Will President Trump run for a second term?

[spot]

The attempts at character assassination are constant but this today is a new low even for the Guardian. President Trump tweeted (and this is the first tweet ever I've quoted on this site): Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

June 7, 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... tweet-nasa



The Guardian's interpretation? "Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

It's a tweet. The meaning is clear to anyone - the focus of public discussion should be larger than just the 2024 moon return, the integrated strategy which NASA has been tasked with includes a permanent US Mars presence for which establishing a US moonbase from 2024 is a necessary stage. It's abbreviated because it's a tweet but the idea that the President thinks the moon is a part of Mars is just abusive. He says their current mission includes creating a Mars base (of which the Moon build-up is a part), and he threw in a sop to the Pentagon to keep his unemployable Rottweilers from barking.

Things would be so much nicer if people stayed reasonable instead of trying to score points with cheap jokes.

[LarsMac]

Truck Fump

[Ahso!]

spot;1523220 wrote: The attempts at character assassination are constant but this today is a new low even for the Guardian. President Trump tweeted (and this is the first tweet ever I've quoted on this site): Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

June 7, 2019

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... tweet-nasa

The Guardian's interpretation? "Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

It's a tweet. The meaning is clear to anyone - the focus of public discussion should be larger than just the 2024 moon return, the integrated strategy which NASA has been tasked with includes a permanent US Mars presence for which establishing a US moonbase from 2024 is a necessary stage. It's abbreviated because it's a tweet but the idea that the President thinks the moon is a part of Mars is just abusive. He says their current mission includes creating a Mars base (of which the Moon build-up is a part), and he threw in a sop to the Pentagon to keep his unemployable Rottweilers from barking.

Things would be so much nicer if people stayed reasonable instead of trying to score points with cheap jokes.


Most people see this the same way you do, which is one of the several ways the dems and media lend credence to Trump's "fake news" mantra.

[LarsMac]

Trump is, to say the least, an imbecile of the highest order.

But it is necessary to remember that he did not get where he is all by his lonesome.

The incessant chattering of the press only serves to distract from the antics of the political schemers on both sides of the aisle.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1523234 wrote: Trump is, to say the least, an imbecile of the highest order.




Assuming the context is political, how are you defining "imbecile"?

[spot]

The author of the opinion piece - Adam Gabbatt @ adamgabbatt New York - should be embarrassed at what he wrote. And dropped by the Guardian too. It's what you'd expect from a witless aren't-I-funny ********, not a reporter.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1523235 wrote: Assuming the context is political, how are you defining "imbecile"?


We can keep it simple, and go with Merriam-Webster

Or we can expand on the concept:

Synonyms & Antonyms for imbecile

Synonyms

airhead, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, bubblehead, chowderhead, chucklehead, clodpoll (or clodpole), clot [British], cluck, clunk, cretin, cuddy (or cuddie) [British dialect], deadhead, dim bulb [slang], dimwit, dip, dodo, dolt, donkey, doofus [slang], dope, dork [slang], dullard, dum-dum, dumbbell, dumbhead, dummkopf, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fathead, gander, golem, goof, goon, half-wit, hammerhead, hardhead, idiot, ignoramus, jackass, know-nothing, knucklehead, lamebrain, loggerhead [chiefly dialect], loon, lump, lunkhead, meathead, mome [archaic], moron, mug [chiefly British], mutt, natural, nimrod [slang], nincompoop, ninny, ninnyhammer, nit [chiefly British], nitwit, noddy, noodle, numskull (or numbskull), oaf, pinhead, prat [British], ratbag [chiefly Australian], saphead, schlub (also shlub) [slang], schnook [slang], simpleton, stock, stupe, stupid, thickhead, turkey, woodenhead, yahoo, yo-yo

Antonyms

brain, genius

[Ahso!]

I know the definition of the word, I was hoping for some specific examples in a political context to justify it. I would apply imbecile to anyone (including this president as well as any) who'd agree that capitalism has proven to have any basis in social or economic equality.

[Ahso!]

Are you all typing out the paragraph breaks? What's the deal with that?

