Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: NathanI assumed that when then President Candidate Donald Trump said he would build a wall around US to keep illegal immigrants out and have Mexicans pay for it, he was just being factitious and was talking out of his butt. As he became President, it seemed more and more that he was being SERIOUS, which is frightening. Luckily, rational people talked some sense into him and got him to realize how STUPID the wall thing really was and got him to back down. Thank God.
Perhaps a wall along the whole border is a bit "out there" but it is rather funny that even leading Democrats called for a barrier of some sort over the past few years.
I am wondering if, when Trump is out of office, they'll flip back to favoring that type of border security... I see their inability to compromise on at least a portion of the barrier up until now as purely them being against Trump and disregarding prior concerns for potential political gain. Democrats have an upper hand in the legislative arena with split chambers; that leaves them open for more blame for what does/does not happen over the next year or two.
If you talk about defense of our border against illegal entry as a battle, you would remember from previous battles that air power (drones, electronic surveillance, etc.) almost always has to be augmented with ground forces (barriers and people, in this case) to win the day. Since we aren't actually using the air weapons in this battle, only their observational power (which, of course, is the only thing we can or should do), the control on the ground becomes more important.
Quote: lilredroosteranother Trump ass kissing clown bites the dust
won't be long Bozo himself will go down - one way or another
what a great day that will be
This was huge news yesterday. No, not really. Roger Stone has been getting weekly phone calls on Thursday night for months asking how he feels about the fact he will be arrested the next day.
He got the full FBI treatment because of his open attacks on the charges he knew were on the way. Amazingly, reports say that no lights appeared to be on when the FBI knocked. Stone comes out clean shaven. Yeah, he was shocked and surprised.
We still have process crimes and tax evasion stuff. Will it go further than that? Who knows. I am 100% sure no one here really knows.
Quote: RonCI am wondering if, when Trump is out of office, they'll flip back to favoring that type of border security...
You can stop wondering.
How many videos have we seen of some pasty faced, MAGA-hat-wearing d-bag screaming “BUILD THE WALL!” in the face of some other American, who just happens to not be white.
The “wall” has become a symbol of Trump and his base’s racism. Dems will never support it now.
Start here, Fleaswatter.
Quote:Quote: Fleaswatter
Hmmm, so dedicated Federal employees, WHO WILL RECEIVE BACK PAY, are putting their dislike of the President ahead of safety in the air?
I hope that there is some process available to punish or even fire those federal workers who seem not to care about the safety of air travelers.
I said,
Quote:What??
Boy, you just don't get it.
.... (very long and involved explanation of what you - hopefully - didn't know before you made that post) ...
Thanks for pushing my buttons with your ignorance and malice.
You said,
Quote: FleaswatterI will reply to the rest of your thread another time but I find these words very insulting.
I would probably get suspended if I said them.
I ended my post with poor phrasing, and for that I apologize.
I was saying, and still think, that your post showed a huge lack of knowledge, both of the controller shortage situation in general, the particulars of what the shutdown had done to their support system, AND that despite the extreme hardship placed on them, ATC had shown up every day and taken it on their backs to minimize the effect of the shutdown on the industry and the flying public by making a superhuman effort for 5 weeks, with no pay.
Perhaps you were confused about who was sicking out. TSA reportedly had increased sickouts, but they do the security prior to the gates and at boarding. Totally different set of employees, different agency, has NOTHING to do with separation of airplanes whIle airborne.
Either way, your post demonstrated a profound ignorance of the situation. Ignorance is not equivalent to stupidity, and is usually mitigated by learning and understanding the facts. I would have liked to see some acknowledgement from you that despite your taking offense, you were now better informed and perhaps might rethink YOUR insulting comments, but that didn't happen. Which reinforced my impression that your first post was malicious in intent.
The post's malice is inherent in your demanding that people who WERE working every day in good faith while being used as pawns be punished or fired for their audacity in...what? being sick after over a month of dedication and uncertainty? How do you even go there without knowing anything about what is actually happening? I don't understand that at all.
But the last sentence was a bookend to the first, referred to the post that offended me, and not intended to insult you personally, even when taken out of context. I think your criticism of it as a stand-alone is valid, and so I do apologize for leaving that impression.
Quote: RonCPerhaps a wall along the whole border is a bit "out there" but it is rather funny that even leading Democrats called for a barrier of some sort over the past few years.
