The inability to see what is right in front of us
Hey, I'm just curious:
Are "states' rights" a thing that Republicans still believe is important, or does that only apply to Democratic Presidents and red states?
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS FULL OF IT...
Did she just conveniently change her mind?You rarely take the full context into account. You post a sentence or two and leave out everything else—the reasons behind it, why she actually made the statement you dug up.
Kristi Noem’s comments on federalizing the National Guard during the Texas border dispute were clear: she argued that such action by President Biden would be a “direct attack on states’ rights.” At the time, the context was enforcement of a court order against Governor Abbott’s use of razor wire barriers, an action she saw as federal overreach into state authority. Some critics now point to her support for sending federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles under President Trump and suggest her attitude has changed. But the comparison doesn’t hold up—the situations are fundamentally different, and there is no true analogy between them. In D.C. and L.A., federal troops were deployed to protect federal property and maintain order, not to override a state governor’s policy or challenge states’ autonomy. Noem’s position wasn’t inconsistent; it reflected the principle she was defending in each case. Her warning about Biden was about state sovereignty being undercut, whereas Trump’s deployments were about defending the federal government’s constitutional responsibilities, which is exactly the type of situation she has consistently supported.They believe in State's Rights ONLY when it sounds right. If it gets in their way, ....
Oh yeah, just the kind of thing we've all been waiting for...
The Trump administration has canceled the Biden era rule where airlines would have to compensate passengers for flight disruptions....The self-delusion on the Right is astounding tonight? It's truly amazing to behold!
Viewer preference will show that most people like to be lied to if that allows them to be told what they want to hear. (i.e. FOX ratings)
"I believe that Fox is a clarion of lies and false hoods."
You don't have to "believe". There is a $787.5 million payment FOX paid to settle a defamation lawsuit on the record."Viewer preference will show that most people like to be lied to if that allows them to be told what they want to hear. (i.e. FOX ratings)
"I believe that Fox is a clarion of lies and false hoods." Kathleen
So you’re essentially saying that the majority of nightly cable news viewers prefer to be lied to. That’s a very interesting claim, and I’d like to unpack it a bit. Consider the fact that CNN and MSNBC enjoyed strong ratings for many years, yet I’ve personally witnessed no significant change in the way they present or report the news. So what caused so many viewers to turn away? Were they not telling enough mistruths, prompting audiences to head over to Fox? Your logic here escapes me. It seems like a curious assumption to claim that most Americans prefer to be lied to. I will also point out that, yes, Fox did lose a major lawsuit for misrepresenting a news story, but what about the many similar cases CNN has faced in courts? How do you reconcile those?
In many respects, I agree with your sentiment that “viewer preference will show that most people like to be lied to if that allows them to be told what they want to hear.” But if your theory holds any weight, does it imply that many viewers have abandoned the more left-leaning cable news channels because they are no longer hearing what aligns with their desires? Or is it simply that, for one reason or another, they lost interest in the content being presented?
Going back to what started this thread... look at NYC
... good stuff:
https://x.com/i/status/1964063310514647219Maybe good stuff to you, but it starts out with a lie and goes down from there.
She clearly has no idea of what the Prophet is actually about.You might want to read it again:
* “Mayor Adams has elevated Muhammad’s birthday to holiday status in NYC.” — False.
* “NYC has surrendered itself to Islam.” — Opinion / rhetoric, not a verifiable fact.
* “Chants of ‘Ya Nabi, Salam Alaika’ — an open display of Islamic supremacy.” — Partly unsupported / opinion.
* “Speakers boasted about the ‘Charter of Medina’… That is a LIE.” — False framing / Misleading.
* The Charter was only a temporary power move; Jews were tolerated only if loyal; when they resisted they were expelled, enslaved, or slaughtered.” — Oversimplified / Misleading.
Now, to the ONLY factual things she said:
* “At City Hall, Adams presided over a celebration of the Prophet Muhammad.” — True
* “Adams has appointed a Pakistani-American Muslim Women’s Liaison Officer.” — True
Ken, Thanks for the reminder. Let's hope they stay on this path. It's so pathetic.
Its concerning actually... we see clear divide in the direction States are going... places like NY and CA are devolving into what I can only define as Leftwing Lunacy... detached more and more from reality.
While other States are starting to become Conservative in a way that even I think is nearing the line without signs of stopping before they cross over.
And this while the reality of major global upheaval, the end of the American Hegemony, and the very real likelihood of a disastrous world war is looming ever larger." the very real likelihood of a disastrous world war is looming ever larger."
Well, you MAGAs are the ones who put a Trump in office twice. How did you think it would turn out?
Three years and four months and counting until Make America Good Again.I suppose "you MAGAs" are everyone not devoted to towing the Party (Democratic) line, right or wrong, in your view.
That said... how on earth do you come up with Trump being responsible for the current world stage?
It was Biden's Administration that poked and prodded Russia into action against Ukraine... and then kept it going for 4 straight years.
It was Biden's Administration that released hundreds of billions to Iran, which Trump had put an economic choke hold on... Iran in turn used those billions to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in their terror efforts while rebuilding their nuclear weapons efforts... thank Biden and his DEI Administration for putting America squarely behind the 8 ball on the world stage.A repeat of all the same debunked talking points.
Weren't all those talking points debunked? Do you have proof?
AI The source you have been posting frequibtly
Could Biden Have “Poked” Russia Into War?
Provocation Argument (pro-factual case for your statement):
Biden reaffirmed Ukraine’s NATO path, ignoring Russia’s red line.
Biden armed Ukraine more heavily than Trump ever did (Trump sent lethal aid, but Biden accelerated and expanded it).
U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressure were seen by Russia as hostile.
Some analysts argue the U.S. was less flexible in negotiation compared to, say, France or Germany.
Counter-Argument (against your statement):
Russia invaded on its own terms, independent of U.S. actions, because Putin sought to restore Russian influence over Ukraine.
Ukraine is a sovereign country and asked for U.S. support; Biden didn’t “force” Ukraine into NATO or war.
U.S. aid didn’t “start” the war—it responded to Russia’s full-scale invasion.
5. Has Biden “Kept It Going for 4 Years”?
The war is now in its fourth year of Biden’s presidency (since Feb 2022).
The U.S. has continuously funded Ukraine’s defense and rejected calls for negotiation that would concede territory to Russia.
Critics say this policy “prolongs” the conflict; supporters argue it’s about defending sovereignty.
