The inability to see what is right in front of us
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.Every single one of those claims is factual.
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.Yes, the facts ARE clear.
* Obama legally killed known terrorists
* Trump illegally, probably, killed unknown persons.
It is as simple as that."* Trump illegally, probably, killed unknown persons."
So...what law was broken?Maybe you should look up the international laws we are a party to in terms of vessels suspected of trafficking and let us know... Maybe you could let us know those procedures.
Maybe YOU should look up international laws apply. Maybe YOU could let us know the procedures. It seems important to YOU.
I believe this was part of the war on drugs and when fighting a war, you focus on winning.Winning even if you have to cheat, that is your motto and that of the man you obviously serve….
"Winning even if you have to cheat"
Guess what? In war there is no cheating, there is only winning by any means possible or losing . That is the reality of war.Ever heard of the Geneva Convention? Even here there are no absolutes.
That is the problem with conservative thinking, once we have the “big stick” it is ok to wield it anyway we choose. In a democracy there is such a thing as abuse of authority.
You are being facetious in the entire matter, the Americans that were killed were in proximity of the legitimate target and looking at their backgrounds they were aiding the enemy. How you can compare that with attacking a fishing boat thousands of miles away having no immediate threat to the United States is unbelievable. That facts are on the table you just choose to ignore them in preference to equivocating."Ever heard of the Geneva Convention? Even here there are no absolutes."
Have you?
"The Geneva Conventions are rules that apply only in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities.
The first convention dealt with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field.[25] The second convention dealt with the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea.[26][27] The third convention dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war during times of conflict.[28] The fourth convention dealt with the treatment of civilians and their protection during wartime.[29]
Individuals who fulfill the criteria of protected persons in international armed conflicts are protected by the 1949 conventions."
In the war on drugs, the boat bringing illegal drugs toward the United States by narco-terrorists from a foreign country is a legitimate target.How did Trump know that 11 people on a fishing boat was coming to the US with drugs? I believe that he just was sending a mindless and callous message which is his style. Just because Trump says so does not mean we are at a state of war Venezuela or insignificant fishing boats.
Why do some here persist in ignoring the facts that we have been given? It would almost seem that some feel that if they repeat their inquiry, it will become true. How many more times must these facts be presented?
There were Pentagon reports, and several quotes from Secretary Hegseth.
Secretary Pete Hegseth's Statement
Secretary Hegseth asserted that the U.S. had "absolute and complete authority" to conduct the strike, emphasizing the defense of American citizens:
"We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that... just the defense of the American people alone. 100,000 Americans were killed each year under the previous administration because of an open border and open drug traffic flow. That is an assault on the American people." Secretary Pete Hegseth
He further stated,
"We knew exactly who was in that boat, we knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented, and that was Tren de Aragua... trying to poison our country with illicit drugs." Secretary Pete Hegseth
While Hegseth confirmed the U.S. had precise intelligence on the individuals aboard the vessel, specific details about the surveillance methods have not been fully disclosed publicly. The Pentagon has withheld details of the strike, prompting legal experts to question its legality under international law. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump- … hatgpt.comWhat authority, according to whiskey Pete did we have? Maybe someone here would like to state international law governing the interdiction of drugs in the waters?
You're source leaves that out..
And I suppose that Maga is buying the outrageous claim that a boat of that size would have the capacity to make a trip of 2,700 miles lol?? And that drug smugglers fill up their boats with passengers rather than drugs?? Not making much common sense
But could you please provide the citation under international law that allowed for the annihilation of this boat? Mega folks keep leaving out the laws and procedure that govern such an action.... If the laws don't matter, just say soTHE BOAT TURNED AROUND BEFORE IT WAS STRUCK
"A U.S. military aircraft struck a boat suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean several times from the air last week, even though the vessel had turned around and was headed for shore before the strike began.
Suspected Venezuela Drug Boat Had Turned Around Before U.S. Strike - WSJ https://share.google/pp6gRPWYriR50ccAAWOW! Isn't that like shooting them in the back?
Neither Hegseth nor Trump can be trusted in what they say - they have proven that multiple times. So, beyond them saying so, what "facts" are we ignoring?
I am not a fan of both especially Hegseth.
Yeah, BS is BS no matter what icing you put on it. Unfortunately, it is universal having no loyalty.
Just for giggles I discovered the following last week while on an exploration.
The Science of Detecting Bullshit Published at Unmistakable Creative (Nov 6, 2025)
https://unmistakablecreative.com/detecting-bullshit/
"John Petrocelli is the author of The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit, a professor at Wake-Forest College, and director of the Bullshit Studies Lab (yes, that's the real name). In this interview, he explains the definition of bullshit, why we are so susceptible to it, and how we can detect it."
