I think the warning signs were recognized. That is why Hillary is only speaking at colleges.All I see is winningMuch better than apology tours.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Too many jokes...
Look at me! I'm in North Korea!
Now I'm in South Korea!
Now I'm in North Korea!
South Korea!
North Korea!
Put your left foot in,
put your left foot out,
put your left foot in,
and you shake it all about...
Oh, do a little dance
Make a little love
Get down tonight, get down tonight
Do a little dance
Make a little love
Get down tonight, get down tonight
That's one small step for man,
a giant leap for mankind.
"Tell him, Ray."
"K-Mart sucks."
I just realized Little Kim is wearing a Hillary pants suit.
The problem with viewing the world with blinders on is you can only see what the man holding the reins allows you to see.All I see is winning
John Brennan spied on members of Congress, got caught, and lied about it.
James Clapper spied on Americans, got caught, and lied about it.
Obama spied on journalists, got caught, and lied about it.
Obama's Intelligence apparatus, FBI and DOJ spied on a rival political campaign for political purposes, to affect the results of an election, or in lieu of that, to affect a coup d'état (literally "stroke of the state" to deliver the "knockout blow to the existing administration within a state"), got caught, and those involved are lying about it.
No, absolutely not. We would never engage in surveillance of Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign at Trump Tower. Well, OK, we did, but it was incidental collection.
No, we would never use an unverified dossier as evidence for a FISA warrant. Well, OK, we did that. But it was really, really salacious and extra juicy, even if it was fabricated fiction.
No, we would never place a spy into the campaign of a political rival. At most all we did was furtively, you know, in a way that attempts to avoid notice or attention, gather information about people in the campaign. Yeah, OK, fine, that's the definition of spying, but we don't call it that. We call it "using an informant." No spying.
James Clapper spied on Americans, got caught, and lied about it.
Obama spied on journalists, got caught, and lied about it.
Obama's Intelligence apparatus, FBI and DOJ spied on a rival political campaign for political purposes, to affect the results of an election, or in lieu of that, to affect a coup d'état (literally "stroke of the state" to deliver the "knockout blow to the existing administration within a state"), got caught, and those involved are lying about it.
No, absolutely not. We would never engage in surveillance of Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign at Trump Tower. Well, OK, we did, but it was incidental collection.
No, we would never use an unverified dossier as evidence for a FISA warrant. Well, OK, we did that. But it was really, really salacious and extra juicy, even if it was fabricated fiction.
No, we would never place a spy into the campaign of a political rival. At most all we did was furtively, you know, in a way that attempts to avoid notice or attention, gather information about people in the campaign. Yeah, OK, fine, that's the definition of spying, but we don't call it that. We call it "using an informant." No spying.
Setting aside the fact that Clapper is a professional liar and that whatever he says should be taken at the very least as a partial obfuscation of the truth, his poetic waxings on protecting Trump from the Russians fall flat on its face. If there was even a scintilla of truth to what Clapper said, then the first thing they would have done is inform Trump of their suspicions. But they didn't do that. If Trump had been the victim or even the bait, they would have. But Trump was the mark. They weren't protecting Trump, they were setting him up.
And to think this was the Other Option...
Remember to Smile ..
it reduces Stress ..
Rudy Giuliani commenting on Stormy Daniels' character: " I don't respect a porn star the way I respect a career woman." Stormy is a career woman. She is on the road giving motivational type seminars: How To Revive A Dead Career. If your expediting career has run some rough road or hit a dead end check out Stormy's seminar in Chicago. Stormy will bare all to get your expediting career back on track.
Sure, the Expedite Expo offers great info for newbies and veteran expediters. But will Lawrence McCord give you the skinny about the current state of expediting? Will he bare all at the expo? He may or may not. If you are like me and I know I am. I'm not going to make Stormy's seminar(semenar) and if I'm nearby, make my very first visit to the Expedite Expo.
Sure, the Expedite Expo offers great info for newbies and veteran expediters. But will Lawrence McCord give you the skinny about the current state of expediting? Will he bare all at the expo? He may or may not. If you are like me and I know I am. I'm not going to make Stormy's seminar(semenar) and if I'm nearby, make my very first visit to the Expedite Expo.
