere -- he came off as having a more developed sense of morality than most of the Democratic leadership.
Now what is scary is realizing that the Dem leadership in our country are worse than the so called Russian BOGEYMAN.
Last Edit: Jan 1, 2020 10:30:13 GMT -5 by debutante
>The problem with Dems is that they want their policies when they win and they ALSO think they should have their policies when they lose. ---Oh, you mean like the Reps did for 8 years after Obama won an overwhelming victory in an election? Have you forgotten that the Rep leadership came out and announced that their only goal was to prevent Obama from getting anything done? The same complaint that Reps make about Dems now. Short-term memory problems? LOL
>Surely, you didn't believe everyone in the region espoused the same views and were all allies of the United States? ---Nope, but the ones in Syria had fought alongside US troops against ISIS. And those are the ones we betrayed.
>By the way, do those idiots really believe that their recent remarks on getting rid of single family dwellings are going to win them friends? ---Where do you get this stuff? Right wing echo chambers? LOL. I keep up with news and politics more than most people and I have not seen that this is a proposal by the Democratic Party. Did some individual Dem say this? It’s definitely not the policy of the entire party. Again, I know lots of Dems and not a single one has ever expressed this viewpoint. In fact, most are on the other end. They want to make it easier for people to own their own homes.
>If it were just a matter of "private industry" why were we under the thumb of the Arabic nations for oil for most of my adult life? ---We weren’t really. The US has always been energy independent, it’s just that US companies owned and/or operated much of the Mid-East oil biz and they chose to sell their product in other markets, where the price was higher. Even sold US oil to others rather than here at home. No shortage, just business. Plus, the idea was to use up the limited resource of the Md-East and save ours for later. It was much of Europe and Japan, places that didn’t have their own oil, that were dependent on Mid-Eastern imports. That’s where most Saudi oil still goes. Yeah, we were dinged by oil prices in the 1970s, but that was a business choice, not a national problem.
>And notice now that we are "energy independent" ---Always have been. Sometimes we prefer to sell our home-produced fossil fuels overseas because the price is higher there, and so may seem to have a shortage, but the US has more oil and coal and natural gas than just about anyone and is always one of the major producers of those things. And now we’re expanding into solar and wind.
---The thing to watch is that oil and such are part of an international market, not controlled by a single nation or a single politician. Our own American companies have always been willing to shaft the home nation to make a buck overseas somewhere. All the big US companies own stuff in Saudi Arabi and such. It’s not a them-vs-us, it’s an us-vs-us deal.
One difference -- everything Obama did weakened the United States for a globalist takeover. So I don't blame loyal patriots from trying to stop his agenda. But the karma bus is heading Obama's way...
Re: the Kurds
I don't believe the mockingbird media's reports, but if it were true, which I highly doubt -- the more important question would be -- how many American men and women DID NOT DIE because Trump pulled our troops out?
Of course, our own people are NEVER of any importance to Democrats. To them, American lives are not as important as the Kurds. That's why Dems don't understand Trump or his supporters and never will.
A pull out in a never ending war was long overdue.
If it was just a matter of private companies pelreferring to do business overseas "before" then they'd still be doing it now.
Trump's policies have made it possible for business to flourish. He's ended all kinds of restrictions which tied things up so private company policies were never the issue --rather government policies. You don't suppose it had anything to do with the children of so many top Democrats sitting on gas company boards and drawing huge salaries?
Nobody's stupid. It was about kickbacks slush funds, pay to play, and money laundering through foundation donations throughout Obama's entire administration.
Well, very shortly, the Barr bill is finally coming due.
Tucker is a nationally known tool of the right, who has a very long history of passing on false information that comes from reliable sources. In this case, he took what the mayor of New York said in an interview and twisted it.
(1) The mayor said that he wanted much more government control over property in New York. He did not say that he wanted to ban home ownership in the US. His statements were indeed controversial, but not what the mockingbird right are claiming. (2) The mayor of New York does not speak for the entire Democratic Party. His opinions are his and his alone. Once an idea is added to the Dem Party platform, then you can say that the Dems are for it. Otherwise, it's just one guy. No different than when one Rep says something stupid. Like the Rep who said that women couldn't get pregnant because of rape because their bodies would prevent conception. Is that the official view of the Rep Party? Same rules apply for both sides. 8->
>A pull out in a never ending war was long overdue. ---Agreed. But the time and place was a very bad choice. And now, due to Trump's political incompetence, he's putting a few thousand US troops back in the area to be targets for Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.