Mike, the many facts on this issue have been repeated over and over, along with statements from the Pentagon. You are being baited. Baited in a very openly noted way. There are folks here who will never understand the facts that surround this issue, no matter how many times those facts are repeated. You are beating a dead horse. The president did nothing illegal, which is clearly represented by the fact that Congress has not charged him with any misdemeanors. The Pentagon has not been called into doubt either. This is a dead issue. The administration dotted the Is and crossed the Ts. When it comes to the strike.
As of today, there is no public record of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth being summoned to testify before Congress specifically regarding the U.S. military strike on the Venezuelan drug boat that occurred on September 1, 2025. This is a fact...No one has repeated any fact whatsoever in any way shape or form.... What I do notice is that folks keep skirting what the international law sets up as procedure... How did the strike on this boat and here to international law? It's just a really simple question that none of you can answer.... WITH CITATION OF THE LAW
Pete Kegseth saying it was all okie dokie means nothingCopy/paste my comment on the subject--- Any member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican or Democrat, can propose or call for an impeachment inquiry.
Technically, Congress has the authority to declare war, not the President alone. That’s the Constitution. But it’s not quite black and white. As Commander-in-Chief, the President can act in situations where there’s an imminent threat to the U.S. or its citizens, like a drug-running vessel putting Americans at risk. Critics say striking a foreign vessel “on sight” without Congressional approval crosses a line, while supporters argue that sometimes the President has to move fast to protect the country. So yes, Congress has the main power to declare war, but the President does have some leeway in limited, defensive actions. Again, no one in Congress has brought any charges against Trump's action regarding the drug boat issue.
President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14157, signed on January 20, 2025, addresses the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), including drug cartels, by designating them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). The order emphasizes the national security risks these groups pose, citing their involvement in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other illicit activities that destabilize regions and threaten U.S. interests.
Yes. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority to strike terrorist threats, especially when Americans are at risk, though this authority is not unlimited. Using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the President can carry out counterterrorism operations worldwide, including drone strikes and special operations. While the President cannot declare war, that power belongs to Congress; limited military actions against terrorists are generally justified by imminent threats or national security interests. These actions must still comply with U.S. law, international law, and constitutional limits, including restrictions on targeting U.S. citizens abroad without due process.
The Pentagon is not being questioned, which implies Congress has no further problem with the strike. Is it not wiser at this point to go with what we know?
It appears you feel the Pentagon lied. Noted
Do your own research regarding your questions.
From everything I’ve seen and read, it’s clear that President Trump has not been charged with any violation of the Geneva Conventions or any related law regarding the strike on the Venezuelan drug boat. While critics have raised questions about the legality and ethics of the operation, the Pentagon has stood behind the action, and Congress has not pursued any formal charges. In the U.S., the only domestic law that could theoretically apply is the War Crimes Act, and any prosecution would have to come through the Department of Justice via a federal prosecutor—but a sitting President has immunity, and even a former President being prosecuted under this law would be unprecedented. Internationally, the International Criminal Court generally cannot prosecute U.S. nationals since the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute, and a special UN tribunal would be extremely unlikely. In my view, it’s important to separate speculation from fact: as of now, there is simply no legal action against him, and any claims to the contrary are misleading.
The same deflection was made about Trump's insurrection. Problem is, that is all it is, a deflection. Most people have eyes and ears to take in information and brains to process it and draw reasonable conclusions. That is what is being done here.
We see a boat in international waters trying to get back to its own waters, apparently, filled with unidentified people. We see Trump pursue it with warplanes for no apparent reason other than a "belief" by a mentally ill leader that something illegal may happen in the future. We watched as said man, who often can't remember what he did or said from one day to the next, orders the war plane to kill everybody in the boat.
In most reasonable peoples minds, that looks like murder.
There are laws though... There are laws governing procedure in international water pertaining to drug interdiction... Dear leader chose to circumvent them and maga doesn't give a shit...
Cred, it seems you feel Trump stepped over a line — but has Congress accused him of doing so? It’s hard to comprehend why some don’t recognize that Congress is the ultimate arbiter here, and they haven’t proceeded with any charges. Why is that fact so often overlooked? Both the Pentagon and U.S. legal advisers have publicly stated that the strike was lawful under his presidential powers to protect U.S. interests and enforce federal law. While some lawmakers have raised questions or criticized the action in statements, no formal congressional investigation, impeachment effort, or legal action has been initiated specifically for this strike. This is what we know thus far.