I am wondering if, when Trump is out of office, they'll flip back to favoring that type of border security... I see their inability to compromise on at least a portion of the barrier up until now as purely them being against Trump and disregarding prior concerns for potential political gain. Democrats have an upper hand in the legislative arena with split chambers; that leaves them open for more blame for what does/does not happen over the next year or two.
If you talk about defense of our border against illegal entry as a battle, you would remember from previous battles that air power (drones, electronic surveillance, etc.) almost always has to be augmented with ground forces (barriers and people, in this case) to win the day. Since we aren't actually using the air weapons in this battle, only their observational power (which, of course, is the only thing we can or should do), the control on the ground becomes more important.
Why do people mince Trump's promises and try to say that the Dems wanted the same thing? Trump's campaign theme was 'build that wall'. Here are the words that he said during his campaign:
"I will build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."
"We need a big and beautiful wall."
"I think everyone here knows, nobody can build a wall like Trump"
"We must build a great wall between Mexico and the United States"
As long as Trump insists on funding for a "wall" he won't get it. Walls don't work at stopping drugs. Just take a look at the El Chapo trial where they describe how drugs were moved - through legal points of entry (in hidden ocompartments or within containers), via tunnels, fishing boats, and trains.
But more importantly the Dems must demonstrate support for border security by passing bills that include money for surveillance, interdiction, personnel, and yes in some places where human trafficking is an issue, walls, yet ensure that trump cannot fulfill his campaign promise.
In the meantime this stalemate and action by the trump regime (via executive order) has cost lives and forced millions of lives of immigrants (both legal and illegal) into uncertainty.
Quote: RonCI see their inability to compromise on at least a portion of the barrier up until now as purely them being against Trump and disregarding prior concerns for potential political gain.
I didn't see Trump doing much but overturning agreements for two years, and doing most everything with a pen he could manage, not asking for consolation from Democrats. He could have just as well told them to pound sand most of the time. Oh well.
Quote: boymimboWhy do people mince Trump's promises and try to say that the Dems wanted the same thing?.
I did not do that. I even specifically said "Perhaps a wall along the whole border is a bit "out there"", which specifically acknowledges that parts of President Trump's grandiose "big, beautiful" was a stretch.
The Democrats have supported a border barrier in the past. Their lack of support of coming to a compromise--or even to what could amount to a "win" for them by only approving as much as has been approved before--is their hatred of the President. Shouldn't they temper their hatred with doing things that are the right thing to do? It seems like the best thing for the United States would be to construct a barrier of some sort and bolster the value of the barrier with surveillance, along with additional personnel.
In this scenario, President Trump may well lose some support with his base even while further securing the border. Not keeping a major campaign promise could be a huge problem. My guess is that it is better for him to get nothing while fighting for everything may end up being better for him in 2020 than the Democrats being able to say that they were the reasonable folks in the room and we got more border security. I know he may have lost on this round of the issue, but losing a round is not the end of the fight.
Quote: terapinedIn all seriousness
If there was an incident where huge crowd of injured people came into your emergency overwhelming the staff
Would you sit back and smile telling all your co-workers this is "job security"????????
Taking care of your patients is why they pay you so you are ok with overwhelmed emergency rooms
Well.... my comment was not meant very seriously..... But we DO say that after a bunch of gun violence requiring my expertise..... Yep, it is 'job security'..... I worked 16 straight hours Thursday into Friday mostly because of a single gunshot victim.....
Quote: RonCI did not do that. I even specifically said "Perhaps a wall along the whole border is a bit "out there"", which specifically acknowledges that parts of President Trump's grandiose "big, beautiful" was a stretch.
The Democrats have supported a border barrier in the past. Their lack of support of coming to a compromise--or even to what could amount to a "win" for them by only approving as much as has been approved before--is their hatred of the President. Shouldn't they temper their hatred with doing things that are the right thing to do? It seems like the best thing for the United States would be to construct a barrier of some sort and bolster the value of the barrier with surveillance, along with additional personnel.
In this scenario, President Trump may well lose some support with his base even while further securing the border. Not keeping a major campaign promise could be a huge problem. My guess is that it is better for him to get nothing while fighting for everything may end up being better for him in 2020 than the Democrats being able to say that they were the reasonable folks in the room and we got more border security. I know he may have lost on this round of the issue, but losing a round is not the end of the fight.