>You don't suppose it had anything to do with the children of so many top Democrats sitting on gas company boards and drawing huge salaries? ---You mean like all the Reps? Remember George W., Cheney and all the other Reps of that time who had financial ties to the fossil fuel world? Still true of today's Reps. Both parties are the same in that sense. They go where the money is. And our profitable US fossil fuel industry is not just benefiting from reduced regulations, I saw a headline this AM: "United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education." We're giving huge tax breaks and huge subsidies to industries that are already making huge profits. And by "we", I mean both Dems AND Reps. And those industries give huge donations to politicians. Of course, the party in power always gets more loot because why should a company waste money bribing someone who can't do their bidding. So under Obama, the Dems got the most bribes, but under Trump, it's the Reps.
---Unrelated, saw a funny post this AM: Why does Trump do so much tweeting at 3AM? Because that's 11AM Moscow time, and that's where he gets his ideas. LOL
---Interesting article about Trump and Q. It seems that the Q folk keep interpreting dog-whistle hints from Trump's tweets, indicating that their paranoid beliefs are real. But there's some question about whether Trump himself is doing those or one of his people. In any case, at least some of Trump's staff are publicly calling Q and the Q cult crazy.
"Q" has been confirmed as I've already shown you in a past article.
I suppose the deep state would consider it "dangerous" for people to research and decide things for themselves -- which, is the only suggestion "Q" has ever made to those who follow the drops. That, and to spred the word for others to do the same.
Thinking for yourself, rather than blindly swallowing whatever taking points the Clowns In America choose to shove down your throat in tandem with the mockingbird media threatens their control over the population. So yes -- they don't like "Q" and would do anything and everything in their power to label it as either dangerous or a hoax.
It's neither. Just a series of hints of things to look at and ways in which puzzle pieces fit together that might have escaped attention.
I follow "Q" -- not as often as I should, but I check at least every two weeks or so to see if I'm on track. I find that I get more hints of information through links in Twitter accounts (belonging to strangers). I don't keep a Twitter account myself, but the system still lets you read what other people post.
Anyhow...in the two years I have actively followed "Q" and other sources I've learned about because of "Q" -- the information is correct most of the time. That's a far better average than the drivel you get on MSN -- so I will keep on keeping on.
Last Edit: Jan 3, 2020 12:01:28 GMT -5 by debutante
When you asked where I heard that the Dems wanted to ban private home ownership, I couldn't exactly remember where because I had heard it several times in different contexts over the past month or so.
When Tucker brought it up last night, I wanted to point to an example illustrating that it really is being said as a Democratic talking point. And as I just stated in several different contexts.
In fact, Tucker wasn't talking about the mayor of New York, but rather an article in Nation magazine (a long running progressive publication). This article claimed that fires in California have some relation to private property ownership and for that reason private ownership should be banned. I found the segment on YouTube.
The thing is -- this concept is being floated as part of the "green new deal". As I said, just let the Dems try to take anyone's home away from them. They will lose so big in 2020!
Again, even if "some" Dems want this, it is by no means a position of the full Democratic Party. As it turns out, our "wonderful" economy is actually preventing many people in the middle class from home ownership, since, despite great profits for for businesses and record stock prices, money is not trickling down into paychecks. Plus, the effects of automation on layoffs and the closing of 9,300 stores in 2019 mean that fewer and fewer workers can afford a private home. It's a stupid idea to espouse, but, if it ever happens, it will be because of our economy, not of some government program.
The other part of the idea, more government control over what people do with their property, is something that both parties endorse, just for different things. For example, the Reps are involved in lawsuits here in Texas where they are trying to take away private property and homes to build the Wall. Reps here also like to restrict where bars and such can be located (although they'll allow other businesses to be almost anywhere), and they force poor people out of their homes so those lots can be "gentrified" and sold to yuppies. And so on.
Home ownership has never been tougher, and I expect that the number of people sleeping in their cars and under bridges will continue to increase for the near future as it has over the past few years. No need for the gov to do anything, the "free market" is producing the same lack of home ownership. 8-<
To my knowledge, land isn't grabbed by the government for public projects without compensation. That's a little different than Democrat Communists who plan on seizing private property for redistribution with no compensation to the owner. Don't pretend they are the same.
Anyone with skills who wants a job can find one these days. If someone isn't doing well; I'd have to ask how much of it is the result of their own lack of preparedness.
Jobs may be "available" but if someone has never bothered to apply themselves to learning anything that an employer would find useful -- that is hardly the fault of the "economy". But then again, the Democrats NEVER view anything in terms of personal responsibility, do they?