✅ Fact Check Summary:
Biden did not literally start the Russia–Ukraine war, but his administration’s policies (NATO support, military aid, sanctions, refusal to compromise on Russia’s red lines) were seen by Moscow as provocations.
Once the war began, Biden’s policy of large-scale funding and arming Ukraine has unquestionably helped sustain the war effort for years.
Whether this counts as “poking and prodding Russia into action” versus “defending Ukraine’s sovereignty” depends on perspective.
My view --- I am with Ken --- Biden well provoked a war, and kept the fire burning. Making Ukraine a "killing field". Nothing is more disturbing to see than NATO nations using Ukraine as a disposable fighting zone.
AI --- Did Biden’s administration “release hundreds of billions to Iran”?
The Biden administration allowed the unfreezing of Iran’s own assets, previously frozen in foreign banks. These funds had been held in places like South Korea, Qatar, and Oman.
Two key movements:
A $6 billion release tied to a hostage exchange, enabling Iran access to funds held in South Korea. These were to be used only for humanitarian purposes and were not U.S. money.
A $10 billion waiver allowing Iraq to access funds owed to Iran (for electricity purchases), again not new U.S. spending, but enabling Iran access to its own funds.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/20231115010 … hatgpt.com
https://www.cramer.senate.gov/news/pres … hatgpt.com
Altogether, media reports of “$16 billion released” refer to the sum of these two. https://mast.house.gov/2023/11/biden-ha … hatgpt.com
Conclusion: Biden’s administration permitted access to roughly $16 billion of Iran’s previously frozen assets—None of which were taxpayer funds. However, his decisions did supply Iran with 16 billion dollars within a short time period.
What We Know About Iran's Support for Terrorist Groups
Longstanding Financial & Military Backing
Iran has long been a major sponsor of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Axis of Resistance through its Quds Force. This includes both financial aid and weapons/training.
Examples:
In 2020, the U.S. State Department estimated Iran provided around $100 million annually to Palestinian militant groups—including Hamas. By 2023, that figure had reportedly risen to $350 million per year
Wikipedia
+1
Hezbollah is believed to receive between $100–700 million annually from Iran, plus weapon deliveries and training
The Washington Institute
Iran’s financial networks—including the Iranian Central Bank and National Development Fund—have facilitated these transfers and have been sanctioned by the U.S.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
There are also well-documented intelligence findings:
Secret letters reportedly found reveal $222 million in payments from Iran to Hamas between 2014 and 2020, including a single $58 million payment after the 2021 Jerusalem conflict
The Times
Documents uncovered in Gaza appear to link Hamas leadership to negotiations with Iran for funding for a large-scale attack—e.g., $10 million allocated initially and a request for $500 million later
The Wall Street Journal
Critics Warn of Fungibility
Some policymakers and analysts argue that even if the newly unfrozen funds were earmarked for humanitarian purposes, fungibility means Iran could reallocate other resources to sustain militant groups
Politico
The Washington Post
Source AI Question asked ---Is there proof that Iran supported Hamas and other terrorist groups with the 16 billion that they received from legitimate funds they received during the Biden administration?
Final Take
Yes, Iran has a well-documented history of funding militant groups via structured financial networks.
No, there is no verified or direct proof that the funds released in the 2023 agreement were used for terrorism or nuclear activities.
While critics argue about the potential (fungibility) risk, the Biden administration’s released funds have remained unused and tightly controlled, per official statements and fact-checks.
This information should aid in one being able to form their own personal view of the issue. In my view, Biden supplied a ton of cash "legally" to Iran... and Iran during this time period accelerated terrorism, and war. This is my pure view... Don't care to hear others' views on this issue.Could Biden Have “Poked” Russia Into War?
Yes, your AI presented the Pros and Cons correctly. It seems to me the Counter-Arguments debunked the critics. Also, it is not in America's best interest to let Putin dictate to us as is implied by the "PROs". Others here may feel differently, but I don't.
5. Has Biden “Kept It Going for 4 Years”? - Why isn't the question "Has Putin 'Kept it Going for 4 years"? It sounds very much like the question implies that the aggressor (Putin) should win. Doesn't that sound unAmerican to you? It does to me.
So, if you say your view is that Biden "provoked" the war, then you really should complete that thought by adding that he "provoked" it by not submitting to Putin's aggression. - something patriotic Americans refuse to do.
Here is the real AI generated story as to what happened. The question is
Critics say Biden "provoked" the Ukraine war. Give me a summary of the things Biden tried to do to stop Putin from attacking.
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 3m 15s
Here’s a concise rundown of what the Biden administration actually did to try to head off a Russian attack before Feb. 24, 2022:
* Direct leader-to-leader diplomacy. Biden warned Putin in a Dec 7, 2021 video call that a new invasion would trigger “strong economic and other measures,” then repeated the warning in a Dec 30 call and again on Feb 12, 2022.
[The White House, Reuters, U.S. Embassy in Ukraine]
* Opened multiple diplomatic tracks. In January 2022 the U.S. met Russia in Geneva, reconvened the NATO-Russia Council in Brussels, and participated in an OSCE session in Vienna to seek de-escalation.
[Reuters, NATO, Voice of America]
* Put concrete arms-control/risk-reduction proposals on paper. On Jan 26, 2022 the U.S. and NATO delivered written responses offering talks on limits and transparency for missiles and exercises (while rejecting Moscow’s core demand to close NATO’s “open door”).
[Arms Control Association]
* Publicly “pre-bunked” Russian pretexts. Beginning Feb 3, 2022 the U.S. declassified intelligence—e.g., that Russia planned a staged “false-flag” video—to complicate Kremlin narratives and rally allies; Blinken then laid out Russia’s likely invasion playbook at the U.N. on Feb 17 “to prevent a war.”
[Reuters, Brookings, useu.usmission.gov, Christian Science Monitor]
* Threatened severe economic costs in advance. On Jan 25 the White House previewed unprecedented sanctions and export-control “tech denial” measures as deterrence; these were coordinated with allies.
[The White House]
* Targeted Russia’s key energy leverage. Biden said on Feb 7, “there will be no Nord Stream 2” if Russia invaded; after Moscow recognized proxy “republics,” the U.S. and Germany moved to halt the pipeline on Feb 22.