I think it's somewhere in the middle. Trump was very specific on building a literal, medieval wall hundreds of times in the campaign. Then as president, he has been changing his terms to a figurative "wall" and conflating border security with it, claiming Democrats don't want border security. They have never said that, and have funded it many times in the past.
Trump also continues to push for the "wall" within the context of racist claims, outlandish and distorted "facts" and outright lies, and constantly changing parameters. As someone astutely pointed out above, FOR THE BASE, the wall represents the legitimization of his entire litany of bigotry, isolationism, and hatred.
So, as that symbol, supporting that attitude, for the Dems it can't be allowed to be built. It's the same fight as removing the Confederate flag from South Carolina and the statues of Confederate generals from the South. MAGA has become emblematic of that same ideology. Anyone who wears the hat is now understood to embrace white supremacy and the oppression of other races.
Back to the wall. If the usual bigoted screed is ignored from Trump's Oval Office address and Rose Garden speeches, he and the Democrats are actually in accord about border security. There are places where a physical barrier should be funded, in conjunction with drones, cameras, other interdiction measures, and full staffing. They're both saying that, with Trump the one who has moved - the Dems have been saying it all along.
So the issue becomes, in part, that instead of working to their mutual benefit, there MUST under Trump be a winner and a loser. I bet his approval rating would shoot up 20 points overnight if he just dropped that requirement (winning at any cost) in favor of doing what he already says he wants, but in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the entire country, not just his base. But his character flaws won't let him go there.
Quote: RonCI did not do that. I even specifically said "Perhaps a wall along the whole border is a bit "out there"", which specifically acknowledges that parts of President Trump's grandiose "big, beautiful" was a stretch.
The Democrats have supported a border barrier in the past. Their lack of support of coming to a compromise--or even to what could amount to a "win" for them by only approving as much as has been approved before--is their hatred of the President. Shouldn't they temper their hatred with doing things that are the right thing to do? It seems like the best thing for the United States would be to construct a barrier of some sort and bolster the value of the barrier with surveillance, along with additional personnel.
In this scenario, President Trump may well lose some support with his base even while further securing the border. Not keeping a major campaign promise could be a huge problem. My guess is that it is better for him to get nothing while fighting for everything may end up being better for him in 2020 than the Democrats being able to say that they were the reasonable folks in the room and we got more border security. I know he may have lost on this round of the issue, but losing a round is not the end of the fight.
Democrats did not support a border wall in the way that Trump is proposing now. What they supported then is not what is being proposed now.
In 2016, Trump called the 2006 plan "a little fence" that could be scaled with a ladder.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/
Just this past week, Democrats were proposing putting 5B into the budget for enhanced border security, which includes sections of fencing and walls.
In short, the Democrats oppose a 30B ocean-to-gulf continuous barrier or wall, of which Trump wanted 5B to get started, but they are not opposed to walls or enhanced border security.
"Democrats" obviously does not include Pelosi, who has been stridently opposed to any "wall," or else she ought to have brought it to the floor of the House.Quote: Dalex64In short, the Democrats oppose a 30B ocean-to-gulf continuous barrier or wall, of which Trump wanted 5B to get started, but they are not opposed to walls or enhanced border security.
Last month, in a very publicized event, the border patrol seized 700 pounds of drugs, the largest seizure in that sector for 18 months. Coast Guard ships do this daily. 36,000 pounds of drugs were interdicted in two months around the port of San Diego in 2018, the last stats I could find.
Want to stop drugs coming into this country? Go after the ships bringing in tons at a time. Trumps emergency order that was leaked calls for seven billion to build a wall or fence, and nothing for the Coast Guard.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/
A solution presents itselfQuote: billryanI've seen in several reports now that the US Coast Guard can only interdict 25% of ships suspected of transporting drugs in the Gulf of Mexico/ Florida sector. By their own stats, 3/4 of ships suspected of being used by drug cartels aren't even searched before entering the US.
Last month, in a very publicized event, the border patrol seized 700 pounds of drugs, the largest seizure in that sector for 18 months. Coast Guard ships do this daily. 36,000 pounds of drugs were interdicted in two months around the port of San Diego in 2018, the last stats I could find.
Want to stop drugs coming into this country? Go after the ships bringing in tons at a time. Trumps emergency order that was leaked calls for seven billion to build a wall or fence, and nothing for the Coast Guard.