In the mind of a Democrat, it is always someone else's fault that things aren't working right. God forbid things like "life choices" should be considered when economic realities are considered.
Let me be blunt. An employer is under no obligation to hire someone who knows nothing simply because some bleeding heart liberal thinks he should. Yes, it is sad that people reap what they have sown in their youth (when presumably they were immature) but that is not the fault of everyone else who did not make poor choices.
Nor, can you fairly point to a booming economy and claim that because some people aren't thriving the economy is really not actually "booming". No Fred. That's bullshit Democrat razzle-dazzle.
If people aren't thriving in this economy, they need to get themselves into one of the many public service programs that will help them to educate themselves into an employable position.
Edited to add: Almost forgot, this also holds true in terms of promotions to levels of higher authority and pay grades. If an employee's skill level remains constant, a gradual increase of salary is customary in consideration of years with the corporation. But a huge jump in responsibility and corresponding salary has to be given in consideration of demonstrable improvement or additionally acquired skills.
A person isn't going to be promoted to high paying positions by plodding along just clocking in his/her hours.
Again, personal responsibility and individual effort are concepts that seems beyond the understanding of most Democrats. They seem to believe high paying positions should drop into their laps like magic.
Don't we all wish that was the case? But is isn't. It takes effort.
That's simply the reality of the situation.
Last Edit: Jan 4, 2020 15:52:05 GMT -5 by debutante
>Anyone with skills who wants a job can find one these days. ---3 years ago, the month after I turned 70, the place I work cut my contract back to 1 day per week. I've been job hunting for over 3 years now. Only had one phone interview in all those years, nothing else. I have high-tech computer skills in a town where hi-tech is the dominant employer. But in the computer world, >50 makes a person almost unemployable. Companies would rather hire some 23-year-old fresh out of school. Much cheaper and less hassle for them. One company here, National Instruments, is notorious for hiring fresh grads, then dumping them after a couple of years. They value cheap salaries over experience.
---Fortunately, I had held off on Social Security until 70, so that kicked in just as I was cut back. Without that communist/socialist whatever income, I would have lost my house and be living under a bridge by now.
---Yes, people can make bad choices that keep them out of work. But it's not always the individual's fault. And sometimes there is no way to overcome past bad choices. On the other hand, people can make bad choices and thrive. The CEO of Boeing who was recently fired will get somewhere between $40-60 million for being fired. Me, I was doing an excellent job and was cut due to reorganization (two groups were combined) and I got nothing. That guy make serious mistakes and gets more money for it than I've made working my entire life.
---BTW, the corporation I worked for laid a bunch of people off just before Xmas. They're cutting all expenses, cancelled holiday lunch, etc., because the company is having financial trouble in these boom times. More layoffs expected in the spring. In 2019, 9,300 stores in the US went out of business and the expectation for 2020 is at least another 7,000 stores will close. This is particularly rough on small towns, where there may not be other jobs. And many people don't have the money to move somewhere else to look for a job.
---There's a dark side to capitalism, just as there is to socialism, etc. And some people will always find a way to game the system. 8-<
Not that anyone in the government would care to listen to my opinions, but I have always taken the position that the government should prioritize positions in their ranks for skilled workers who are victims of age discrimination. The good Lord knows there are plenty of positions held by unqualified people due to other "status" considerations who are young, able-bodied, and could find (with some initiative on their part) employment in the private sector.
It seems to me that the consideration of which group is "less likely" to succeed in procuring employment in a private sector should be an active consideration given two equally qualified candidates for a government job.
Age is a limitation that can not be altered through personal effort. A young person (regardless of other "status" qualifiers) still has more opportunities (generally speaking).
Nonetheless, the issue you've raised is more a case of age discrimination than failure of the economy per se
It wouldn't matter how much things improved if private sector employers continued to hire only young people.
Therefore, it seems to me the only solution would be for the government to find positions for people of advanced years in their ranks.
Last Edit: Jan 5, 2020 10:51:06 GMT -5 by debutante
Socialism!!!! Gasp!!! LOL Hey, I'm already living off of the gov with my Social Security, just not very well. Fortunately, in my last 30 years of work before 70 I was getting good pay, so my SS is much better than most. Over half the citizens in the US over 65 are living entirely off SS, and the average monthly payout is about $1,400. Senior poverty. Of course, with SS, there would be millions living under bridges all over the US. SS was only supposed to be a retirement supplement, not your entire income. But more and more companies don't offer retirement any more, and as the middle class slowly sinks economically, more people are living paycheck to paycheck before retirement and have no savings. Although I had a good salary in my last 30 years of work, there was no retirement option. Sigh.