[The White House]
* Armed Ukraine ahead of time. Washington accelerated deliveries in January (multiple 80–90-ton shipments of ammo and Javelins) and approved Baltic states to transfer U.S.-made Javelins/Stingers—all intended to raise Putin’s costs if he attacked.
[Reuters]
* Kept a summit option open if Russia stood down. On Feb 20 the White House said Biden accepted in principle a meeting with Putin—if Russia didn’t invade—keeping a diplomatic off-ramp on the table.
The White House
That mix—intense diplomacy, public intelligence disclosures, advance sanctions threats (including tech export controls and Nord Stream 2), and rushing defensive aid to Kyiv—was aimed at deterrence. It didn’t stop Putin from invading, but it’s inaccurate to say the administration “provoked” the war; the steps above were designed to avert it or raise the costs if it happened.
[The White House]
Of course, those with BDS won't see it that way.The critics never tell the WHOLE story about getting our people out of Iran, do they. So, in all fairness, I need to present the rest of the story - which leads to radically different conclusions that were drawn here.
* Iran never saw a dime of the $6 billion. It sits frozen in Qatar to this day. -
Conclusion - Biden’s administration did not permit access to roughly $6 billion of Iran’s previously frozen assets—None of which were taxpayer funds. However, his decisions did not supply Iran with 6 billion dollars within a short time period.
* Iran has never saw a dime of the $10 billion. - Its in escrow and the U.S. controls how it is spent. It doesn't free-up any Iranian funds either because it doesn't replace any monies Iran might otherwise have spent.
Conclusion - Biden’s administration did not permit access to roughly $10 billion of Iran’s escrowed assets—None of which were taxpayer funds. However, his decisions did not supply Iran with 10 billion dollars within a short time period.
Now, clearly your view is different from that and you are certainly entitled to it, but the facts point elsewhere.This is at least the 10th time, maybe 20th time that these people have been fact checked on "money to Iran".
And I have a real good suspicion that it won't be the last LOL
None of it ever sinks in. The same old fact checks go around and around and around.I know, but I am patient most of the time. :-)
No, Biden did not provoke the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Russia had been involved in a conflict with Ukraine since 2014...you folks are CONSTANTLY ignoring the history between Russia and Ukraine.
And CONSTANTLY leaving Putin out of the equation.... He clearly stated his reason for invading Ukraine and his objectives. NONE OF WHICH HAVE AN IOTA TO DO WITH BIDEN OR AMERICA
It's interesting that it seems to be folks opinion that Biden was a savvy enough to talk Putin out of those objectives....BUT Putin's resolve is used as an excuse for Trump and his inability to negotiate a peaceful end to the war... Can't have it both ways.Now this is really scary!!
I am working on my book about Conservatism in Practice. I am at the section on different types of political philosophies. The way my process works is I write out my thoughts and then let ChatGPT improve them. If I like what it comes up with, I do some editing and then keep it. If I don't like it, which is often, I tell it why and have it try again. This really speeds things up and produces a more interesting read not filled with my clunkiness.
Anyway, I told it to improve what I had on fascism and the following is what it came up with on the first try. Now, I did mention that America is heading in that direction right now which accounts for the last section. Basically, this is what our side of the aisle has been saying for quite some time.
"Fascism
Fascism represents the antithesis of liberal democracy. It is ultranationalist, authoritarian, and anti-individualist, exalting the state, the leader, and the “nation” (often defined in ethnic, racial, or cultural terms) above all else. Fascists reject liberalism, socialism, and democracy alike, portraying them as weak, decadent, or corrupt. They promise not compromise, but rebirth: a purified nation restored to greatness through discipline, obedience, and force.
Core Beliefs:
* The nation is sacred; individuals exist only to serve it.
* Authoritarian leadership is necessary to enforce unity and strength.
* Militarism, struggle, and conquest are glorified as the true tests of vitality.
* Dissent is suppressed; propaganda, censorship, and political theater become tools of control.
* Diversity and pluralism are treated as threats to unity, while scapegoats—ethnic, religious, or political—are blamed for national decline.
Practice:
Fascism rose in the 20th century during moments of crisis, when liberal democracy appeared unable to deliver stability. Mussolini’s Italy (1922–1943) and Hitler’s Germany (1933–1945) are its archetypes. Franco’s Spain and Pinochet’s Chile echoed aspects of fascism, though with local variations. Fascists exploit fear—of economic collapse, cultural change, or foreign influence—to justify extraordinary power. They cultivate loyalty through mass rallies, charismatic leaders, and a constant appeal to emergency.
Modern Relevance:
While fascism was militarily defeated in 1945, its methods never vanished. Across the world, movements have revived its themes: ultranationalism, disdain for institutions, leader-worship, and hostility to minorities. In the United States, many observers now warn of “creeping fascism”—the use of propaganda to delegitimize elections, the cult of personality surrounding political figures, and the normalization of violence in political rhetoric. In parts of Europe, hard-right parties openly channel fascist nostalgia. Fascism is not a relic; it is a recurring temptation whenever people, fearful of change, are promised safety in exchange for obedience.
Critiques:
Fascism destroys liberty in the name of unity. It replaces law with the leader’s will and patriotism with blind obedience. It promises purity but delivers oppression, promising greatness while dragging nations into ruin. Its appeal lies in offering clarity during chaos and certainty during uncertainty—but its record shows that this clarity is purchased through persecution, and its certainty ends in catastrophe."I don't think we are experiencing "creeping" fascism here in America. I think it has fully arrived.
Agree.
JD Vance
"Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military."
"Democrats: let’s send your kids to die in Russia.
Republicans: actually let’s protect our people from the scum of the earth."
Bryan Krassenstein:
"Killing thw citizens of another nation who are civiluans without any due process is called a war crime."
JD Vance:
"I dont give a shit what you call it."Btw, Im glad someone found his testicles.
“JD “I don’t give a shit” Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the “highest and best use of the military.” Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?
Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation??
What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial."
Rand PaulI hear Trump is using Puerto Rico to stage for more murders. And before a Trump apologist pops up and says these are bad guys and deserve to be killed let me say - killing someone who is NOT a direct and immediate threat (such as a terrorist making plans to kill Americans) to America without DUE PROCESS is murder
Even IF those people on the boat Trump blew up were cartel, they were not an immediate threat nor was there DUE PROCESS, therefore Trump committed murder by ordering their deaths.
An International Court needs to indict him for such.And yet if these people bring in fentanyl that kills thousands of Americans you and your beloved Democrats are okay with that?
