Despite the protestations coming from the GOP and the right-wing about the necessity of getting things back open, restarting the economy, and returning to normal, the reason America can't get moving is because of the very man who so wants it to get moving: Donald Trump.
Already hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and more will lose theirs and as much as Trump would like things to go back to the way they were, they can't because of him. The very distrust he's sowed in the government is causing the right-wing not to trust what's being said while the left-wing, having heard Trump's repeated lies about virtually everything, don't trust him.
Take the promise of a vaccine, for instance. Even if one was available before the election, nobody would take it. If it's Trump's vaccine, nobody will believe him that it works or that it wasn't botched. If it comes out as normal, Trump's supporters won't take it because they don't trust scientists and the government. Even the emergence of a vaccine is not going to change this mess unless there's a consensus on its effectiveness from both sides. Trump has made that all but impossible. I haven't heard a single Trump supporter who is going to take the vaccine. Hmmm, I wonder why. Even they don't believe him.
So when you scream for the economy to re-open, for businesses to return to normal, just look at President Trump and you'll be looking at the reason why they can't. Chaos, distrust, incompetence, lack of leadership. All of it lies at his feet.
It's interesting to watch you project your own feelings onto everyone else. The virus for instance: we've seen people on these forums say they will take it, and so will I (as soon as it is available to me, which is rather down the list).
Not everyone has your intense distrust of Trump and certainly not all Trump supporters has that intense distrust of science that you assign to them. Both are a minority, not the general consensus.
Well, I am using this forum as the data for my conclusion with many people saying they won’t take a vaccine, mostly Trump supporters.
I will take it when there is data that shows it is effective.
Will you take it based on Trump’s word? There is mounting evidence that he has pressured scientists to release one before it has been fully tested.
Frankly, I hope you are right about Trump supporters believing science, but it certainly doesn’t seem that way.
Trump says Regeneron is a cure. Is that what you will be taking? Or will you be taking hydroxychloroquine? If you have the opportunity to go have a meal with Trump today, would you? He says he's not contagious.
He and his supporters won't even follow the guidance on masks. Why would they take a vaccine?
Also, I think you're confusing my "personal feelings" with deductive reasoning. I'm just using factual information to draw conclusions. The above sentence covers one example.
"Already hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and more will lose theirs and as much as Trump would like things to go back to the way they were, they can't because of him." is hardly deductive reasoning. It is a false and untrue statement (Trump didn't shut the country down, didn't create the virus and didn't bring it to the US) that comes solely from an opinion based on dislike of the President.
Sure, it's an opinion. Here's what's deduction:
Trump has created distrust in government and encouraged people not to wear masks. People also do not trust Trump because he lies so much.
You need leadership to promote the behavior we need to get out of this thing. We have none of that. Chaos will not solve our issues.
We need a working vaccine to get back to normal. If you won't wear a mask, why would you take a vaccine? If too many people don't take the vaccine, we can't get back to normal. Can we?
The right-wing sees some left-wing boogeyman preventing us from getting back to normal. Such does not seem to be the case and what I've presented is another, more rational explanation for what's going on.
To be fair, I see what you're focusing on - the virus part. Trump is not responsible for the virus, but he is responsible for his response to it. He's minimized its seriousness at every turn. He's dramatically lengthened the time it's going to take to "get back to normal".
"He's dramatically lengthened the time it's going to take to "get back to normal".
He has...if you assume that people won't wear masks because of something Trump said or did. He has...if you assume that people (say, those partying on the beach or rioting in the cities) do so because of something Trump said or did. He has...if you assume that people opening their business in violation of "close" orders do so because of something Trump said or did. He has...ifyou assume that people suing state and local governments for making rules about masks and opening are doing so because of something Trump said or did.
These are not deductions, not when they depend on opinions without facts. Personally, my opinion is that there would be millions of people angry about all of these things (and acting on them) whether Trump supported them or not: my deduction then is that it isn't from Trump at all. And it is based on opinion just as yours is, making any deduction worthless. Just as yours is.
Do you really believe that the President does not significantly influence behavior with how he behaves? Is he not an example for others? Do they not follow his lead?
I think there has been substantial evidence that his supporters model his behavior and believe what he says. So when he belittles masks, they do so too.