Quote: RonCThe Democrats have supported a border barrier in the past. Their lack of support of coming to a compromise--or even to what could amount to a "win" for them by only approving as much as has been approved before--is their hatred of the President. Shouldn't they temper their hatred with doing things that are the right thing to do?
Based on this logic, the Republican majority for the first two years of Trump's presidency also hated him -- they wouldn't give him The Wall either.
Quote: RonCIt seems like the best thing for the United States would be to construct a barrier of some sort and bolster the value of the barrier with surveillance, along with additional personnel.
Unfortunately, Trump is making it very clear that he does not want border security. Trump is also making it clear that, while he won't fix the symptoms (lack of The Wall), he won't touch the root of the problem either. Where is mandatory e-verify and a wall around the Welfare State? Both of which would cut off the reason people are coming here.
Good link.Quote: Dalex64Yep. 80 to 90 percent of the drugs mentioned in this article are smuggled across legal points of entry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/
" and 92 percent indicated they used the U.S. Postal Service." Very little risk to just mail drugs in the US mail.
I also admire the ingenuity in using autonomous cocaine submarines. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a19731049/submarines-cocaine-smuggling/
Also don't discount the CIA "cocaine import agency" http://www.reportingthetruth.com/cia-jet-crashes-with-4-tons-of-cocaine-on-board/
What doesn't get mentioned enough is, regardless of how heroin comes across our southern border, 90% of the worlds heroin is grown in Afghanistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
That heroin does not come to Mexico on foot. It flys. The skys of Afg are totally controlled by American military. So 2+2= the US gov. controls the flow of heroin from Afg. to US entry points.
One can yell and scream they are for open borders, but passing money for border security is not for open borders.
Quote: rxwineI don't know what Trump will do, but I assume the Democrats will keep passing bills with border security money, but not wall money.
One can yell and scream they are for open borders, but passing money for border security is not for open borders.
Insisting the only way our borders could ever be secure is our ability to coerce another country into paying for it ("And Mexico will pay for The Wall"), is a pretty clear indication someone doesn't want any border security at all.
Quote: TomGBased on this logic, the Republican majority for the first two years of Trump's presidency also hated him -- they wouldn't give him The Wall either.
Enough did to keep him from getting things done. Still, 60 was not possible in the Senate without Dems.
Quote: TomGUnfortunately, Trump is making it very clear that he does not want border security. Trump is also making it clear that, while he won't fix the symptoms (lack of The Wall), he won't touch the root of the problem either. Where is mandatory e-verify and a wall around the Welfare State? Both of which would cut off the reason people are coming here.
Everyone seems to make that clear, Trump included. I hardly ever hear about ways to keep illegals from working as a way to discourage them from coming/staying. Why is that? I have always thought is because enough Democrats want the potential future voters and enough Republicans want cheap labor. It is talked about by others outside the power structure, but not as much within the seats of power.
Quote: RonCEnough did to keep him from getting things done. Still, 60 was not possible in the Senate without Dems.
Trump as a 'non traditional' Republican did not have the ability to get to 50 in the Senate just because he said so. There was McCain and Flake and a few others that would not just vote for something because Trump said so. Obama, in passing the ACA, had no Democrat go against him even though many (most?) will admit they weren't sure what they were voting for, just they were sure there was this very narrow window to do it in. (Someone can fact check me...)
Whatever the final outcome of the wall melodrama, Trump has 'lost' this chapter.
One lesson learned is how pathetic some people keep their own financial house in. The federal workers who missed two paychecks are not minimum wage employees. They should be WELL AWARE that as a Federal employee that a government 'shutdown' could affect their delivery of their pay. To not make a contingency plan shows very poor insight.
We have a bunch of APs on these forums. They are guaranteed nothing. They know the importance of these type of contingency plans.
I think I am going to start a new thread about this....
Quote: SOOPOO
One lesson learned is how pathetic some people keep their own financial house in. The federal workers who missed two paychecks are not minimum wage employees. They should be WELL AWARE that as a Federal employee that a government 'shutdown' could affect their delivery of their pay. To not make a contingency plan shows very poor insight. We have a bunch of APs on these forums. They are guaranteed nothing. They know the importance of these type of contingency plans.