I guess you think killing is bad only when it is people who are citizens of your country. Homeless guy stabs and murders a Ukranian immigrant? I guess that is okay too since after all it was not his fault since he is homeless.
And when your demigod Obama used to practice the double tap and kill the first responders that came to save the people that he murdered with his drone strikes you and your party were all for it, or have you forgotten that? It is only murder when Trump does it.You know it's supply and demand... Americans want fentanyl. Americans want ANY kind of drug they can get their hands on... Murdering people on boats without trials, without evidence does nothing to address America's insatiable need for drugs
Sending drones to Pakistan to murder children sleeping in tents made a great deal of difference though? Where was the evidence against them, or does it not even matter since they were collateral damage?
What does that have to do with America's desire to consume illegal drugs???
Not sure if you read his original rant, where he goes on about how Trump was a murderer.
Yeah and I agree with that... We blew up 11 people and asked no questions later.... Our government was judge jury and executioner... Scary shit
I would have liked to see you or that person condemning Obama and calling for his arrest and impeachment for murdering those children in a drone strike. I guess it is not as scary when a Democrat murders pregnant women and innocent children though. Maybe they had due process and were convicted of being born in Yemen.
Drug cartels -- good. Innocent people --- bad.... Did you not get the drift of this long ago here on the HPS political forum? Doc, it's all very upside down
Did Obama plan to intentionally kill people who had nothing to do with the mission?
And where is he evidence of smuggling or anything else from this boat of 11 people? Trump was judge, jury and executioner of these 11 people...The first 21 children and the pregnant women may not have been intentional. Are you not familiar with his double-tap policy? They bombed the primary target, and then when the first responders showed up to rescue anyone still alive the drones came back and killed anyone who had showed up to help. Yes, that was intentional. It is the murder of people who had nothing to do with the mission.
This is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. There is absolutely nothing similar in Obama's use of drone strikes and Trump's blowing up of a boat in international water...
Are you suffering from amnesia?
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
I doubt even the liars over at CNN are going to argue with these numbers, but you are welcome to post another link if you find someone that will back up your....How on Earth are you comparing an equating Obama's drone strikes with Trump's annihilation of a boat???????
Not sure why you're continuing to state that Obama intentionally killed innocent peopleYeah, President Donald Trump killed narco-terrorists from Venezuelan gangs trying to flood our country with killer illegal drugs.
obama killed American citizens.
That is a real major difference.Yes, Obama's was legal and Trump's most likely is not.
Mike, the facts are clear --- President Trump killed narco-terrorists from Venezuelan gangs that are hell bent on trying to flood our country with killer illegal drugs. He even signed an Executive Order proclaiming war on the cartels, officially designating them as terrorist organizations and enemies of the United States. That gave him the authority to treat them as hostile foreign threats rather than just criminal groups. One major example came when Trump ordered U.S. forces to blow up a cartel drug boat carrying drugs. He had notified Congress of his intent, making it clear that America was going to use military force if necessary to stop these enemies in the water. The boat was destroyed with cartel members on board, sending the message that the U.S. would no longer tolerate narco-terrorists operating freely.
Obama, on the other hand, used his executive power very differently. In 2011, he approved a drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen accused of being linked to al-Qaeda. That same strike also killed another American, Samir Khan. Two weeks later, a separate strike killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was never accused of terrorism. Another American, Jude Kenan Mohammad, was also killed in a drone strike in Pakistan. Obama did not notify Congress beforehand of these actions. Instead, his administration later produced a classified legal memo to justify killing Americans without trial. In total, at least four U.S. citizens were killed under his drone policy, sparking outrage because it bypassed constitutional protections of due process and set a dangerous precedent where the government could unilaterally target its own citizens abroad.
That’s a major difference: Trump declared war on foreign cartels and narco-terrorists poisoning communities, while Obama blurred constitutional rights by targeting and killing American citizens without trial.What facts??? He provided absolutely nothing in the way of real justification to Congress.... We will never know the real truth of who was blown up out there.
Sorry, Sharlee, the fact are not clear. As of now, we have no idea who was on the boat, You only have the work of a pathological liar and that is simply not good enough for me.
As you were informed factually before, the EO does not give Trump the authority to kill people without due process.
As you were informed factually before, Obama's actions were legal, NOT by him saying so himself in an EO, but by an act of Congress - big difference.
In any case, using Obama whether true or not is deflecting from what Trump did. In all likelihood, Trump murdered whoever was on that boat.
Further, you seem to be deflecting from the real issue, the total and absolute lack of due process, something almost all patriotic Americans believed before Trump.
“Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” B. Obama 2011
Drone Strikes and U.S. Citizens Under the Obama Administration
In 2011, President Barack Obama authorized a drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and senior member of al-Qaeda. The same strike also resulted in the death of Samir Khan, another American citizen and al-Qaeda member. Two weeks later, a separate drone strike killed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar's 16-year-old son, who was not accused of terrorism. Additionally, Jude Kenan Mohammad, a U.S. citizen linked to al-Qaeda, was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.
The Washington Post
AP News
The Obama administration did not notify Congress before these strikes. Instead, it later released a classified legal memo justifying the killings of U.S. citizens without trial. The memo concluded that al-Awlaki's U.S. citizenship did not impose constitutional limitations on the contemplated lethal action. It also cited the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after the September 11 attacks as legal justification.
The Washington Post
Reuters
In total, at least four U.S. citizens were killed under Obama's drone policy, raising concerns about due process and constitutional rights. The administration's actions sparked debates over the balance between national security and civil liberties.So now you are taking the word of an anonymous, second-hand quote, not a confirmed statement. In any case, that sounds exactly like something Trump would say, it is totally out of character for Obama, he just doesn't talk that way. My guess, it is made up or the source was someone who hates Obama.
Also, you neglected for some reason, to say American Terrorists.
I know I should be aware of them by now. I am writing a few articles and looking for a distraction, which is the only reason I am ignoring your excellent post from a few weeks ago where you said you are taking a break from here.
The dark side keeps pulling us back in!!!!It really does LOL—but over the past few days, I’ve realized that by going along with some of the posts here, I start to feel like I’m enabling something very unhealthy, at times. When I pause and step back, I find myself being more selective about what I respond to. I’m always hoping to see something that genuinely catches my interest, but nowadays, only a very small handful of people actually post anymore.
Well I'd say one would be on the wrong track responding to this illogical conjecture....