If Regeneron is a "cure" as Trump states, wouldn't it be immediately prudent for us all to contract COVID and then get treated with Regeneron? Would that not get us "back to normal"?
How many will follow that advice, do you think?
But Wilderness, the biggest Trump supporters are the conspiracy theorists who spout QAnon's propaganda. At the top of that propaganda is that injecting a vaccine into "sheeple" is going to be the method of putting in nanotechnology that is going to control the people. Then they go on to again emphasize that trite old theory that chemtrails are poisoning us and fluoride is making us stupid. (Is there a poison made that can withstand and won't burn up in the heat of a jet engine?) I don't know where you stand on this, but Trump quoted Q and publicly said he supported Q's theories a month or two ago. That sounds like a conflict in the WH to me.
The reason I know about the conspiracy theorists who support Trump and QAnon is because I've been following one of them who used to be on HubPages. I joined his Facebook group just to see what kind of ridiculousness he was going to come up with next. This bunch of conspiracy theorists are one of the most adamant groups of anti-vaxxers in the country, yet they seem to believe that Trump is going to be the savior of the world.
Just axin' how you can support Trump and be pro-vax when this group of Trump supporters are so anti-vax? It is my guess that you aren't a conspiracy theorist. Am I right?
And because you joined the FB group of a rabid conspiracy theorist it makes conservatives (Trump supporters almost by definition) all like that? You know better.
I live in an area, and most of my extended family, is conservative and not a single one espouses the nonsense you are talking about. Don't make the center of the country (politically) the far right any more than you would declare that all liberals are slavering socialists wanting communism for everyone.
Given what you are saying, how can otherwise straight shooters and sensible people support a man like Donald Trump? Is really the biggest thing on people's minds out there in Idaho (Idaho, right?) is too much government cheese?
How can anyone support Biden who seems to be in a downward spiral of mental acuity. How can you trust him with the nuclear button?
Based on Biden's temperament, a lot more than I would trust Trump.
Nice to see you back, Jack.
I never left. I was banned temporarily for a few weeks unknown to me as to why but that was a few months ago.
I was busy writing articles and working on my new hobby of woodworking.
If you haven’t noticed, the one with the mental acuity problems is Trump. And the one with the major health issues is Trump.
That is your bias speaking, not based on objective evaluation. Trump may not be a saint but he is one of the hardest working president. He has accomplished more in 4 years than many past president in 8. You may not agree with his policies but he truly have America's best interest at heart. The media has been very unfair in dealing with Trump and the American people sees it. That is why his popularity is gaining and he will be re-elected with a bigger margin than 2016.
As for Biden, he missed his chance. He might have been president today if he ran in 2016. His mental acuity has declined since and I don't trust he will serve out the next 4 years if elected. How the Democrats picked him out of 20 better alternatives just boggled my mind.
Trump is one of the least intelligent Presidents we have ever had. He can’t produce a coherent sentence. He thinks he is smart because he can identify an elephant. He has played more rounds of golf than any other President, making him one of the laziest. He is, objectively, among the worst Presidents in the history of the country.
He has accomplished more in 4 years than any President in 8? And I am biased? That is a propaganda statement right from Trump’s mouth.
The idiot walked right into COVID like a deer walking into the mouth of a lion. Has an IQ of about 90.
His accomplishments are many. So your assertion is false. Smart has little to do with it. By all estimation. Jimmy Carter was a smart man, a nuclear engineer but a lousy president. It is more about leadership and being an executive and making the tough decisions. It is about having principles that are sound and that sticking to those principles and not flailing with the wind like most politicians. Trump is no politician and perhaps that was his biggest liability to his detractors. They like Washington DC the way it was.
They get to make the decisions and they benefit personally like Pelosi and Biden and McConnell and the people are screwed either way.
Trump changed all that at least to some extent, by trying to drain the swamp.
Carter was not a nuclear engineer.
Trump seems to have filled the swamp, not drained it. He's also used the office to benefit personally more than any other President. He's made the Secret Service stay at his hotels, charging them $600/night. He tried to force the British, through official government channels, to switch the British Open to his golf course. The list goes on and on. Still, this great businessman is $450 million in debt.