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1523238 wrote: I know the definition of the word, I was hoping for some specific examples in a political context to justify it. I would apply imbecile to anyone (including this president as well as any) who'd agree that capitalism has proven to have any basis in social or economic equality.


He turns out examples of his political prowess every day.

However, he was an imbecile, long before he got into the Political arena.

[YZGI]

I'm trying to think of one single thing the Dems and most of the Reps have done to help this country. They think they were elected to try and get Trump out of being the duly elected POTUS. If they would just let him be POTUS and do their jobs, maybe just maybe we can work towards a better USA.

They spent two years and god knows how much money on bogus claims made up. If anyone is guilty of obstructing its the Dems, mainly because thats all they have done for over 2 years, they have not lifted a finger in any other way except to block any and evry move of the POTUS and that is not what their jobs are.

I know people hate Trump but that does NOT change the fact that he was legally elected POTUS. Get over yourselves and try to do the jobs you were elected to do. The way I see it Trump is the only one doing the job he was elected to do, all others are just obstructing and I believe its because they are scared that Trump is not a lifetime politician and they want status quo so they can continue their good ole boys network which makes them all rich at the cost to the average American.

[AnneBoleyn]

YZGI;1523248 wrote: I'm trying to think of one single thing the Dems and most of the Reps have done to help this country. They think they were elected to try and get Trump out of being the duly elected POTUS. If they would just let him be POTUS and do their jobs, maybe just maybe we can work towards a better USA.

They spent two years and god knows how much money on bogus claims made up. If anyone is guilty of obstructing its the Dems, mainly because thats all they have done for over 2 years, they have not lifted a finger in any other way except to block any and evry move of the POTUS and that is not what their jobs are.

I know people hate Trump but that does NOT change the fact that he was legally elected POTUS. Get over yourselves and try to do the jobs you were elected to do. The way I see it Trump is the only one doing the job he was elected to do, all others are just obstructing and I believe its because they are scared that Trump is not a lifetime politician and they want status quo so they can continue their good ole boys network which makes them all rich at the cost to the average American.


The Democrats ARE doing the job they were elected to do. They did win the House back last year and all bills they work on are blocked by Mitch Mcconnell, the real obstructor. They were also elected to investigate Trump, and they are, though not as passionately as I would want. He is a con and a crook and if you knew the man as long as New Yorkers have you would know this. He is an aberration.

[YZGI]

AnneBoleyn;1523269 wrote: The Democrats ARE doing the job they were elected to do. They did win the House back last year and all bills they work on are blocked by Mitch Mcconnell, the real obstructor. They were also elected to investigate Trump, and they are, though not as passionately as I would want. He is a con and a crook and if you knew the man as long as New Yorkers have you would know this. He is an aberration.


So, their ONLY job is to investigate the legally elected POTUS?

Maybe if they cared more about our country, and less about blocking every move the POTUS tries to make we could get some things done to help our citizens.

[spot]

AnneBoleyn;1523269 wrote: He is a con and a crook and if you knew the man as long as New Yorkers have you would know this. He is an aberration.


Would it not be better for the nation to allow the office of President to function even though he holds it? I'm interested to know why you think otherwise.

[AnneBoleyn]

YZGI;1523272 wrote: So, their ONLY job is to investigate the legally elected POTUS?

Maybe if they cared more about our country, and less about blocking every move the POTUS tries to make we could get some things done to help our citizens.


You can't get anything done with Mcconnell blocking all the bills passed by House. They can walk & chew gum at the same time. They have been working but Mcconnell won't allow bills to be heard by Senate.

[AnneBoleyn]

spot;1523273 wrote: Would it not be better for the nation to allow the office of President to function even though he holds it? I'm interested to know why you think otherwise.


Where is he not functioning? It is he who refuses to do his job. While under impeachment Clinton still worked with Congress.