No, Federal workers are not minimum wage workers
But they want what many want and is not unreasonable - a nice house and children
it's very expensive to live in the DC area - to find a nice house without an outrageous price
where I live in the DC burbs 800k will only get you an average old house and the new 3 bedroom condos in Bethesda or Alexandria go for over 1 million
it's not hard to understand how and why they live paycheck to paycheck living in DC or its suburbs
my grandfather had a fairly nice house, 5 children and his wife didn't work
and he had only a lowly job working in a zipper factory
that's not even remotely possible today
Quote: petroglyphThe msm gets dirtier every day. https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-paper-pays-damages-melania-trump-over-false-110515325.html
Heh, conservative rag.
Quote:The Telegraph is one of Britain's leading broadsheet newspapers and is traditionally aligned with the Conservative Party.
YahooQuote: rxwineHeh, conservative rag.
Quote: petroglyph
That heroin does not come to Mexico on foot. It flys. The skys of Afg are totally controlled by American military. So 2+2= the US gov. controls the flow of heroin from Afg. to US entry points.
Only 4% of the heroin consumption in the US is from Afghanistan, according to the DEA. Most is produced in Mexico and South America. The Week, link to DOJ presentation in article.
Your theory is based on a flawed assumption. Afghan production drives heroin usage in the eastern hemisphere, not here.
Quote: SOOPOO
One lesson learned is how pathetic some people keep their own financial house in. The federal workers who missed two paychecks are not minimum wage employees. They should be WELL AWARE that as a Federal employee that a government 'shutdown' could affect their delivery of their pay. To not make a contingency plan shows very poor insight.
We have a bunch of APs on these forums. They are guaranteed nothing. They know the importance of these type of contingency plans. ...
Most people *do* have contingency plans and savings. That, however, is non-newsworthy. I would say that most people did fine during the shutdown. We hear the chaff. As for your point that they should have a contingency plan because the government shuts down, the 21 day Clinton shutdown was the watermark until now, and that was 23 years ago. And as another posted stated, making say 75k as a government worker is not much when you are living in a major suburb. An ATC making 110k working at Islip on Long Island has a fairly large housing bill.
Quote: boymimboOnly 4% of the heroin consumption in the US is from Afghanistan, according to the DEA.
wherever it comes from that is only half of the picture
U.S. citizens are half of the problem creating a tremendous 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅 for the product
today you are always hearing about the poor addicted abused by drug dealers and big pharma
but then there's 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚, 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚, 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒚
to blame foreigners and not admit that the U.S.'s own citizens are just as responsible for the problem is fallacious and specious logic
even if all of the poppy fields in the world are burned synthetic drugs will fill the gap quickly as long as this tremendous demand continues
Quote: rxwineHeh, conservative rag.
That's hilarious.
Quote: petroglyphYahoo
What does this mean? Yahoo is lying about the Telegraph's typical British political stance? Wiki also states they have supported the Conservative Party for over 20 years.
Quote: tringlomaneThat's hilarious.
What does this mean? Yahoo is lying about the Telegraph's typical British political stance? Wiki also states they have supported the Conservative Party for over 20 years.
Long ago, before Yahoo was a search engine, "yahoo" was a sarcastic "goodie for them" - "big whoop" "woo-hoo" "idk what younguns say now". I think that's what Ole Petro was sayin...lol.
There are discrepancy's in your link. It used multiple years and further down where it talks about fentanyl's strength. If you click on it, it changes to much more powerful.Quote: boymimboOnly 4% of the heroin consumption in the US is from Afghanistan, according to the DEA. Most is produced in Mexico and South America. The Week, link to DOJ presentation in article.
Your theory is based on a flawed assumption. Afghan production drives heroin usage in the eastern hemisphere, not here.
What do you think they are going to say, when the growth in occupied Afg went from 180 tons in 2001, to 9000 tons in 2017? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/09/how-the-heroin-trade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan
These guys do good research afaic? https://www.globalresearch.ca/heroin-dealer-in-chief-afghanistan-source-of-90-of-the-worlds-heroin/5502813
In that link there is the DEA statement about H, but won't link now? https://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq052215_National_Heroin_Threat_Assessment_Summary.pdf
"DEA’s 2015 Heroin Threat Assessment focuses on 7% of US heroin from Latin America. Why’s DEA focusing on only 7%? Why’s DEA silent, dead silent, about the other 93%? They don’t want to upset the Afghan heroin cart."
I believe Mexico either manufactures much of the narcotics that come across like fentanyl and meth, but Afg has hundreds of thousands of hectares in poppy production. For Mexico to be growing the US supply, the fields of poppy's would be seen from aircraft flying to and fro, or from satellites.