From a conservative point of view, he's certainly been able to pack the courts with partisan judges. However, his lack of respect for democracy, for decency, for the American people, and for truth, has done more to damage America and what it means than any President in history.
That might explain why he's down 16 points in the polls right now. The American people have had enough.
He's a lazy, dishonest coward.
I didn't make this up. I remember it distinctly and was one of rhe reason I voted for him.
here is what was reported -
In March 1953, Carter began nuclear power school, a six-month non-credit course covering nuclear power plant operation at Union College in Schenectady. His intent was to eventually work aboard USS Seawolf, which was planned to be one of the first two U.S. nuclear submarines. However, he never had the opportunity to serve aboard a nuclear submarine. Carter's father died two months before construction of Seawolf began, and Carter sought and obtained a release from active duty to enable him to take over the family peanut business. Based on that limited training, in later years Carter would nonetheless refer to himself as a "nuclear physicist". Deciding to leave Schenectady proved difficult. Settling after moving so much, Rosalynn had grown comfortable with their life. Returning to small-town life in Plains seemed "a monumental step backward," she said later. On the other hand, Carter felt restricted by the rigidity of the military and yearned to assume a path more like his father's. Carter left active duty on October 9, 1953. He served in the inactive Navy Reserve until 1961, and left the service with the rank of lieutenant. His awards included the American Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal, China Service Medal, and National Defense Service Medal.
He was not a nuclear engineer. He received a Bachelor of Science degree. He took a few engineering courses. That does not make him a nuclear engineer anymore then taking a few Biology courses makes one a doctor or taking a few Chemistry courses makes one a climate scientist.
This makes me question how you get your information and what you choose to believe.
The evidence for what I am writing is easily found in a number of locations. Here's one:
https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane … presidency
Perhaps they support him because he is actually doing something about the invasion of our southern border rather than simply grant citizenship to anyone that sneak in.
Perhaps because he understands the needs of business, and just how important business is to the nation.
Perhaps because he will take on foreign interests (China) that have been stealing from us for years and years. Along with others that got superb deals in trade arrangements for themselves...while giving up nothing.
Perhaps because he supports law and order rather than anarchy.
Perhaps because those "straight shooters and sensible people" look beyond today and look beyond a single event or policy.
Obama also did quite a lot to stop immigration to the United States. Did they also support Obama?
As for law and order, his reaction to the Whitmer kidnapping plot was interesting. I think his law and order only applies to certain kinds of order.
"Obama also did quite a lot to stop immigration to the United States."
He sure did. He created a second class of people, neither citizens nor aliens, that can neither become American nor go back to their homeland. And he presided over a period when it was no longer economically a good idea to enter the US illegal, reducing illegal border crossings, for which he was lauded. A good job!
This is actually a subject we agree on. We should not allow illegal immigration into the U.S.
The easiest way to stop illegal immigration into the U.S. is to punish businesses that employ illegal immigrants because that's the central reason so many people come to this country.
However, Republicans quietly promote illegal immigration by allowing businesses to employ illegal immigrants without penalty. Republicans have pushed for open borders for many years with this method. These workers are also badly exploited by those businesses.
Unfortunately, actually keeping people from coming into this country is a pretty difficult issue to solve. People are already getting around the parts of the wall that have been built, so I don't think that's probably the answer. Ultimately, the whole endeavor on that end is just too expensive.
However, if you eliminate the reason for immigrants coming to this country, then they'll stop coming. Make sure there are no jobs for them. Since they're illegal, they can't get services and they can't vote.
Of course, the result of these businesses having to hire citizens and pay fair wages and benefits is increased prices to the consumer. Traditionally, the consumer has not been willing to pay these prices, which is the reason there's a symbiotic relationship between illegal immigration and the American consumer and the American consumer and China.
Americans love cheap stuff.
This, too, we agree on; the best method of solving the problem is to put some real teeth into the laws about hiring illegal aliens. Coupled with some enforced laws about getting benefits and voting; liberals not only wish to see both but actively promote it. Might add something about not aiding and abetting such illegal activity (both getting benefits or helping them in) as well as aiding them in violating our laws. Make it illegal to have a driver's license or vote in state elections as well. Require ID's for benefits, and for schools - any and all forms of receiving money or anything else.