[G#Gill]

AnneBoleyn;1523269 wrote: The Democrats ARE doing the job they were elected to do. They did win the House back last year and all bills they work on are blocked by Mitch Mcconnell, the real obstructor. They were also elected to investigate Trump, and they are, though not as passionately as I would want. He is a con and a crook and if you knew the man as long as New Yorkers have you would know this. He is an aberration.


Then WHY was he voted in as President ? You Americans are as daft as us Brits ! Gill hangs her head in despair and shuffles away to the peace and quiet of her study and the temptation of a good book to carry on reading. ('ere, did you like that bit about my 'study' - a lot of folks call that room a lavatory, and some even give it a name 'John' Oops, sorry Mr. spot !)

[spot]

G#Gill;1523284 wrote: ('ere, did you like that bit about my 'study' - a lot of folks call that room a lavatory, and some even give it a name 'John' Oops, sorry Mr. spot !)


What you must bear in mind is that I'm sat in the study replying to your post.

[Ahso!]

YZGI;1523272 wrote: So, their ONLY job is to investigate the legally elected POTUS?

Maybe if they cared more about our country, and less about blocking every move the POTUS tries to make we could get some things done to help our citizens.


Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”



https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/ ... dge-044311

[YZGI]

Ahso!;1523287 wrote: Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”



Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”



https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/ ... dge-044311


Yes, and it was just as stupid then as it is now. The same good ole boy network is in both parties. I'm tired of it. People seem too stupid to vote out all these incumbents (on both sides) that have no agenda but to get wealthy off the backs of tax payers.

[LarsMac]

G#Gill;1523284 wrote: Then WHY was he voted in as President ? You Americans are as daft as us Brits ! Gill hangs her head in despair and shuffles away to the peace and quiet of her study and the temptation of a good book to carry on reading. ('ere, did you like that bit about my 'study' - a lot of folks call that room a lavatory, and some even give it a name 'John' Oops, sorry Mr. spot !)


spot;1523286 wrote: What you must bear in mind is that I'm sat in the study replying to your post.


Yeppers.

The perfect location for studying Politics, it is.

[Ahso!]

YZGI;1523288 wrote: Yes, and it was just as stupid then as it is now. The same good ole boy network is in both parties. I'm tired of it. People seem too stupid to vote out all these incumbents (on both sides) that have no agenda but to get wealthy off the backs of tax payers.


Most of the people in the wings are only good-ole-boy in waiting that have come up through the same political system. I think it's better to define the overall underlying issue that sustains the network you speak of that profits off the taxpayer.



What do you think that might be? I think the problem is capitalism.

[tude dog]

YZGI;1523272 wrote: So, their ONLY job is to investigate the legally elected POTUS?

Maybe if they cared more about our country, and less about blocking every move the POTUS tries to make we could get some things done to help our citizens.


Don is anything but stupid, or whatever.

I personally find the guy a loathsome lout. but that is a personal evaluation of his lack of character.

It is at best difficult for me to give him credit for anything he has accomplish as he spares no opportunity to boost.

Given the corrupt animal Hillary and the Lout never voted for either.



Considering the failure of the Obama administration hate to say it but Trump is a relief.

On the first day the Lout was elected many Dems called for impeachment.

Sore losers without a policy suggestion, except to frustrate the President.

[Ted]

In my view Trump is a dangerous man.

[YZGI]

Ahso!;1523294 wrote: Most of the people in the wings are only good-ole-boy in waiting that have come up through the same political system. I think it's better to define the overall underlying issue that sustains the network you speak of that profits off the taxpayer.



What do you think that might be? I think the problem is capitalism.


To my knowledge Socialism doesn't seem to work, so capitalism may not be perfect but it seems to lead to overall better lives for most than socialism has shown.

[Ahso!]

YZGI;1523300 wrote: To my knowledge Socialism doesn't seem to work, so capitalism may not be perfect but it seems to lead to overall better lives for most than socialism has shown.


Who said anything about "Socialism" or "overall better lives for most"? I thought we were discussing corruption in American Politics and what we saw as the root cause. I gave you my best guess. What's yours? Clearly, electing non-incumbents hasn't been working for the reasons I already stated.