In a truly competitive market, businesses would hire the best person for a job, not just the youngest and cheapest. Maturity and experience are valuable assets. But we don't really have an open competitive economy.
On to another subject. What do you think of Trump cranking up Iran? The Iranian government wasn't all that popular due to the trade restrictions and such, but now patriotic Iranians are totally supporting it. In other words, Trump has actually made the Iranian government more popular by picking on them. And killing their rock-star general just pushed them over the edge.
There are several thousand new troops heading into the area to continue the endless war that Trump promised to end. Sigh. He also doesn't seem to understand that under the Constitution, only Congress can declare a war. Even Roosevelt in Dec 1941 had to go to Congress to get a vote to declare war on Japan. Remember when Trump said that Obama would be willing to start a war with Iran to win reelection? Pot calling the kettle black much? 8->
Amazing that it all began when one US contractor was killed by Iranian backed Syrian militias in Syria. Trump promised to remove all the US folk from Syria months ago. The guy shouldn't have even been there. Anyway, each side keeps escalating the mess and leaders of both nations have painted themselves into corners. At this point, neither nation can afford to back down. Trump keeps telling Iran to stop threatening the US, while he keeps adding new threats to Iran. Meanwhile, Rocket Man in N. Korea and Putin are dancing around and laughing in joy. More Americans are going to die over this, and no one seems to be looking for a way to calm things down. 8-<
Social security is not socialism, per se. I don't know about you, but I seem to remember my husband and I paying INTO the system all of our working lives. If that social security payroll tax deduction was put into a individual IRA invested in index mutual funds; we would have come out money ahead!
Incidently, I am not against all social programs. I have no problem with caring for the extreme elderly, extremely ill, very young, or physically or mentally handicapped. I do have a problem with women who marry the government (instead of a man) and expect others to support a bevy of illegitimate children. And I also do not wish to support those who simply do not wish to work. Also, I don't believe illegal immigrants are the responsibility of the US taxpayer.
What do I think about Trump taking out this general?
Mmmmm.....I wish I remembered all the history I learned in grammar school. I've a vague memory of reading about...the battle of Tripoli (I think it was) and something about Jefferson and bullets dipped in pig fat....(At least, I seem to think it was Jefferson....after all, it was a long time ago that the dear sister quizzed us on this topic.)
Well then, what I do recall is that such an addition was mighty discouraging to his adversaries for obvious reasons.
So, perhaps we should follow the example of our third president and call upon the spirit of Oscar Meyer to help us deal with the current problem in any future engagements. LOL!
These idiots attacked the embassy (saw the photos of the destruction last night and it was not merely a matter of simple protesting). They were adequately warned and kept it up. Too bad, so sad. I've no pity for whack jobs -- and the intelligence was the general in question was plotting the death of more Americans.
I don't think this is going to lead to war and not much of one If it does. Saw a map today about "earthquakes" in the region a day or two before the general met his maker. These "earthquakes" coincide with some extremely interesting facilities.
Amusing story -- don't know if it is true, but It's hilarious if it is -- the American troops have been told to leave the region. Supposedly,(This is the part that I don't know for sure is true) Trump told them he isn't leaving until they fork over a couple million for the air base the US built. If true, the man is the BEST president we have ever had!!! Can you imagine the expression on their faces?
Edited to add: It's true! Breitbart just posted an article confirming the gossip I found in a tweet. Hilarious! I just love Trump!
>Social security is not socialism, per se. ---It sort of is. It's a tax, not a savings account. People who die young never get anything back from it. Most people who live a long time get much more back than what they paid in. Except for the rich. There's a maximum payment, so rich folk pay more in than they ever can get back. And so on
>I do have a problem with women who marry the government (instead of a man) and expect others to support a bevy of illegitimate children. ---Indeed a problem. Although in places like Texas, the gov payment for welfare is so low that the women don't get much. But many (most) of the single women with kids on welfare are there because their husbands ran off. Not sure more marriage would change anything. I have a nephew who was married 3 times, had kids with all three, but doesn't earn enough money to pay for decent child support, so even though the women did the right thing (got married), they're no better off than if they hadn't. At one point Texas was on a rampage to make fathers pay child support, but it didn't do much. The poor didn't have any money and those with more money often moved to another state where Texas couldn't get their money.
---Me, I'm for early sex ed and cheap or free birth control.