Last edited:
Sanders, who is currently running for reelection, typically runs in the state’s Democratic primary but declines the party’s nomination after winning. The move allows him to fend off Democratic challengers in the state while still running as an independent. Last month, the Vermont Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting this strategy and proclaiming that Sanders would still be considered a member of the party “for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges that come with such membership at the state and federal level.” That membership could inoculate him against the DNC’s rules change. ---- Found in Yahoo news,,,must be a joke....
I find it very interesting that those who feel the Trumpette can do no wrong have been awfully quite regarding his policy of separating children from their families.
Yes, they crossed the border illegally, and need to be sent back, but what has been happining is cruel.
Have they no shame?
Yes, they crossed the border illegally, and need to be sent back, but what has been happining is cruel.
Have they no shame?
If anyone of us does something illegal, we get put in jail and none of us get to take our family into our cell with us. You would be separated from your wife and children too. They broke the law intentionally and if we keep them staying together, then they got exactly what they wanted. Beds, free food, healthcare and essentially have a new home for their entire family. I believe the separations are partly to help discourage them from even attempting to come in illegally.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Deport them in their entirety, the whole family, not just the parents while keeping the children in cages...... Shame.
Trumpettes have been awfully quiet on many Trump issues: unemployment numbers, the economy, the historic meeting with Kim Jung Un and the prospect of peace on the peninsula. And that was just last week. I find it equally interesting that the anti-Trumpers have remained silent on these issues.
It's not that simple. If someone crosses the border illegally, even with kids in tow, you can just send them back. But as soon as they utter the magic words "I request asylum," you can no longer just send them back. That's why they utter those words, they know they won't be sent back. And because they know they won't be sent back, it's why so many people are bringing children with them and falsely claiming the children as their own. Up until recently, with Catch And Release, they knew that they would simply be released into the wild and be given future a court date to hear their asylum claim. And 87 percent never show up for their court date, so they are able to use children and a false asylum claim to get away with crossing the border illegally, literally a get out of jail free card.
(incidentally, those who cross at a port of entry and announce they are there to request asylum, 97% of those people show up for their court date.)
Trump stopped Catch And Release. That's a policy that I happen to agree with.
The problem with doing away with Catch And Release is, you can't Catch And Send Back, because they've requested asylum. International law, common sense, and compassion says you can't just send someone back home if they have a legitimate claim for asylum. So they have to be heard in court to make their case, and in the case of those crossing illegally, they have to be prosecuted for the illegal crossing, as well. Since we know that 87 percent won't show up voluntarily for their court dates, Catch and Release is being replaced with Catch and Hold.
The law says you can't incarcerate children at the border (for something they have no control in doing) for more than 20 days. That was reinforced by a judge in a ruling that caused Obama to stop separating children from parents and go with simply releasing the family unit as a whole in the hopes they'd show up for their court date. Well, that didn't work, especially once the cartels and other criminals realized that bringing children with them and claiming asylum was their WIlly Wonka Golden Ticket into the USA.
Trump's executive order that now keeps families together runs afoul of the court ruling, and even in the order it states that it is dependent on the judge amending her ruling. If she doesn't amend her ruling, and I will be very surprised if she does, then the choices are:
1) Release the children and keep the parent(s) incarcerated until the illegal border crossing and asylum claim has been adjudicated (something that clearly no one is in favor of because it's cruel and inhumane and, you know... Nazi)
2) Release the family until as a whole in the hopes the adults will show up for their court date (something that doesn't work for Americans, but that the Democrats and the cartels and MS13 want)
3) Figure out a way to adjudicate illegal border crossing charges and asylum claims within 20 days (shyeah, right)
4) Get Congress to change the laws (something that Democrats want nothing to do with).
Once you take a look at the situation, the laws and the options, there's really no reason to have any shame.
Again, once they utter "asylum" you can't simply deport them without first having an asylum hearing. Even though they're not US citizens, once they set foot on US soil they are still entitled to due process and other Constitutional protections.
Leagalize does not equal morality.....Shame.
Well, like so many others, you're complaining, and shaming an entire group of people, without offering a solution of any kind, workable or unworkable.