To blame it on Republicans, though - this seems wrong when Obama had both house and senate and did nothing about the real roots of the problem. If you're going to charge only one party with inaction it has to be Democrats. Personally I blame [ii]both[/i] parties as neither one is willing to alienate powerful business lobbies.
Of course the illegals go around the wall: it is difficult to get through it. So build more wall, don't just cry that it doesn't work. If it didn't work, they wouldn't have to go around it!
Both parties have different reasons for wanting the immigration issue to stay the way it is. They are both to blame. I'm just pointing out that despite it being a Republican rallying cry, Republicans are just as much to blame for promoting illegal immigration as Democrats. They just do it quietly. They've been blowing that dog whistle for their bases while, behind the scenes, encouraging illegal immigration.
To my knowledge, an illegal immigrant cannot get welfare, cannot vote, and cannot receive services other than emergency health care, which is another issue entirely.
Clearly, the Democrats love immigrants who turn into American citizens because it's most likely a vote for them. The Republicans love immigrants, particularly illegal ones, because they provide cheap labor.
The wall just won't work. They weren't going around it. They were climbing over it. I suspect we'll need to use more technology to solve the problem at the border.
Then your knowledge is incorrect. Illegal aliens commonly get on welfare programs. Sometimes legally, sometimes not...but immigration status cannot be checked before issuing such programs in most states so it isn't that difficult. They are also welcome to vote in some elections in some states, just as American citizens are.
Everything I've seen about the wall indicates it has been quite effective in preventing illegal entry...at that point. Not 100% of course - nothing is ever 100% - but a big help. I've seen claims that illegals will simply climb over...but nothing saying it is actually happening. On the other hand, law enforcement says it is very effective, again where there is a wall.
Yes, we need electronic surveillance and a (very) quick response team to cover the border. All of it. While expensive, it is far cheaper than supporting 20 million illegal aliens.
I will happily continue to research this issue, but perhaps it is your knowledge that is incorrect:
https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants … -cEALw_wcB
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa … -benefits/
Can non-citizens vote? Again, no:
https://www.findlaw.com/voting/my-votin … ates-.html
Where exactly are you getting your information? This search did not take me long.
But Crank, not one of your links addresses illegal welfare payments. Only gives the law. And the voter ones specifically say that some voting is legal in some states - this is what I said. In addition, nothing there addresses the lamentable fact that some states automatically register people to vote when they get a DL - I recall seeing reports a year or two ago that it was a real problem because one had to check off if they were not eligible to vote...and a great many people never saw or checked the box. One lady (here illegally) was in a panic because she got the registration notice and was scared to death she would now be deported - she was safe in California but not so much if she committed a crime.
I get it some from the web but mostly from sitting in welfare offices watching as person after person after person goes to the counter and requires a Spanish speaking interpreter. Now some of that is reasonable and expected (green card holders, for example), although I have to wonder how US citizenship was granted without the ability to speak English - it is a part of the process. Maybe I just live in an area with massive numbers of illegals, but I don't think so.
When it is forbidden to require proof of citizenship before getting benefits you know the law is being flouted.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 285081002/
This is an interesting article:
From what I can find, there are examples of illegals voting, but they are usually minor infractions. Seems to me, the easiest way to prevent both illegals receiving welfare and illegals voting is to require a SSN. Easy thing to validate.
Law changed in 1996:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/welf … -citizens/
This one seems to support your point, but it's pretty dense:
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Ho … e-Programs
The main offenders are illegal immigrants with naturalized children where the household gets the benefit, so can be shared by both the illegal and the naturalized child.
Again, the first link ignores reality in favor of the law. When illegal aliens get a DL and do not check the box saying they in ineligible to vote (which many fail to do) then they are registered automatically. And when they go to vote they are not questioned and do not have to prove citizenship. It may be illegal, but it is happening and, as the article says, checks of registered voters to see if they are citizens is not permitted. Just as with unasked for ballots, no one checks after the fact.
Your second link discusses how prejudice and fear of fraud is causing havoc with latinos voting...but never checks to see how much actual fraud there is. It is only concerned with stigmatization and discrimination, not fraud. As far as requiring an SS#; it would have to be checked, thoroughly. More and more illegals are finding it advantageous to get a fake SS# as it opens more jobs to them. They'll pay taxes, yes, but the pay is MUCH better and they are treated better on the job as well.
