 sj |
||
|
||
Trump CONVICTED - NO new Trump threads part III
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 16 Feb 24 - 08:37 AM Tim Scott wants to be Trump's VP which would make Ebony and Ivory vs. Ivory and Rosewood. FBI informant found to fake documents and testimony of Hunter Biden's Ukraine business. Who needs deep fakes when old-fashioned paid purgery still works? Who would hire such an informant? |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 16 Feb 24 - 07:48 AM How courageous is Trump? Suppose he faces an imminent jailable offense for a felony, will he become a flight risk? Will he be as brave as Navalny and stay? Will there be a day when his passport is taken away? |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 16 Feb 24 - 06:49 AM Fanni Willis took the stand without being called and defiantly plopped in the chair. She was angry. Trump lawyers did not uncover any evidence of kick backs and were stymied to the point they could only harp over the same questions until the judge got fed up and told them to sit down. Apparently, the brief affair with a fellow attorney after Trump's indictment did not end well. What did not come out was that Fanni had to live in a safe house at that time because of the Trump inspired death threats and could not live in her home. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned...Trump lawyers did not see a strong woman coming after them. The scarlet letter they tried to make her wear got ground up under her shoe. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 15 Feb 24 - 08:21 AM Like Biden, I have always gotten someone's name wrong or at minimum misspelled names. With theoretical physics, I easily get lost somewhere between observable particles and the fields that are responsible for their partial existence. Some things befuddle me but I can usually ride the comprehension train for most things. I don't feel too old to use memory correctly. Biden has wisdom despite being a lifelong gaff machine, politically speaking. In comparison, Trump is certifiable depending upon the physicians. The glaring fact that in only four years! Trump increased the national debt by well over 8 trillion dollars is reason enough to reject him. Clinton added 1.4 trillion in 8 years. Bush added over 8 Trillion as well as Obama over 8 years. Biden has added 1.2 Trillion so far. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Feb 24 - 02:13 PM There are plenty of people who attest to Biden's sound thinking and abilities, but Trump will keep hammering away just because he can. Today it seems one of his acolytes is trying to alarm the American public by hinting that something is happening that Biden should declassify. Top Republican warns of 'serious national security threat,' rankling White House The president's adviser plans to brief congressional leaders. Considering that earlier in the week Jake Sullivan set up a meeting with the top House and Senate ("gang of eight") security folks, it sounds like the GOP guy Mike Turner is telegraphing to Trump. Since Trump is given absolutely no security briefings because of his unreliability, Turner is handing Trump a complaint point - something along the lines of "they should share this stuff with the former president" or "if I was in the White House now I'd have fixed this and told you all about it already." Along those lines. If Turner told Trump without permission, he'd be in deep shit and he knows that Trump can't keep a secret, so if he heard something top secret, he's share it immediately on his Truth Social platform. Yeah, Willis shot herself in the foot, even it if doesn't have any impact on the case. There's a reason they call it "stupid in love." |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 14 Feb 24 - 06:51 AM Fanni has until Valentine's day to appoint a replacement prosecutor to avoid a potential dismissal of her case for possibly having sex with the highest paid lawyer on her staff. That's a real Valentine surprise. Yeah I know the facts sound like political comic relief. Just like the two elderly candidates for President are engaged in a battle to the death via high blood pressure strategy. To counter the stress from the indictments; Trump allies hit Biden with not remembering the date and hour of his son's death. Whew Joe's blood pressure spiked that day. The last time these Methusala candidates faced each other they set the record for the oldest candidates on record to run. This time they are locked in a real death clock battle for survival. Fandual might be the only winner in this septuagenarian dual to the final curtain. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 24 - 11:09 AM Joe, one red state at a time women and their partners are stepping up, and not just Democratic women. They want access to human rights - reproductive freedom. That will be one predictably reliable way to get people to the polls. The congressional election today on Long Island (after Santos was forced out) is as much a referendum about the GOP as it is the race itself. Trump is currently trying to force the woman heading the RNC out and get his daughter-in-law installed; perhaps the current head isn't paying as many of his legal bills as he wants. The commentators this morning were saying that if the RNC was really at work for the party they'd be looking for other GOP candidates who can stand up to Trump. Some of our speculative chatter is keeping the thread in view until the next big event. There will be a hearing this week about Fani Willis and her romantic relationship (she should have known better than to think she could have a private life at this point in time!) because Trump hopes if she is removed the court will put a more favorable prosecutor in who will either 1. drop the whole thing or 2. delay delay delay. If on the other hand Fani steps down she can appoint someone from her office to take care of things. Or she can hope to get a fair hearing and stay on for the job. Trump doesn't care how he wins, and if he can make someone else look bad in the process, the happier he is. I know New Yorkers are still shaking their heads that the country elected this buffoon and now everyone has to deal with and watch his BS. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 12 Feb 24 - 07:40 PM Stilly reminded me of my 'poor unfortunate soul' Trump parody song. Donnie's court schedule this week is a real grab-bag. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 12 Feb 24 - 06:04 PM I'm halfway through the last episode of an Oz series about three of our conservative Prime Ministers who were ousted from their roles: two by political backstabbing in their own party, but the third, Scott Morrison aka ScoMo, by losing the last election. One of ScoMo's key issues was that he undervalued the concerns and issues of women voters and also women who were part of his government. Women's votes were crucial in his party's election loss. So I second your statement encouraging Democrat supporters to vote but I am adding an encouragement for all women to vote as well, because Trump's attitude to women and women's issues could be crucial in the outcome of the election, IMHO. Also, I am picking up from a lot of commentary on TV shows here that a lot of Republicans are playing their cards close to their chests, awaiting the outcomes of those trials before they say anything too negative about Trump for fear of getting his supporters offside. If Trump has significant losses in the trials, the game result may be a whole lot different. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Feb 24 - 05:27 PM But back to Trump: CAN'T SOMEBODY CONVICT THAT SUCKER? But I suppose a conviction will drive the MAGA folks to vote Trump in, so he can pardon himself. Hey, you lazy Democrats, get out and VOTE!! |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Feb 24 - 02:46 PM Little Mermaid is great. We did the animated one nearly every weekend when our daughters were little and 30+ years later we watched the live action one a few weeks back. Trump is definitely Ursula. Promises all sorts and then screws you! |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 12 Feb 24 - 01:39 PM True confession: I don't know which rock I've been hiding under but I've never seen The Little Mermaid. LOL On our ABC (Oz) TV I probably saw a snippet of a skit with Alec Baldwin doing an impression of Trump and Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer and conflated that. I just had a memory of MM's face made up as a man and that it was very funny. An interesting aside: in the Washington Post article about "some interesting fallout" I tried to follow the link (but was blocked due to not being a subscriber) about Trump using the pseudonym "John Barron" because that is the name of one of the presenters on the Planet America show that I mentioned on 07 Feb 24 - 11:03 PM. I can guarantee that Trump would not like our John Barron talking on his behalf to the media!! And also, on Planet America they sometimes use a very clever voice actor to read out some of Trump's messages that he has posted on social media platforms. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Feb 24 - 10:47 AM You've conflated voice work, Helen. Melissa McCarthy played Ursula in the new live action version of The Little Mermaid. I haven't seen that, but I saw and heard the earlier one when my children were small. McCarthy did a stunning impersonation of Sean Spicer several times for Saturday Night Live Leslie Jones did a great skit about wanting to play him (in which another woman also dresses as Trump, but Leslie gets the last laugh, so to speak). McCarthy's impersonation of Spicer had some interesting fallout. I've seen Alec Baldwin return many times to play Trump, but in general it's another actor who portrays him these days. I never remember to watch the show but I see clips later in the week after it plays. This week should offer ample opportunity to generate more material. He can't shut up when people criticise him or cases go against him. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 12 Feb 24 - 12:13 AM Ah, don't get me started on bullying bosses and toxic work cultures! Sorry for the thread creep. :-( Did Melissa McCarthy do an impression of Trump at some stage? I seem to remember that. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:52 PM The horrible boss I worked for (and I retired before they could fire me) supported the same political party I do, but I have to wonder at the anomale; she had no interest in fair play or civil rights. She was too busy trying to run off all of the older employees to capture those wages for other uses. A real Trumpian acolyte (she moved to a new university; perhaps she has now moved to the other party). Donald Duck would be amusing for Trump's voice. But what about a real villain, someone like Pat Carroll who played Ursula the Sea Witch. It would drive him nuts that the voice was so clear and that it was a woman. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:35 PM My sympathies, Helen: I suffered from the same work problem. I've just realised that's part of why I tend to walk out of the room when Turnip is on the news. Methinks the news programmes should do with Turnip what they used to have to do in the UK when broadcasting terrorists' voices was banned: have his words voiced by an actor. I nominate Donald Duck. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 11 Feb 24 - 07:28 PM Regarding the Teflon Don handle, someone once told me that the bullying manager I had worked with until he lost me my job was "as slippery as duck $hit" which I understood even better a few years later when I walked through a field full of the stuff. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Feb 24 - 05:47 PM It is a baseball term, an idiomatic phrase that we don't even think about. It means they heard one case this week and they get another whack at him next week with a different case. Another one used a lot is "Batting 1000," which would be a perfect record, hitting every ball perfectly every time. Trump thought he was batting 1000 in the past court cases he's had when he could get away with the criminal behavior (in civil courts to do with housing laws and zoning laws and with bankruptcy and such) - the reason he was called "Teflon Don." Nothing touched him, until now. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 11 Feb 24 - 04:47 PM Trump is simply batty. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: gillymor Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:51 PM If you're the mighty Casey you're "at the bat". |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Backwoodsman Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:21 PM Thanks Lighter - makes sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Lighter Date: 11 Feb 24 - 03:06 PM The noun "at-bat" has been baseball lingo for as long as I can remember. The number of a player's "at-bats" is a basic stat. I mean "statistic." |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Backwoodsman Date: 11 Feb 24 - 01:57 PM You’re probably right MaJoC, although I’ve never heard the term before. In the case of cricket, it would surely be “At the crease”. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 11 Feb 24 - 01:45 PM I suspect it's a baseball term, though I of course thought of cricket first. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Backwoodsman Date: 11 Feb 24 - 11:21 AM ‘At bat’? Say what?? |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Feb 24 - 10:23 AM The Supreme Court has another at bat coming up soon, to do with the Chutkin trial. He was given until Monday to take that decision before the court; pundits have remarked that the Appellate decision was so tightly and well-constructed that the Supremes may say they're good with it and let it stand. One can only hope. It would get that trial underway a lot faster. Too bad Merrick Garland was so busy looking impartial that he didn't get the prosecution going on the Trump cases until after the House of Representatives was at bat. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 11 Feb 24 - 09:25 AM Billy Graham II Jr. says Trump did not create an insurrection, God chose him to create a resurrection. The Republicans in Congress all agree to avoid prison time. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 09 Feb 24 - 07:02 AM Here is the decree. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 09 Feb 24 - 06:43 AM On top of a Republican decree that the Trump insurrection did not happen we now have the Trump brigade. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 09 Feb 24 - 06:12 AM Results of a chaotic Republican primary are no more foretelling than the holy apparitions of Trump in the skies of Nevada which by the way had two FUBAR competing Trump primaries. Some states have a Republican State Committee that is bankrupt. Remember only Republicans vote in a primary and many of them are motivated by paid attendance, fear, or conspiracy lies. Eventually, a Republican party is inconsequential to Trump cultism. For Trumpers the new boss is the exact same guy as the old boss. The problem is that it is the same scenario for Democrats with Biden. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 09 Feb 24 - 04:36 AM The arguments of Colorado before the Supreme Court were weak and did not highlight the Trump insurrection. I can not fault the Court if they unanimously sided with Trump. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Dave the Gnome Date: 09 Feb 24 - 03:07 AM I know you don't want to hear it but... Nevada :-( Saying it cannot happen when all evidence shows otherwise is a route to disaster |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Feb 24 - 11:40 AM Alito is giving the Colorado attorney a lot of grief, suggesting he isn't answering the questions. In fact it sounds like he's simply being confrontational, trying to change focus. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 08 Feb 24 - 11:38 AM MaJoC, I confess to being confused about the primary and caucus voting to choose party candidates but I did hear about this on the Planet America show I mentioned. I just found this article which explains why Haley chose not to be on the primary ballot because there was also a caucus vote. Reading the whole article helped me to get a bit more clarity about the primary and caucus voting: Nikki Haley loses to 'none of these candidates' in the Nevada GOP primary "Nikki Haley faced no major challenger Tuesday in Nevada’s presidential primary. "She still lost, according to NBC News projections. "Nevada voters in the state-run primary had a choice to reject all the candidates on the ballot, and they did just that — with more people choosing to vote for “none of these candidates” than for Haley. "Former President Donald Trump, far and away the front-runner for the Republican nomination, wasn’t on the same ballot as Haley because he is set to compete in party-run caucuses Thursday. "It was a stinging rebuke of Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and South Carolina governor — and one that some party leaders had encouraged. The outcome in Nevada was Haley's third consecutive loss in an early-state primary contest. "Still, Haley's campaign indicated that the results wouldn't affect how long she'd stay in the race. "'Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn’t bother to play a game rigged for Trump. We’re full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond,' spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said." |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 08 Feb 24 - 06:41 AM Remind me, please: In which state did Trump not appear on the ballot paper, only for the winner to be "none of the above"? |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 08 Feb 24 - 06:28 AM Trump has a small advantage in the Supreme Court today to stay on the Colorado ballot but the Court is damned if they do and damned if they don't. In such cases it is better to just do the right thing. There is a possibility Trump will lose. His lawyers will go first at 7:30 AM today. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 08 Feb 24 - 12:30 AM Yes, ABC here and ABC there! :-D When Trump was elected I also started watching the (American) ABC News with David Muir and others. Before that I never watched those shows but I really started to worry about the state of the world with Trump in charge. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 24 - 11:20 PM I find those references to ABC interesting - because we have a national ABC network here also. The squiggly logo was the give away (along with the accents when I hit play). I'll take a look at those, thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 07 Feb 24 - 11:03 PM SRS, I should have searched for this before but I thought it wouldn't be available outside of Australia. I've been watching this show since the Trump adventures began. It's very balanced and insightful with some excellent guest interviews. Planet America A lot of what you say in this thread aligns with the commentary from the presenters, John Barron and Chas Licciardello. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 24 - 10:53 PM Gotta love autocorrect, it didn't get the syntax of the word (it was probably fixing my typo - "backspace" is the key I use most often on the keyboard). They're talking about tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing; I don't know if I'll be able to listen live but I'm sure it will be rebroadcast ad nauseum. This to do with states taking him off of the ballot for participating in an insurrection. (On MSNBC tonight they're also talking about Clarence Thomas and Dark Money and Leonard Leo and tax laws and the court ethics laws - it feeds into the discussion because it's about how Trump was able to appoint those three justices, supported by Leo.) |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 07 Feb 24 - 09:05 PM All right, MaJoC, very funny! You win the Pick of the Nits today. I'd say that it's the people with power trying to "reign" him in. LOL US attorney-general says special counsel has completed a probe into allegations President Joe Biden mishandled documents "In short: US Attorney-General Merrick Garland has told congress an investigation into whether President Joe Biden mishandled classified documents dating to his time as vice-president was finished. "Special Counsel Robert Hur's report will be made public soon, Mr Garland said, adding the White House needed to complete a review of the document for potential executive privilege concerns. "Documents were found at Mr Biden's Delaware home and at a private office he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president." |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 07 Feb 24 - 07:19 PM Nit Pick of the Day: one reins in a bolting horse (eg Trump), esp if he wishes to reign. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Feb 24 - 06:32 PM The court that issued that ruling gave him only until Monday, Feb. 12 to take it to the Supreme Court, they're not letting him drag it out. That is the important thing, that they reign in his delay tactics. If they don't do anything by then, it goes back to Chutkin and she sets a date. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 07 Feb 24 - 05:40 PM US federal appeals court rejects Donald Trump's sweeping immunity claim "In short: A federal appeals court has ruled the former US president Donald Trump does not have blanket immunity in a case in which he has been charged with plotting to overturn his 2020 election defeat. "The court found that any "executive immunity" provided by the presidency no longer shielded him from prosecution. "What's next? The case will be paused until at least February 12 to give Mr Trump's team time to appeal to the US Supreme Court." |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Donuel Date: 07 Feb 24 - 02:24 PM Today there is a rare audio streaming from the Supreme Court regarding the 14th amendment on Trump's eligibility to run for PRESIDENT AGAIN. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 05 Feb 24 - 02:26 PM Lots of moving parts when keeping track of Trump trials. There are two higher courts looking at his claims of immunity and his standing as far as appearing on ballots in states. Looking into the final verdict in the civil fraud trial that wrapped up last month, last Friday a spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration said "It’s looking like early to mid-February, as a rough estimate, and subject to modifications. But that’s the working plan now." In the E. Jean Carroll second trial, Trump has 30 days after the judgement to pay at least $90M, though she can't collect until after the appeal. Trump is trying to get the results overturned because Carroll's lead attorney worked in the same legal firm as the judge thirty years ago. He is the king of grasping at straws. He already dropped $5M in cash for the first Carroll verdict last year. In Business Insider they say A source familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly, told Business Insider that Trump's $5.5 million was still there, pending the outcome of his appeal of that first verdict. An appellate court is set to eventually decide whether Carroll gets all, some, or none of that $5.5 million. The bond would cost him a lot more. Follow the link for that discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 04 Feb 24 - 02:28 PM Regarding military spending, I think that the Ukraine situation was mentioned, but probably not military spending within the U.S. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Feb 24 - 01:23 PM I watch that program almost every week (when I remember). It was Washington Week In Review forever and had some standout hosts. Heartbreak when Gwen Ifill died (age 61). They have had different hosts over the years, not for so long. It is a recent development that they merged with The Atlantic magazine for this program. I don't remember hearing any particular revelations regarding the outlook for military spending on that program. |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Helen Date: 04 Feb 24 - 12:53 PM Yesterday I watched this TV show for only the second time. As it happens this episode was about spending intentions of Biden compared with Trump, including military spending, and one of the comments was that Trump has made no statements about his spending intentions or his political aims in his campaign speeches. (Note: I suspect that his only intention in getting re-elected is to grant himself some pardons and do some damage to those he considers to be his political enemies.) PBS Washington Week With The Atlantic The info about the show is: "PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic is the longest-running primetime news and public affairs program on television. The show features a group of journalists participating in a weekly roundtable discussion of major news events. Moderated by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic." The episode I saw yesterday shows it as a preview now but the full episode should become available soon - I expect: Preview: Coming Up on Washington Week with The Atlantic Feb. 01, 2024 AT 7:23 p.m. EST Episode overview: "U.S. Retaliation Amid Middle East Chaos: "Earlier this week, President Biden told reporters that he has decided how the U.S. will respond to the Iran-backed militia drone attack that killed three American soldiers in Jordan on Sunday. The Biden administration has made it clear that the U.S. does not want war with Iran, as any plans to retaliate could further escalate tensions in the Middle East. "It’s unclear if the mounting foreign conflicts will spill over into the voting booth as Americans head for a potential Biden-Trump rematch this November. "Joining editor in chief of The Atlantic and moderator, Jeffrey Goldberg to discuss this and more: "Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, New York Times "Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker "Lara Seligman, Defense Reporter, POLITICO "Nancy Youssef, National Security Correspondent, Wall Street Journal" |
|
Subject: RE: Trump INDICTED x4 NO new Trump threads part III From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Feb 24 - 10:21 AM Dick's dog whistle post (was the start of a new thread) has been moved over here because it boils down to a discussion of what crazy things would Trump do if he was elected again. We can see what Biden is attempting (though quiet diplomacy seems to be a concept beyond the pundits at FAUX news). Support of Ukraine, and still try for a two-state solution. Trump doesn't want either of those. Put briefly: the Democrats are the party that manages to reduce the national debt, though I don't know if Biden has been able to put a dent in what Trump generated in his four years. The intersection of COVID and the war in Ukraine may have made trimming impossible at this point. What Trump says and what he does are influenced and often exaggerated by the lunatic chorus in the House of Representatives (in particular). They say they want to spend less but then spend all of their time giving tax breaks to the rich and corporations to reduce revenue, following by cuts in essential services due to the revenue drop. Their spending on military things seems to remain the same (though they say they'll cut off Ukraine if Trump is elected. That's the foolish penny wise and pound foolish approach to world stability.) |
| Share Thread: |