[gmc]

YZGI;1523300 wrote: To my knowledge Socialism doesn't seem to work, so capitalism may not be perfect but it seems to lead to overall better lives for most than socialism has shown.


You should try visiting just about any european country most of which are social democracies the welfare states in uk france and germany are all the result of socialist policies. Socialism actuallyb takes it's lead from the writings of adam smith who far from being a free marketeer advocated the payment of deecent wages, universal and free education with access to higher education and government action to prevent the rise of cartels and monopolies and that some things were too important to be left to market forces like unfrastructure for instance - it being essential to eccourage business growth.

Imagine living in a country where if you are ill and you go to a doctor the fiurst question is where does it hurt not ghow much money do you have.

[spot]

YZGI;1523300 wrote: To my knowledge Socialism doesn't seem to work, so capitalism may not be perfect but it seems to lead to overall better lives for most than socialism has shown.


I realize Americans have been indoctrinated since birth to loathe the word Socialism, but America is even so a Socialist nation. The word is anathema but the notion is a necessity. Allow me to persuade you as follows.

Let's invent a new country just in the thread, Ourland. We happy few are the designers of Ourland. At some stage we can give it a Constitution and design its governance but there are questions to answer first before we we can go that far.

Let's keep it simple and say that the only people allowed on Ourland's soil are citizens of Ourland. All citizens are human.

Do we choose to allow citizens with no resources to die for lack of food or water or shelter? Would we like to let some categories of citizen die in such circumstance but provide relief for other categories?

The thing is, if we have any category of citizen to whom we will provide relief as a duty of the nation, then we're introducing socialism. We've had members on ForumGarden who have said no, no relief regardless of category, they can live or die on the handouts of charities but the government of Ourland should have no mandate to intervene. They say this because Socialism is, in their opinion, Bad. Charities on the other hand, they add, can show benevolence to any category of citizen they consider deserving.

You'll remember the old joke?“Well,” says the gentleman, “just for the sake of our argument, suppose I offered you $1000 - would you sleep with me?” The lady, smiling coquettishly: “Who knows - I might very well!” The gentleman: “Now suppose I offer you $10 for the night?” The lady: “What do you think I am!” The gentleman: “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

So what kind of country do you want? You can go on to discuss possible categories of deserving or abandoned, and whether education or other functions should be included alongside food, water and shelter, but you have to start with that yes/no choice of ever intervening for social reasons in the first place. If you allow any category then I suggest we've already established that Socialism has a necessary place in Ourland.

[LarsMac]

YZGI;1523300 wrote: To my knowledge Socialism doesn't seem to work, so capitalism may not be perfect but it seems to lead to overall better lives for most than socialism has shown.


There are plenty of examples of Socialism actually working. Even here in the Good Ol' US of A.

Just like there are plenty of examples to be found of Capitalism failing dismally.

Much of the world uses some form of a hybrid system.

[YZGI]

Ahso!;1523304 wrote: Who said anything about "Socialism" or "overall better lives for most"? I thought we were discussing corruption in American Politics and what we saw as the root cause. I gave you my best guess. What's yours? Clearly, electing non-incumbents hasn't been working for the reasons I already stated.


My best guess, would be greed, corruption and the 2 party system. Does capitalism cause this? Your guess is as good as mine. Term limits and less perks would be a start to curbing it somewhat.

[YZGI]

spot;1523306 wrote: I realize Americans have been indoctrinated since birth to loathe the word Socialism, but America is even so a Socialist nation. The word is anathema but the notion is a necessity. Allow me to persuade you as follows.

Let's invent a new country just in the thread, Ourland. We happy few are the designers of Ourland. At some stage we can give it a Constitution and design its governance but there are questions to answer first before we we can go that far.

Let's keep it simple and say that the only people allowed on Ourland's soil are citizens of Ourland. All citizens are human.

Do we choose to allow citizens with no resources to die for lack of food or water or shelter? Would we like to let some categories of citizen die in such circumstance but provide relief for other categories?