The third link says that the "new" law allows welfare after 5 years. Illegal or not, welfare is permissible after that time (I did not know this).
I had a hard time with the last one, too. Partly because it discusses "non-citizens" of which illegal aliens are only a portion and partly because it seems to label anyone here but not born here as an "immigrant", whether they have satisfied the requirements for immigration and citizenship or not. That makes much of the data useless in determining whether illegal aliens are drawing welfare, although the data presented seems to indicate that a great many ARE. Hard to be sure, though.
Not sure why you think the main offenders are illegals with naturalized children (if they get it for naturalized children they are not offenders at all); while they can get benefits after 5 years, and that means time to have kids, they can also get it after 20 years and that means those kids are gone from the household. I will say, though, that the kids are pretty much all getting free lunch at school, so that means a great many households get it from that one program. They may, or may not, get other forms as well, but that one program will include a great many illegal households.
With regard to that last paragraph, at least from what I read, if an illegal immigrant has a child in the United States, then the child can get services. The main point is that if you have a large household with some illegal immigrants and some legal, then the entire household can potential benefit from things like food stamps.
My overall concern is that there are a lot of conservative talking points like illegals getting welfare, illegals voting, and voter fraud, where the assumption is the proof. There's no hard data to back this stuff up. There's just anecdotal evidence. What then happens is that the existence of anecdotal evidence becomes proof and is used to justify all sorts of beliefs. Climate change falls into that category. Suddenly, some random scientist without qualifications says that climate change is a hoax and that anecdotal evidence is the proof needed to support a position.
You'll notice in one of those articles that sometimes illegals are brought into the country to work on specific Visas. Then they end up staying. Consequently, there's a movement to allow them to access services since they're paying taxes. This is another situation where the employer has to be held responsible for this whole process.
Again though, I will fall back on the impact on inflation that eliminating the illegal alien problem will have. Frankly, I don't think Americans will support it once it impacts their wallet in that way. I've mentioned this before, but when I drove across California, it was so obvious that picking strawberries was being done by illegals. One wonders how removing all illegals will impact agriculture. I suspect it will drive prices sky high.
The counter to that concern, of course, is whether or not we are okay with this kind of worker exploitation.
Just thinking out loud.
Absolutely your first paragraph is correct. My only concern is that the whole thing is written off because some illegal families are getting welfare quite legally. I don't agree that that sub-group is anywhere large enough to ignore the whole thing.
That's part of the point - that we don't have studies on how much welfare is given to illegal aliens that don't qualify...because we don't check before or after giving it. We just give it to those that say they qualify and the result is that we only have anecdotal evidence. That and the reasoning that the rules denying that we check before issuing WILL produce payments that should never be made, and that seems like a reasonable conclusion. Plus, of course, the knowledge that a great many are known to get help illegally - that would include every alien schoolchild getting free lunch, every illegal on medicaid (I was not aware they could, but your link says "yes") as just two examples.
I suspect food prices would rise, yes. And that, although the costs to the treasury would fall, that decrease would never be seen in lower taxes for politicians WILL spend every dime they have available. But the flip side is that we will also see increased employment for Americans, mostly the young, and that's a good thing. It also means that tax receipts would go up as most illegal aliens do not pay taxes and the wages would also rise (unproven assumption).
Finally, I for one am NOT OK with this kind of exploitation. I worked construction for many years and witnessed first hand how some of those people are treated. It's evil, it's wrong, and it should not be tolerated. Just as with DACA (but far worse) we have created a second class (or maybe third class) of people; people that are treated as dogs and live a miserable life, at least by our standards.
From a strictly practical standpoint, I think that Democrats can be moved on this issue by using California as an example. It's my perception that even Democrats in Southern California advocate for doing something about immigration because they live with the influx every day and basic services are so overrun.
The second practical solution is for Congress to initiate a scientific study to determine just how much money is being spent to provide services for illegal aliens. One question I have seen answered is that although illegal aliens get services, they also pay that back in taxes because they're here working. However, that doesn't really jive. I'm sure a lot of them are being paid under the table.
The third thing would be new laws punishing businesses for employing illegal aliens.