But that isn't the premise of the argument whatsoever?
Hi Doc,
Yes, you hit the nail on the head, all that and more is perfectly alright, no problem at all. Honestly, you’re pretty much wasting your time. Today, some people have a way of turning all that is good into something bad, and all that is bad into something good. For example, celebrating hard work is called “greedy,” personal responsibility is “oppressive,” order and discipline are “authoritarian,” kindness is “weakness,” ambition is “selfish,” truth is “offensive,” tradition is “backward,” and chaos is hailed as “progress.” Even common sense is sometimes painted as “extremist,” while nonsense is praised as “enlightened.”“None of us is ‘okay’ with fentanyl killing Americans. The question isn’t whether to be tough—it’s whether we stay within the law and use tactics that actually work. If a vessel poses an imminent threat (shooting, ramming), lethal force can be justified. But blowing up a “suspected” drug boat without that threshold isn’t drug policy; it’s summary execution that destroys evidence, yields no intel on suppliers, and invites blowback. It may be OK in Brazil for the gov't to kill people without due process, but in America, before Trump, we once frowned on it.
On Obama: I criticized civilian-harming strikes then, and I would now - IF they weren't an imminent threat like they were then. My standard doesn’t change with the jersey. On your homeless example: violent crimes are prosecuted regardless of citizenship or housing status—nobody here is excusing murder.
So let’s deal in facts: What verified evidence showed an imminent threat? Who had jurisdiction, and what rules of engagement were used? If those checks out, say so. If not, I’m not going to cheer a potential war crime just because “our side” did it. We can save lives and keep our response lawful and effective.”
And speaking of evidence - where is it for your other claims? Without it, I must assume it is just imagination.I guess you did not hear about the governor excusing that murder since the killer was homeless. Not surprised, she is a Democrat and CNN decided that it was not worth covering.
"—it’s whether we stay within the law and use tactics that actually work. " ECO
Your comment forgets that Trump declared a war on drug cartels --- people die in wars. And he has set a good precedent to warn the cartels that he is conducting a war with no hands tied. And this is
Yes, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14157 on January 20, 2025, officially designating several international drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). This order initiated a comprehensive strategy to combat these groups, including the use of military force.
Key Details of Executive Order 14157
Designation of Terrorist Organizations: The order authorized the U.S. Department of State to designate specific cartels and gangs as FTOs and SDGTs. Notable groups affected include the Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and others.
State Department
https://www.state.gov/terrorist-designa … hatgpt.com
Legal and Operational Measures: The order empowers U.S. agencies to implement sanctions, asset freezes, and other legal actions against these organizations. It also facilitates the use of military force against entities deemed to be terrorist threats.
The White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … hatgpt.com
National Emergency Declaration: A national emergency was declared under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address the threats posed by these organizations.
Military Actions Following the Executive Order
Subsequent to the executive order, the U.S. military initiated operations against these designated groups. On September 2, 2025, a U.S. Navy strike in the Caribbean targeted a vessel linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, resulting in the deaths of 11 individuals. President Trump described the operation as a warning to other traffickers, emphasizing a no-tolerance policy.
This series of actions underscores the administration's commitment to a militarized approach in the ongoing war on drugs, signaling a significant shift in U.S. counter-narcotics strategy.
Yes, impeachment efforts related to President Trump's Executive Order 14157 and the subsequent military strike have been introduced, but as of now, no formal votes have been taken in the House of Representatives.
On April 28, 2025, Representative Shri Thanedar (D–MI) introduced House Resolution 353 (H.Res.353), which outlines seven articles of impeachment against President Trump. One of these articles specifically addresses the President's unilateral military actions, including the September 2, 2025, strike against a drug-laden vessel off the coast of Venezuela. This military action was the first known strike against a cartel since Trump authorized such operations earlier in the year. The resolution also accuses the President of violating international law and breaching constitutional duties by conducting military operations without congressional approval, thereby circumventing the legislative branch's authority over matters of war.
Congress.gov
Following the introduction of H.Res.353, Representative Thanedar notified the House of his intent to offer the resolution as a privileged motion on May 13, 2025. This procedural step was taken to expedite consideration of the resolution. However, Democratic leaders, along with some Republicans, expressed opposition to the resolution. On May 14, 2025, Representative Thanedar announced he would not force a vote on the resolution, stating he wanted to add additional articles of impeachment related to other alleged misconduct by President Trump.
ABC News
In summary, while impeachment resolutions have been introduced in response to President Trump's Executive Order 14157 and the subsequent military strike, no formal votes have been taken in the House of Representatives as of now.
I think I will trust other sources for facts --- government sources
Executive Orders vs. Law: EO 14157 does not create a law that authorizes war. It designates cartels as terrorist organizations and directs the executive branch to take action—but it cannot override Congress’s power to declare war or the War Powers Resolution.
Commander-in-Chief Authority: The President, as head of the military, can order limited strikes or military actions against threats to U.S. interests. That’s why the Navy strike against the cartel-linked boat could legally be carried out under his authority. It’s considered a military operation, not a formal “war” in the sense that Congress declared one.
War Powers Check: The War Powers Resolution (1973) requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces and limits military action to 60 days without Congressional approval. Any extended operations against cartels would technically require Congressional authorization to be fully compliant with the law.
Yes, President Trump did notify Congress about the September 2, 2025, military strike against a vessel linked to the Tren de Aragua cartel in the Caribbean. This notification was made in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which mandates that the President inform Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities. The White House issued a letter detailing the operation, asserting that the vessel posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security and that the strike was consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
I hear Trump is using Puerto Rico to stage for more murders.
Yup.
Hegseth in Puerto Rico as Pentagon eyes island for military usage
The unannounced trip coincides with the Trump administration’s plan to dramatically ramp up operations targeting Latin American drug cartels.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other senior defense officials visited Puerto Rico on Monday, as the Pentagon looks to intensify military operations against drug cartels based in Latin American countries.
Senior administration officials have forecast that more strikes are possible, with Vice President JD Vance saying Saturday on social media that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” The Trump administration has not produced evidence verifying who — and what — was aboard the vessel when it was blown up.
The Pentagon is weighing plans to make Puerto Rico a part of its operations in the region, possibly conducting military flights out of the island territory, said two U.S. officials, who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. The effort includes the possible deployment of fighter jets to the island, one of the officials said, confirming a detail reported earlier by Reuters.