>I don't think this is going to lead to war and not much of one If it does. ---There's no question that Iran doesn't have the same amount of military power that the US does. But Iran does have hundreds of militia and terrorist groups all over the world that can strike at US citizens or businesses. Plus the usual loons in the US who are converted into terrorists by web sites and whatnot. We've already had 3 US citizens killed by terrorists in Kenya, who claimed to be doing it for Iran. Iran could also strike at Israel or other US friends. Basically, yes, not a full WW2 type war, but something like Vietnam that could drag on for decades. Even if Iran itself were flattened, those thousands of terrorists could carry on.
>Trump told them he isn't leaving until they fork over a couple million for the air base the US built. ---Which they easily could do, if they wanted to. Iraq being a major oil producers. On the other hand, Trump also vowed to put very serious trade restrictions on them if they kick us out, and he can't do that because that would bump the price of oil up very high. Not something he dares do during an election year.
---The real question for us, is it worth it? When some of the Dem candidates ask for universal health care, the Reps ask, who's going to pay for it? So when Trump cranks up the military for something that has already cost us several million in just the past couple of weeks, the Reps should be asking, who's going to pay for it?
---Oh, and in a related note, did you see the reports about Trump spending 1 out of every five days in 2019 at one of his golf businesses? (He dinged Obama for playing too much golf back in 2016. I'll be too busy for that, he said. Rep sheeple. LOL)
---Anyway, every time he goes to one of his places, there's a mob of staff and Secret Service folk who go with him. There's the cost of transporting this herd, plus room and board. Tax money going directly into Trump's pocket. If he played at Camp David, like other presidents, it would cost almost nothing. But he has spent millions since his election just for his gold trips. I want to hear some Reps asking about this. Not likely, eh. 8->
I have read that Trump travels to his properties often. And I've also read that contrary to reports in the fake news, just because there is a golf course doesn't mean he plays golf.
I'll be blunt. The White House is a historic building that is considered an honor to be a resident thereof. At least by people who don't have to actually live there. It is, quite frankly, a dump compared to Trump's private properties. It has not, to my knowledge, been refurbished since Jackie Kennedy undertook the project several decades ago. It is not unreasonable to assume that even those repairs are deteriorating due to age.
I really don't blame Trump for taking a respite from the rat infested hovel to spend time in his own digs. I've seen photos of his property and truthfully, I can't blame the guy.
In addition, since the Democrats have been spying on him since the before he took office and continuing into his term (and probably still are) keeping "on the move" and changing various residences as often as possible is probably best for the sake of security. I applaud him for his efforts in this regard. I would not trust the Democrats with any national security secrets either.
So no, it doesn't bother me that Trump does what he does. In the final analysis the plus column far outweighs the few negatives. He could be more tactful for example, but that's not really a deal breaker as the people he is untactful toward are rude to him and get back as good as they give.
>just because there is a golf course doesn't mean he plays golf. ---Except these are public places, where many people from many nations take pictures of him playing golf all day. He uses these trips to advertise his properties, so loves it when a crowd watches him play. No media bias at all.
>I really don't blame Trump for taking a respite from the rat infested hovel to spend time in his own digs. ---Granted, the WH probably doesn't have gold-plated toilets, but I doubt that it's a rat-infested hovel. I suspect that even as aged as it is, it's still a luxury living space. And again, there's always the government-owned Camp David as a free option.
>I would not trust the Democrats with any national security secrets either. ---Under the Constitution only Congress has the power to get us into a war and only Congress can authorize the money to pay for said war. The president's job is to carry out the laws that Congress passes, not the other way round. Granted, Congress has allowed every president since Roosevelt more and more kingly powers, but the pres is still not a king and Congress still legally has the last word. And this means that all presidents MUST share national security secrets with the appropriate Congressional leaders of both parties, whether he likes it or not. It's the law.
---Now in this case, Trump told Putin about his plans but not the Congressional Dems. Yes, Putin. Any talk of national security concerns is just a joke when the pres is passing on secret info to Putin. (Of course, if Putin really is blackmailing Trump, that would make sense. He has to get permission from his boss before he can act.)
---Now imagine what the Reps would have said if Obama had been caught passing on national security secrets to an enemy of the US and hiding stuff from the Reps that they had a legal right to know. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that. 8->
The White House has been rat infested for decades. The first article about the problem was published in 1935.
Here's one from August of 2019. I picked this one because it was a little more specific in naming rooms where the critters are scampering around.