The one thing we may disagree on though is employment. I question whether Americans do those jobs. During times of high unemployment, maybe. However, during normal times, I suspect they wouldn't and it would leave some industries with dire problems. Probably, you'd have to run some tests to see how certain industries fare as these laws are tightened.
Yes, services are in bad shape in California. I've read where hospitals in the southern portion are closing because they can't afford to care for the masses of illegals that don't pay. But I'm not sure that will convince the powers-that-be to take any action - the "But they're just people trying to do better for themselves!" and "You want to K I L L the little children!" are louder than the voices of reason. When I see city mayors publicly warning illegals that ICE will be in town tomorrow, I don't see anything happening to control the problem. Could be wrong, though, and maybe it IS getting bad enough to force action.
I doubt you could ever get that study from Congress, for much the same reason as above. But it has been done privately and the costs to the nation are staggering, doubly so when it is widely promoted that illegals pay their own way. This is patently false - not only do most pay no income tax, but when they do it isn't enough to even educate their children, let along provide their share of the rest of the costs. You don't have a high tax bill on minimum wage.
I agree - hit the businesses, and hit them hard. It will require some method of identifying illegal workers, though, and we've never finalized our work in providing that for employers. That has to be done, but after - well, I thought that the first offence would be a fine of 1/3 of the previous year's profits, the second (in say, 3 years) to be 2/3 of that profit and the third offence closure and auctioning off the business. With some consideration given to large businesses that have multiple locations - it isn't reasonable to expect perfection when thousands are hired every day.
One of the problems we have with employment is with teens - we've made it nearly impossible to work. Did you know that in many states a young McDonalds employee can't pour your coffee? Open up some Ag jobs and I think you will find them filled with teens. Or maybe they won't and we'll have to issue temporary green cards. But I'm pretty sure there is an answer outside of allowing millions of illegal aliens into the country - aliens that violate our laws every day as we support them.
Wrong, it is not Trump's fault. The problem lies with the Democratic mayors and governors. They are the ones keeping America from re-opening.
Here is how you will know that this virus has been politicized.
Right after the election, regardless of who wins, everything will be open.
The reason is very simple. We cannot keep our country shut down indefinitely.
Not the schools, not businesses, not churches and not restaurants...
With or without a working vaccine, the country will reopen after November.
Then perhaps Trump supporters should wear their masks. Their behavior is what is keeping the country from re-opening, along with their distrust in science. Most of them will refuse the vaccine.
In my area (highly conservative) they are (wearing their masks). I haven't made a strict count, but my impression is that well over half of them are. And I haven't spoken to a single person that will refuse the vaccine, although I assume the anti-vaxxers will.
I am a trump supporter and I wear masks. One has nothing to do with the other. I bet I can find Never Trumpers also not wearing masks. In fact, didn't Nancy Pelosi was caught not wearing a mask in a hair salon?
by ptosis 5 years ago
Seriously, don't Trump supporters feel a bit betrayed when he trumps himself repeatedly withan even odious statement as time goes by? Yes being non-PC is his thing and everybody is entertained by it but at one point do supporters say, "OK - that was over the line" I do know that when most...
by crankalicious 18 months ago
Three things have happened in recent days that should have any logical person convinced that President Trump is a liar and guilty of the thing he's being impeached for:1. His lawyers have asserted that the reason for withholding aid to Ukraine had to due with the fact they were responsible for...
by PrettyPanther 6 months ago
Some have pushed their way into both the House and Senate.The Capitol Police have asked for reinforcements. The constitutional proceedings have been halted. Legislators have been told to shelter in place.Will Trump ask them to stop? I doubt it, but maybe he will come through and do the right thing,...
by crankalicious 6 months ago
This is your President:a man who claims fraud in the 2016 election and organizes a committee to find fraud which fails and disbands.a man who again claims fraud in the 2020 election before the election even happens and does not commit to the peaceful transfer of power.a man who claims fraud after...
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I will have to give some thought to why I have a nagging worry that speaking of attending the Inauguration is bragging, but until then, I am proud that I made the effort.Allow me to set the stage:I am not a Trump supporter, but I am not anti-Trump either. My wife is almost violently anti-Trump. We...
by Scott Belford 5 months ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|