The U.S. military has assembled an armada of at least eight warships in the region, a highly unusual concentration of combat power in a location where the U.S. rarely surges troops. Officials have described the effort as an “enhanced counter narcotics operation.”
The Trump administration has tightly controlled information about its plans and did not disclose in advance that Hegseth and other senior officials, including Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were traveling to Puerto Rico. Typically, such information is withheld when a senior U.S. government official is traveling someplace dangerous, such as a war zone.
The secretary’s trip coincides with efforts on Capitol Hill to scrutinize Trump’s military ambitions in Latin America. Democrats and other critics of the administration, including some leaders in the region, have questioned the legality of last week’s strike. Vance, Hegseth and other top officials have dismissed those concerns, calling the killings a just response to American deaths resulting from the illicit drug trade.
On Thursday night, the Pentagon abruptly canceled a scheduled briefing for the major national security committees in Congress that had been scheduled to take place the following day, three congressional aides familiar with the issue said. The event, expected to focus on the deadly strike in the Caribbean, was rescheduled for Tuesday after Defense Department officials acknowledged they were unable to provide satisfactory answers to expected questions.
Motherf-ers!Oh no, Et tu Brute' . . .
I guess this 'normalization' is Trump's fault too, right?
GAI don't need it. In general conversation, Damn and Hell have acceptable alternative uses.
GAThat is one my few memories from first grade - it might have been in a dream, I no longer know.
Praying for government assistance? Praying for government bailout? LOL these fools voted for this and I hope they feel the full impact of their decision... I don't want to see a penny going to any of these farmers.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/19 … 5380846813The Deportation Economy Hits Georgia
A sweeping raid shows every business is a potential ICE target
The sweeping ICE operation in Georgia Thursday that rounded up some 475 workers at a showcase development project is intended as a warning to employers nationwide. It also illustrates the America First contradiction of demanding foreign investment in the U.S. while shrinking the available workforce.
The raid targeted an electric battery manufacturing plant under construction to serve the U.S. market. The plant is a project of Hyundai, which makes electric vehicles at a plant nearby, and LG Energy Solution, a U.S. branch of another South Korean giant
A Homeland Security spokesman told the press the migrants either crossed the border illegally, overstayed their visas, or arrived on visas that didn’t allow them to work.... Lawyers for the group rounded up dispute this, as does the South Korean government.
That last point is important because it suggests some of the Koreans may have been here temporarily to supervise construction or to train Americans. Quality control is crucial to a successful manufacturing operation, and companies often bring in experienced employers from the home country to ensure it.
Both Korean companies said they follow immigration law and are cooperating with ICE. The problem? The construction industry can’t find enough American workers these days, so migrants with fake documentation often fill the gap. The eternity it takes to build anything in the U.S. would be worse without these workers.
Americans want the law enforced, but raiding legal workplaces isn’t going after criminal gangs or murderers. The Georgia raid shows the Trump Administration’s priority is deporting every undocumented migrant no matter how long they have worked here. This makes every employer a potential target of an ICE raid if the agency suspects foreigners are working there.
This is already having a notable impact on the U.S. labor market, as recent monthly jobs reports suggest. It’s hard to know how much the foreign-born workforce is shrinking, and that will be clearer as seasonally adjusted data arrive. But If President Trump wants a smaller U.S. population, he is going to get a weaker labor market and economy for Americans.
How about asking Congress to create more legal ways to enter and work in the U.S.?
COMMON SENSE. NOT PERFORMANCE.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-deporta … d-cf94a34cIn response to this whole thread about the very probably illegal killing of people on that boat. I fed the whole thing to ChatGPT (it reads fast and types faster) and asked for a response. While I edited it a little, it express exactly what I think.
[i]I repeat, nobody, on my side at least, is “for” fentanyl or “against” innocent people. I tried to make clear the disagreement is about lawful authority and effective strategy something that seems to be not understood from the comments. A few facts:
An executive order can’t authorize war or open-ended killings.
EO 14157 (Jan. 20, 2025) directed agencies to treat certain cartels as FTO/SDGT targets for sanctions and material-support law, but it did not give the President a blank check to use force anywhere, anytime. FTO designations are a State-Department sanctions tool; they don’t substitute for an Authorization for Use of Military Force or a declaration of war.
The White House
OFAC
State Department
About the boat strike:
Yes, the administration says the Navy hit a vessel in the Caribbean allegedly tied to Tren de Aragua, killing 11. Independent reporting confirms the strike and that Puerto Rico is being used as a staging hub. The legal basis is contested—the White House called it self-defense against an “imminent threat,” but has released no public evidence to substantiate imminence' therefore it is most probably a lie. Law-of-war experts describe the legal footing as murky at best. If there’s evidence, show it. If not, it looks like an unlawful extraterritorial killing.
AP News
ABC News
Default
War Powers 101:
Notifying Congress after a strike doesn’t make an ongoing campaign lawful. The War Powers Resolution allows short, limited hostilities; sustained operations require Congress to authorize them. An impeachment resolution was introduced in April partly over unilateral uses of force—no House votes yet, but it underscores the separation-of-powers issue.
Default
Congress.gov
Whataboutism isn’t a defense. np matter how hard you try.
Yes, Obama’s, as well as Bush's, drone program caused civilian deaths and drew heavy criticism (including from many of us). Those strikes were legally grounded—rightly or wrongly—under the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda/associated forces; drug cartels aren’t covered by that statute. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and past controversy doesn’t legalize unrelated killings today.
cgsr.llnl.gov
Council on Foreign Relations
Bottom line: If the boat posed an actual, imminent threat (firing, ramming, or otherwise), say so and release the evidence. Not releasing it suggests strongly that there is none. If not, blowing up a suspected smuggling vessel is neither smart nor lawful—it destroys evidence, yields no intel up the chain, risks civilians, and invites retaliation. We can be tough and stay inside the law.
@DrMark — You also claimed a governor “excused a murder because the killer was homeless.” Please link a verifiable report. If it’s true, we’ll all condemn it. If not, it’s just rhetoric.