The thing is, if we have any category of citizen to whom we will provide relief as a duty of the nation, then we're introducing socialism. We've had members on ForumGarden who have said no, no relief regardless of category, they can live or die on the handouts of charities but the government of Ourland should have no mandate to intervene. They say this because Socialism is, in their opinion, Bad. Charities on the other hand, they add, can show benevolence to any category of citizen they consider deserving.

You'll remember the old joke?“Well,” says the gentleman, “just for the sake of our argument, suppose I offered you $1000 - would you sleep with me?” The lady, smiling coquettishly: “Who knows - I might very well!” The gentleman: “Now suppose I offer you $10 for the night?” The lady: “What do you think I am!” The gentleman: “We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”

So what kind of country do you want? You can go on to discuss possible categories of deserving or abandoned, and whether education or other functions should be included alongside food, water and shelter, but you have to start with that yes/no choice of ever intervening for social reasons in the first place. If you allow any category then I suggest we've already established that Socialism has a necessary place in Ourland.


I do realize that the US has many social services that would be considered a form of socialism. And yes we have been conditioned to hate "socialism" and are constantly shown examples of the "failures" of socialism. i.e. ( Venezuela, Cuba etc. etc.)

[LarsMac]

YZGI;1523309 wrote: I do realize that the US has many social services that would be considered a form of socialism. And yes we have been conditioned to hate "socialism" and are constantly shown examples of the "failures" of socialism. i.e. ( Venezuela, Cuba etc. etc.)


The problem seems to be the mixing of politics and economics.

Political Corruption is rampant in all forms of economic systems, and there is where the problem lies, IMHO.

Freemarket Capitalism simply makes it a bit easier for all the players to keep score.

[Ted]

I have no more trust in Trump than I have in Putin.

[Ted]

YZGI it could be a disease like "Lackus of Brainus.

[YZGI]

Ted;1523314 wrote: YZGI it could be a disease like "Lackus of Brainus.


LOL. You could be right, or it might be TDS Trump derangement syndrome.

I never said I like Trump personally, but exactly what has he done as POTUS that would make you distrust him like Putin?

[spot]

I'm quite puzzled that anyone rationally mistrusts President Putin, if it comes to that.

[AnneBoleyn]

YZGI;1523315 wrote: LOL. You could be right, or it might be TDS Trump derangement syndrome.

I never said I like Trump personally, but exactly what has he done as POTUS that would make you distrust him like Putin?


TDS also stands for Trump Delusion Syndrome which is what his base suffers from. As for your second remark, try this on for size, hot off the presses:

"President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign."

"Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-excl ... d=63669304

This breaks the law. The campaign finance laws prohibit accepting not just money, but anything of value from a foreign source.

[LarsMac]

Ted;1523311 wrote: I have no more trust in Trump than I have in Putin.


I trust Putin a damn site more that I would ever trust the Trumpster.

Putin is actually quite predictable.

[YZGI]

AnneBoleyn;1523319 wrote: TDS also stands for Trump Delusion Syndrome which is what his base suffers from. As for your second remark, try this on for size, hot off the presses:

"President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign."

"Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-excl ... d=63669304

This breaks the law. The campaign finance laws prohibit accepting not just money, but anything of value from a foreign source.


That would be the same FBI that illegally spied on him during the last election..Hmm

I think all candidates would accept dirt on any and all of their opponents. Including creepy Joe.

[YZGI]

LarsMac;1523322 wrote: I trust Putin a damn site more that I would ever trust the Trumpster.

Putin is actually quite predictable.


This bothers me, because I thought you were at least somewhat open minded and not just blinded by the rhetoric.

Do you at least hope Trump is successful in his Presidency or do you also wish him to fail at all costs no matter what it does to the USA?

[YZGI]

AnneBoleyn;1523319 wrote: TDS also stands for Trump Delusion Syndrome which is what his base suffers from. As for your second remark, try this on for size, hot off the presses:

"President Donald Trump may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign."

"Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-excl ... d=63669304



This breaks the law. The campaign finance laws prohibit accepting not just money, but anything of value from a foreign source.
You also might want to look into who paid for the Steele dossier before you condemn Trump on something he has NOT done yet.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/p ... ained.html

[LarsMac]

YZGI;1523324 wrote: This bothers me, because I thought you were at least somewhat open minded and not just blinded by the rhetoric.

Do you at least hope Trump is successful in his Presidency or do you also wish him to fail at all costs no matter what it does to the USA?


I am relatively open-minded.

However, I have known what Trump is since long before he even thought about running for president.

I do not wish for him to fail as president. Though we may have different definitions of what would constitute success of failure for an American President.



He has no real agenda. He is winging it, and listening to the wrong people.

Please tell me what he has actually accomplished that you would call a success.

[spot]

LarsMac;1523326 wrote: Please tell me what he has actually accomplished that you would call a success.


Is it fair to say he's reined in the Pentagon?

NASA has long-term manned exploration instructions for the first time in half a century?

The economy is in permanent overdrive?

[AnneBoleyn]

YZGI;1523323 wrote: That would be the same FBI that illegally spied on him during the last election..Hmm

I think all candidates would accept dirt on any and all of their opponents. Including creepy Joe.


Nothing illegal about it. Trump offered up enough suspicions about himself that would have made FBI derelict in their duty NOT to investigate. Accepting dirt from a Foreign Source is against the law.

[Ted]

Yep.

[spot]

AnneBoleyn;1523330 wrote: Accepting dirt from a Foreign Source is against the law.No. Commissioning it might be illegal if it's obtained illegally. Colluding with the gatherers might even be illegal if it's obtained illegally. Accepting and using it from the public domain once it's been released can't possibly be against the law, even if it's obtained illegally.

Unless I'm mistaken, of course, in which case I'd be delighted to have an accurate citation to learn from. I can't actively demonstrate something doesn't exist, that trip-wire has existed throughout ForumGarden's history, but I can and will change my mind when shown as a demonstrable fact that something is in fact illegal.

[YZGI]

LarsMac;1523326 wrote: I am relatively open-minded.

However, I have known what Trump is since long before he even thought about running for president.

I do not wish for him to fail as president. Though we may have different definitions of what would constitute success of failure for an American President.



He has no real agenda. He is winging it, and listening to the wrong people.

Please tell me what he has actually accomplished that you would call a success.


He is at least trying to curb illegal immigration even though the Dems are trying to block his every move. Surely you are not for open borders.

He is trying to get better trade deals with our trading partners even though he is being undermined in every single move by the Dems.For what reason I have no Idea, I would assume you would be for better trade deals for the US.

Unemployment rates are at a all time low for all classes of citizens, (Black, Women, etc etc)

The fine for not having Obamacare was done away with. I never understood fining people for not being able to afford healthcare..

As Spot mentioned the economy is soaring.

We haven't taken out anymore world leaders and started anymore wars.

I realize he will never get any credit but if these and other things were going a different direction he damn sure would be getting the blame.

Oh, and I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be taking the side of Trump, but I cannot stand watching what the Dems are doing. They are putting every single effort to block and obstruct Trump for no other reason than they don't like him and or because Hillary lost. It's like watching grade school children throwing temper tantrums.

[Bryn Mawr]

YZGI;1523309 wrote: I do realize that the US has many social services that would be considered a form of socialism. And yes we have been conditioned to hate "socialism" and are constantly shown examples of the "failures" of socialism. i.e. ( Venezuela, Cuba etc. etc.)


Can you name another country that survived the level of (unjustifiable) economic sanctions the US imposed for so many decades - far from being a failure Cuba shows what can be done in a desperate situation.

[Bryn Mawr]

YZGI;1523323 wrote: That would be the same FBI that illegally spied on him during the last election..Hmm

I think all candidates would accept dirt on any and all of their opponents. Including creepy Joe.


Is it not the FBI's mandated function to investigate any suspected breach of federal law?

[YZGI]

Bryn Mawr;1523352 wrote: Is it not the FBI's mandated function to investigate any suspected breach of federal law?


There was zero evidence of a breach of federal law.