Sending someone back to a near-certain death or unjust persecution in the case of a legitimate asylum claim isn't exactly tippy top on the morality scale. Asylum (and refugee) status is granted to persons who are defined as having been persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group, social activities, or political opinion. Granting asylum is a really old judicial concept going back to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, and the "right of asylum" is considered to be a natural human right. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts states, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees lays out the legal principles and the conditions stated above. To send true victims of persecution back to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement (the principle of international law that prohibits not only the repatriation of those seeking political asylum, but also those who are fleeing from war zones and disaster areas), not to mention abhorrent and repugnant.
Incarcerating children through no fault of their own with their families at the border is barely one step above abhorrent and repugnant on the morality scale, which is why I don't think the judge will amend her order of 20 days max, but it at least does keep families together.
Allowing criminals to enter the interior of the country with little or no accountability or consequences, just because they have kids in tow (who may or may not even be related to the adults) isn't all that high on the morality scale, either, especially since it is a powerful incentive for others to do the same.
Separating families and temporarily placing the children with relatives, friends, foster care or other facilities where they can be taken care of safely is certainly more morally preferable than incarcerating the parents while awaiting for the case to be adjudicated and either simply turning the kids loose on the street, or pointing them to the border and saying, "Go." But no. Separating the families is immoral, and shame-worthy.
So, instead of claiming a moral indignation and shaming people, let's hear your solution.
I dont claim to have the solution. If i did, i wouldn't be driving a truck and slinging gas station coffee.
However, with that said, this is shameful. Imho
When something or someone's actions are called "shameful," something worthy of causing shame or disgrace, it implies a consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior. It also implies a requirement that an alternate action must be correct or responsible. So what, exactly, is the shameful part? And what, exactly, is the alternative?I dont claim to have tha solution. If i did, i wouldn't be driving a truck and slinging gas station coffee.
However, with that said, this is shameful. Imho
Is it the court-ordered mats and blankets for detainees held for more than 12 hours that is shameful? Is it the chain link fencing, the same kind that you find surrounding tennis courts and schools, that is shameful? Is it the portable toilets that are changed out and refreshed every 12 hours that is shameful? Is it the fact that the detained unaccompanied minors are in the building in the first place, while waiting from 1 to 3 days to be placed in a better setting with adult supervision, that is shameful?
Is the alternative turning them out on the street? Is the alternative giving them a credit card and a card key to the Holiday Inn? Is the alternative no fencing so they can come and go as they please? Is the alternative pillow-top mattresses and down comforters? Giving them access to the indoor plumbing toilets at the rear of the building?
Are detention facilities in and of themselves shameful? And if we do away with them, what is the alternative?
This is a picture taken at a CBP detention center in Nogales, AZ, and shows unaccompanied minors who arrived at the border with no accompanying adult, who were held in the facility more than 12 hours. No one in the photo was separated from their family or accompanying adult. 20 percent of those in the detention center were processed out (placed with family, friends, or some other "least restrictive" certified facility) within 24 hours, 70 percent within 48 hours, and 95 percent within 72 hours.
The picture was taken in 2014, by the way.
In 1972 i stood on University of Michigan with others demanding the end of the war in Vietnam. I didn't have a plan to do so, but damn it, i was going to tell others to find a way to do so. The same applies here. This nonsense needs to end, and end now!
America is a kind and compassionate place, imo. What we are seeing is neither kind or compassionate.
Shame!
America is a kind and compassionate place, imo. What we are seeing is neither kind or compassionate.
Shame!
The Vietnam war had a pretty clear alternative, which we eventually went with. So, good job on that one.
No, no it doesn't. There is no clear alternative, at least not one without significant consequences. If there was, you'd be able to articulate it.
You realize that Trump ended the family separation yesterday, right?
It's not kind nor compassionate to separate families. It's not kind nor compassionate to incarcerate children for doing something they had no role in the decision to do it. It's not kind nor compassionate to allow criminal aliens free and unfettered entry into the United States under false pretenses. It's not kind nor compassionate to return the persecuted to their persecutor.
If you're going to blanketly shame people for an wrongful or foolish action worthy of shame, you need to provide an alternative action for which you would approve. So far, the only alternative action you have enumerated is the blanket refusal of asylum claims. If Trump did that, I'm sure you'd call it shameful. But shameful or not, it's not even an option.
A big, beautiful border wall that prevents people from entering illegally and therefore would eliminate the need to separate families or incarcerate children is an option.