@Sharlee — EO 14157 didn’t create a new war power. It sanctions cartels; it doesn’t authorize summary executions. If the administration has solid, public evidence of imminence for this strike, I’ll read it. Until then, I’m going to hold the same standard for any president: show the law, show the facts."As Donald Trump assumes office today, he inherits a targeted killing program that has been the cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism strategy over the past eight years. On January 23, 2009, just three days into his presidency, President Obama authorized his first kinetic military action: two drone strikes, three hours apart, in Waziristan, Pakistan, that killed as many as twenty civilians. Two terms and 540 strikes later, Obama leaves the White House after having vastly expanding and normalizing the use of armed drones for counterterrorism and close air support operations in non-battlefield settings—namely Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.
Throughout his presidency, I have written often about Obama’s legacy as a drone president, including reports on how the United States could reform drone strike policies, what were the benefits of transferring CIA drone strikes to the Pentagon, and (with Sarah Kreps) how to limit armed drone proliferation. President Obama deserves credit for even acknowledging the existence of the targeted killing program (something his predecessor did not do), and for increasing transparency into the internal processes that purportedly guided the authorization of drone strikes. However, many needed reforms were left undone—in large part because there was zero pressure from congressional members, who, with few exceptions, were the biggest cheerleaders of drone strikes.
On the first day of the Trump administration, it is too early to tell what changes he could implement. However, most of his predecessor’s reforms have either been voluntary, like the release of two reports totaling the number of strikes and both combatants and civilians killed, or executive guidelines that could be ignored with relative ease. Should he opt for an even more expansive and intensive approach, little would stand in his way, except for Democrats in Congress, who might have newfound concerns about the president’s war-making powers. Or perhaps citizens and investigative journalists, who may resist efforts to undermine transparency, accountability, and oversight mechanisms.
Less than two weeks ago, the United States conducted a drone strike over central Yemen, killing one al-Qaeda operative. The strike was the last under Obama (that we know of). The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians. As he reportedly told senior aides in 2011: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”
Article https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-d … hatgpt.comWhy are you talking about something Obama did legally instead of the real issue, Trump's illegal killing of defenseless civilians?
"killing of defenseless civilians"
Yes, narco terrorists bringing poisonous drugs to the United States makes them as innocent as the driven snow.
Puh..leeese!Where's the evidence that it was a drug smuggling boat filled with 11 people?
it doesn't matter. To Trump apologists, if Trump says it, it most be true - NOT.
Until proven otherwise, one must assume they are innocent (or does that only apply to Trump?).Sure, the DEA and other government agencies fighting against drug smuggling are going to provide their intelligence for the whole world to see.
Makes perfect sense.
Is there any evidence is wasn't?
Thank you — I assume ECO didn’t follow the full conversation that provides the context for how it began and where it ultimately led. In any case, Obama ordering strikes that killed Americans and so many civilians is not something I can imagine he would openly discuss.
While Congress has not pursued impeachment, the ongoing inquiries and legal challenges indicate that the strike remains a contentious issue with potential long-term implications for U.S. foreign policy and executive authority. I fully expect that, in the end, this matter will be sorted out by Congress — it is ultimately in their hands.
I have thoroughly examined the issue. I think Trump covered his actions. And it is now just another witch hunt.You completely ignored the points Eso raised
They have to, otherwise they can't stick to defending Trump's behavior.
Isn't it funny how each one of them shouted to the rooftops that Trump wasn't getting DUE PROCESS when people legitimately tried to hold him accountable for his many crimes - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY they yelled.
Well, now we see how fickle they can be as they selective apply that American principle. But isn't that their MO?Thanks for finally noting this. Out of politeness, I’m not addressing certain people who post here, and I have no intention of doing so. I see it as a waste of time to respond to comments I don’t agree with. Why feed into a conversation that’s useless if there’s no agreement to be had? When there’s no respect for one another’s words, I feel it’s best not to engage in the chat at all--- out of politeness.
He made valid, factual points though that refuted previous posts. Again, I think it would be easier for some folks to simply say they are supporting this regime no matter what it does, says and no matter the negative consequences it has on the country. It would be easier than having to totally revise positions every few days as Trump lies and waffles.
"He made valid, factual points, though that refuted previous posts." Willow
Not long ago, I shared the thought that you might consider conversing more with ECO, since you both seem to have very similar mindsets. That said, and wanting to remain polite, I’ll just say that I don’t share the same kind of outlook when it comes to you and ECO.
" Again, I think it would be easier for some folks to simply say they are supporting this regime no matter what it does, says and no matter the negative consequences it has on the country. " Willow
I’m not sure you’ve ever read my posts in full, because I’ve repeatedly shared with you and many others here that I voted for Trump precisely because of his bold, blow-it-up agenda. I fully support that agenda and have been very pleased with his job performance so far. Where you see something negative, I see nothing but positive changes—the very kind I’ve been wanting to see for many years.
" It would be easier than having to totally revise positions every few days as Trump lies and waffles." Willow
I don’t think anyone here is waffling. Those who openly support Trump on this site, at least from my perspective, aren’t wavering at all. I see them more as individuals who each view Trump in their own way, and while their perspectives may differ, they aren’t flip-flopping on support for the President. We have so few users here, I think I can comfortably say that.
It’s fair to say that whether someone decides to post here or respond to a comment directed at them is strictly their own choice, and no one else’s to dictate.
That is what a debate is all about, of course we are not going to agree. Point and counterpoint is presented to at least influence those that read and not too politically hidebound to consider the facts and data presented and come to a conclusion.
I am adamantly opposed to the political right, but it never hurts to put out some feelers in an attempt to change ideas or minds or at least leave a thought or concept for others to rethink about. I am pretty hidebound, but others may not be.A few years ago, I might have agreed with that sentiment. But I’ve since concluded there’s no changing minds, the line is drawn, isn’t it? What I find interesting is that it’s not those on the right here trying to force change; we’re able to live with the divide. Yet, some on the left seem compelled to repeat themselves, almost to the point of badgering, unable to recognize when it’s time to simply agree to disagree. It’s not that facts aren’t being accepted; it’s that some so-called facts are spun, shaped to fit a narrative rather than standing on their own.
That said, it never hurts to put out a feeler as you do, and as you’ve always done, in a polite, reasonable way. You listen, and you respond in kind. That’s why I feel more comfortable engaging with you. You aren’t just pushing a narrative; you’re genuinely sharing and listening. I always take the time to read and consider your words carefully and offer thoughtful replies in return because our conversations are engaging, the subject matter is meaningful, and the exchange respects boundaries. That’s the kind of dialogue I prefer, one built on thought, respect, and understanding.