You made me look, maybe your right? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44599.pdf
" The DEA’s 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment
estimates that Mexico may have cultivated 44,100 hectares of opium poppy in 2017, potentially
yielding 111 metric tons of pure heroin.74 This is 38% higher than the estimated production in
2016. In the past, officials have noted that crop yield data are unreliable,75 and it is unclear
whether the newer data are more reliable. Even with these questions about the data’s reliability,
U.S. officials state that production of heroin in Mexico has increased. While much of Mexicanproduced heroin is reportedly destined for the United States, that proportion is unknown."
That sounds like about half what is consumed here in the US ? Undoubtedly most of the smuggling comes through Mexico, regardless of where it's grown.
It was in the link I posted.Quote: tringlomaneThat's hilarious.
What does this mean? Yahoo is lying about the Telegraph's typical British political stance? Wiki also states they have supported the Conservative Party for over 20 years.
The telegraph ran a disgusting story about Melania and her family, she sued, they lost and paid.
Quote: tringlomaneduplicate
she doesn't see the irony?
she's a white woman married to a black man.
not very long ago she would be the one being publicly denounced.
she's so very proud; look at that face
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-ginni-thomas-meeting.html
Ignore it?
Fix it?
How?
Quote: RonCChina and trade. What should we do with a country that routinely steals intellectual property, dumps goods into our market, attempts to steal more info by supplying cameras and such with security vulnerabilities for them to exploit, etc.?
Ignore it?
Fix it?
How?
Looks like O fixed the whole problem by merely refusing to stay at the Waldorf-Astoria
Was he being anti-Sino?
https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/11/politics/obama-waldorf-astoria/index.html
Quote: beachbumbabsLong ago, before Yahoo was a search engine, "yahoo" was a sarcastic "goodie for them" - "big whoop" "woo-hoo" "idk what younguns say now". I think that's what Ole Petro was sayin...lol.
Right, but he had linked the article via yahoo.com, so i was confused if he was trying to correct the other poster by saying it was about Yahoo! being libelous instead of The Telegraph.
parody of the vile Gillette ad that
marginalizes men.
Lololol. 🤣🤣🤣
Quote: RSGillette the #1 razor for men who attended the women’s march.
Lololol. 🤣🤣🤣
Another great line from the parody:
"Gillette, for men who shave their vaginas".
I guffawed aloud on that one..
Quote: RSGillette the #1 razor for men who attended the women’s march.
Lololol. 🤣🤣🤣
Like they actually shave.
And the staff still left at the Huffington Post wants to argue that all of these people may not be illegal. As if it matters if 94999 were ok, which they were not eligible to vote. Any wonder why Beto did so good? Who knows, maybe they are not all illegals, maybe we have a member here registered to vote in multiple states, no different. Hell maybe we have a member collecting welfare benefits in multiple states. Is it not a stretch since we have a diversity of members here? Including some who believe (at least online) that this is a corrupt country that favors the “rich” and steals from innocent flea market dealers looking to make a dollar?
Quote: ams288Donald has a rough night of Fox News viewing ahead of him...
lol
Wille Brown's former mistress at her rally.
She was relaxed and read the teleprompter
as well as Obama does. Too bad she comes
off as a crazy dunce when she's not on
the prompter. Like at the Kavanaugh hearing,
she was unhinged.
Quote: EvenBobRush Limbaugh was totally impressed with
Wille Brown's former mistress at her rally.
She was relaxed and read the teleprompter
as well as Obama does. Too bad she comes
off as a crazy dunce when she's not on
the prompter. Like at the Kavanaugh hearing,
she was unhinged.
I was more impressed by the crowd size. 20,000+ in attendance.
Donald had to pay actors to show up to his Trump Tower campaign announcement in 2015.
is hangin on to some resentment
towards his former mistress:
Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?
I’ve been peppered with calls from the national media about my “relationship” with Kamala Harris, particularly since it became obvious that she was going to run for president. Most of them, I have not returned.
Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians. The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I “so much as jaywalked” while she was D.A.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php
So farQuote: rsactuaryAt least it was consensual
Quote: rsactuaryAt least it was consensual
Point being she screwed a guy older than
her father just to get ahead politically.
Then she walked all over him and now
it's payback time. Pretty funny, actually.
It's not the Right that will come at her
about this, it's the 20 other Dems she's
running against. How can you blame
them.