In case you're interested, there's even a video of a rat (or a mouse depending on which news source you use) dropped from the ceiling into a reporter's lap during a conference. You can Google it for a laugh. So I'm not joking. The place needs to be fumigated, repaired, and probably redecorated. After all, Jackie did her upgrades fifty years ago.
Truth be told, I'd trust Putin before I'd trust Ilhan Omar. And Kerry had been photographed with his buddy the general many times. And Bathhouse Barry and Quid Pro Joe gave pallets of cash in unmarked bills. I could go on and on...
The Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for being considered security risks. Get the traitors out of your ranks and then maybe people will trust you with information again.
Keep in mind that several of Trump's golf resorts have had serious bed bug infestations. Camp David looks better and better all the time. 8->
Also, Trump's BBF Putin sells weapons to Iran. And Russia and Iran are about to do some joint naval exercises in that region. When it come to trust and treason, I don't see that the Reps have any advantage over the Dems as long as Trump is pres. Maybe after he's gone the Reps can do a holier-than-thou bit, but not now.
Well, if Putin is selling Iran weapons, isn't it ducky for Iran that Obama gave them pallets of cash to purchase them?
I kind of doubt Putin is personally handling this transaction. He might be aware of it -- but I don't know how much control he has over what other people do.
After all, we can't control the traitorous Democrats -- so we have to allow for the possibility that Putin may have his share of assholes to deal with too. The funny thing about power is that there is always someone lower on the totem pole who is scheming and conniving to move up higher. They don't necessarily do what they do with the total blessings and approval of the person who is supposed to be in charge.
Why do I think this?
Well -- Putin's wife was in a car accident. According to his own "testimony" (and I mean this in a religious sense) this incident caused Putin to see life "differently". From that point forward, he claims he decided to return to his childhood religious beliefs (which he had apparently long abandoned).
Now I do not know what faith he belongs to (I assume Russian Orthodox) but I do know it is a form of Christianity.
Use your head. Is it at all likely that a man embracing Christianity would team up with Moslems sworn to destroy Christianity? This does not compute.
If there is an appearance of such, either it was done by an underling -- or perhaps there is an ulterior motive. But in no way, shape, or form do I believe Putin would support a Moslem world view particularly if he is, as he claims, "born-again".
Now then -- I ALSO can not in good conscience disagree with Putin's statement that the West is becoming PROGRESSIVEly morally bankrupt. Note the root word "progressive".
So given that the Democrats want to kill delivered babies who survive abortion attempts, subject small children to sexual information at inappropriate ages, remove laws governing prosecution of crimes at the expense of victims and other atrocities -- I personally feel we have more to fear from the traitorous Democrats in our midst.
I do not fear a BOGEYMAN in a near bankrupt country on the other side of the globe. The true enemy is within our midst.
>Well, if Putin is selling Iran weapons, isn't it ducky for Iran that Obama gave them pallets of cash to purchase them? ---Didn't happen. 7 nations, including the US, made a deal to give Iran back some of the money that was frozen in the west at the time of the overthrow off the Shah. It was their money that we (and others) have been holding. In return, Iran promised to stop developing nukes and to allow outside inspectors to verify. (We still have more Iranian money here and in Europe.) Trump unilaterally withdrew from the treaty and now Iran has said it will go back to developing nuclear weapons.
>I kind of doubt Putin is personally handling this transaction. He might be aware of it -- but I don't know how much control he has over what other people do. ---It's a dictatorship. Putin not only knows about every major weapon sale, he has to approve it.
>Use your head. Is it at all likely that a man embracing Christianity would team up with Moslems sworn to destroy Christianity? ---(A) Not all Muslims hate Christianity. (B) There are many Christians who have vowed to wipe out Islam. (C) When it comes to political power, people will make deals with whoever can give them what they want. By supporting Iran, Putin weakens the US in the Middle East. Iran is no threat to Russia or the Russian Orthodox Church, so it is not the choice you present.
>So given that the Democrats want to kill delivered babies who survive abortion attempts, subject small children to sexual information at inappropriate ages, remove laws governing prosecution of crimes at the expense of victims and other atrocities ---Again, there may be individual Dems who support some of this stuff, but the Party as a whole does not. There are Reps who are White Nationalists, Reps who beat their wives, Reps who are homosexual, Reps who want to destroy the Catholic Church (the Pope is the Anti-Christ), etc., but that doesn't mean that the Republican Party supports any of these beliefs. Trump said that windmills cause brain cancer. Does that mean that the Rep Party favors outlawing all windmills? 8->