I spoke with Mike, explaining the difference between the Americans who were casualties in a war zone, verses people in the other hemisphere with whom there were no formal declaration of hostilities, attacking their vessel on the high seas based on confirmation by Trump without information substantiating the “why” of the attack that he is reticent to release. I, like others on the left in this forum, are not too keen on taking anything that Trump says at his word. This was a heinous attack, where is the proof that the people killed were an immediate threat?
'I spoke with Mike, explaining the difference between the Americans who were casualties in a war zone, verses people in the other hemisphere with whom there were no formal declaration of hostilities'
I think the biggest difference is that obama killed American citizens.
Why was there no cry for due process from the left? Interesting how the left cries for due process for narco-terrorists trying to bring killer drugs into our country but American citizens don't deserve due process before being killed in a drone strike?
Yeah, seems a bit off.Weren't those American citizens known terrorists?....yes, yes they were.
And Obama was highly criticized at that time.
For some reason, maga keeps pretending they know who was in that boat lol... Let's remember, this regime are liarsMike, what has become very clear is that you presented a strong and thoughtful argument. Yet your point is being completely ignored, while the same lines are repeated over and over without acknowledging your valid concerns about what the Obama administration did, and how fundamentally different it was from what the Trump administration did in blowing up a drug-smuggling vessel.
The difference is well documented: Obama’s strikes killed American citizens who were denied due process, which is a fact. In contrast, there have been no impeachment charges or official investigations against Trump regarding the drug boat strike. These are the facts as of today.
Some people simply cannot face the facts. They thrive on “what ifs” and cannot seem to process that Obama’s drone strikes killed Americans without honoring the laws guaranteeing due process. You may recall the uproar on the left just a week or so ago over a migrant who was initially deported without due process, only to be returned and now properly receiving it. Yes, he is being tried for illegal human trafficking, following the law, and soon he will be on his way out of our nation once again. This perfectly illustrates the mindset of some today, selective outrage to support a convenient narrative, while ignoring the clear legal and moral differences between Trump taking out drug runners and Obama killing American citizens. Go figure.
Cred, here’s what I know so far. On September 2, 2025, the U.S. military carried out a strike on a Venezuelan vessel in the southern Caribbean, and 11 people were killed. The Trump administration has said they were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which the U.S. classifies as a narco-terrorist organization, and that the boat was carrying drugs headed for the U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the strike, saying the military has full authority to take these kinds of actions to protect Americans and suggested more operations could come against traffickers.
That said, the Pentagon hasn’t shared many details about the strike itself, like exactly what drugs were on board, how the identities were confirmed, or the methods used. Legal experts have pointed out that using lethal force in international waters without clear evidence of an immediate threat is a gray area and could raise legal and international concerns.
Overall, this seems like a big shift in how the U.S. is approaching counter-narcotics, moving from traditional interdiction to direct military action. There’s still a lot we don’t know, and it’s definitely raising questions about the legality and potential fallout.
As for repercussions, so far, there haven’t been any direct legal or formal consequences for the officials involved. The administration stood behind the strike as a defensive action.
Honestly, I’ve watched very little being done to slow down the flow of drugs into America over the years. At this point, I’m ready to say that a war on drugs seems appropriate. In my view, the time has come to do everything we can, even if it’s drastic, to finally take real action and stop the flow.
I’ve looked into the legal aspects of this, and honestly, it’s pretty complicated. From what I can see, the administration did have the authority to take out that boat. As always, if any laws were actually broken, I trust Congress would step in and address it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but ultimately, it’s up to Congress to question the action if it’s going to be questioned. So far, there hasn’t been any official impeachment inquiry or movement in Congress regarding the U.S. military strike on the Venezuelan vessel. I prefer to stick with what’s been officially reported rather than speculating. I agree that the vessel wasn’t an immediate threat, but the drugs they were carrying certainly would have become a danger the moment they made their way into our nation. I have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who is working for a cartel.But you're speculating that drugs were actually on board with 11 people.... Also, that boat was blown up 2700 miles away from the country.. really doubtful that a boat that size was going to make that type of journey.
Korea’s major US investment projects halted as detained LG Energy workers set for release....
OH WELL....THE GOLDEN AGE... OF STUPIDITY!
Not sure why anyone would want to invest in this country with this regime's profiling and targeting of those who aren't Aryan...
Korea’s major US investment projects halted as detained LG Energy workers set for release - KED Global https://share.google/Noq7ODV06ibStB8DcJust how is the "common sense"?
How does this address crime in the long term? For the life of me, I can't figure out how occupying the cities with trash pickers and landscapers at the cost of $1 million per day to the taxpayers does anything to impact crime in the longer term??? This regime has defunded the police but wants people to believe military takeovers are the answer???
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1965425012485357599What world is he living in????
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 6465341842
Go ahead Maga just say it's all true..
Question .... Pondering trumpflation
How does one make inflation go up in the job market go down???
Related Discussions
- 7
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you
by garyyoungberg 14 years ago
How restrained are you when someone cuts in line right in front of you. Do you take any action?
- 303
Is it right for Christians to convert tribal natives?
by klarawieck 14 years ago
For some time now, Christians have been traveling to the farthest, most remote places on earth with the intention of helping tribal people live a more civilized lifestyle. While committed to a charitable cause, they don't only change their way of life but take the initiative to convert them to...
- 8
A Party Unraveled: How the Modern Left Has Imploded
by Sharlee 2 months ago
Today's Democratic Party appears to be a shell of what it once was, a party that claimed to champion the working class, support American families, and value freedom of thought. Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize those foundational principles in its platform. What we’re seeing...
- 59
Are Immigration Issues Driving The Global Move to Nationalism
by ga anderson 6 years ago
It is just a thought, yet to be developed, but what the hell is happening to the world.The USA has Pres, Trump.The Uk has it's Brexit crisis.Germany has disavowed the world-acclaimed Merkel government.Many immigrant-friendly countries like France and Sweden are rethinking their policies amid...
- 10
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?
by Gary Rowell 14 years ago
Have you ever seen an apparition right in front of you?I like the thrill of getting freaked by ghosts, like in good documentaries, but I believe the mind sees what it wants to.
- 166
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?
by Elizabeth 10 years ago
If Christianity really is the truth, shouldn't scrutiny demonstrate its truth?All over the place in America, we see believers responding with outrage and defiance when Christian beliefs are challenged or questioned. If the beliefs of Christianity are, in fact, the truth - the only truth, then...