Trump has declared war on cartels and labeled them terrorists. He is not holding back or tying any of the military's hands when it comes to the fight.Yet, the ultimate arbiter is controlled by the one party that has forsaken its Constitutional role and mandate in every matter relating to Trump, so of course, they will do nothing.
Congress has the authority to declare war, not Trump solely. That is the only justification on the table to attack a foreign national or any other vessel on sight.Any member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican or Democrat, can propose or call for an impeachment inquiry.
Technically, Congress has the authority to declare war, not the President alone. That’s the Constitution. But it’s not quite black and white. As Commander-in-Chief, the President can act in situations where there’s an imminent threat to the U.S. or its citizens, like a drug-running vessel putting Americans at risk. Critics say striking a foreign vessel “on sight” without Congressional approval crosses a line, while supporters argue that sometimes the President has to move fast to protect the country. So yes, Congress has the main power to declare war, but the President does have some leeway in limited, defensive actions. Again, no one in Congress has brought any charges against Trump's action regarding the drug boat issue.
President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14157, signed on January 20, 2025, addresses the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), including drug cartels, by designating them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). The order emphasizes the national security risks these groups pose, citing their involvement in drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other illicit activities that destabilize regions and threaten U.S. interests.
Yes. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority to strike terrorist threats, especially when Americans are at risk, though this authority is not unlimited. Using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the President can carry out counterterrorism operations worldwide, including drone strikes and special operations. While the President cannot declare war, that power belongs to Congress; limited military actions against terrorists are generally justified by imminent threats or national security interests. These actions must still comply with U.S. law, international law, and constitutional limits, including restrictions on targeting U.S. citizens abroad without due process.
The Pentagon is not being questioned, which implies Congress has no further problem with the strike. Is it not wiser at this point to go with what we know?What "drug running" boat? You are taking the word of a proven pathological liar. I, for one (and others have said the same), won't believe a word he says until he provides undoctored proof - and he refuses to do so for obvious reasons.
And where was the "imminent" threat? Even IF what Trump said was true, he still broke both international and US law because the threat was not imminent by legal standards. After a lot of research the bottom line is:
Even if US ROE label a cartel a declared hostile force, an actual strike still needs a separate, lawful international basis—consent, UNSC mandate, or self-defense/NIAC that meets necessity & proportionality. Smuggling alone rarely, if ever, gets you there; absent additional threat indicators or consent, the lawful course is interdict/board/arrest, not destroy.
Why does Congress (one full of Trump acolytes) have to condemn him of anything that is clear on the face of it? They would dare do it in fear of Trump coming after them.
So, by "declaring war" (which has no legal authority) on cartels and labeling them as terrorists (which, unless there is a political motive behind their drug dealing, is technically wrong even though in practice, it is correct) - THAT PUTS TRUMP ABOVE THE LAW AGAIN? I don't buy it.
Gotcha, thanks for letting all of us know that these laws are not important to Maga...
When you will you start using facts? Obama LEGALLY killed TERRORISTS.
Trump killed - well we don't know who he killed, he just killed."Trump killed - well we don't know who he killed, he just killed."
Yeah, that happens in war.
“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?Seems like that is an unAmerican question that flies in the face of your insistence on Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Don't you believe in that anymore?
Sorry, when you're fighting a war you don't first capture all of your enemy, put them on trial, and then decided if they should be killed.
This is a war on drugs.
It is a bit different.2700 miles away from the United states, in a small boat incapable of reaching America.. 11 people on board... Reducing the sheer amount of space for drugs. Doesn't add up.
I think maga would do better with the statement "I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believe everything that comes out of trump in his regimes mouth"
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.Shar,
I am constantly asking myself what happened to the democrat party.
I have a friend who is a lifelong democrat and says "Well, my part of the democrat party doesn't believe in men in women sports, wants a safe border, etc. The leftists have taken over the democrat party. They gain their power by creating victims and getting them to believe the leftist democrat are their saviors. It's so sad. The love criminals and illegal aliens because they view them as just more victims they can save.
Their future doesn't look too good.I couldn’t agree with you more. I was once a Democrat myself, decades ago, back when I was truly passionate about the party and what it stood for. But over time, the party left me behind, embracing ideologies and attitudes that bear no resemblance to the principles I once believed in. What was once the Democratic Party of “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” has now become the new Republican Party, the one carrying that spirit of service and responsibility forward.
What’s even more troubling is how upside down the Democrats’ ideologies and character have become. They seem to champion causes that weaken the very foundations of our society, all while demonizing the values that once united Americans. They protect criminals, romanticize lawlessness, and elevate illegal aliens above the safety and security of their own citizens. It’s not only a tragic shift but a dangerous one, and it leaves their future looking as bleak as you’ve described.
And I truly feel many are leaving the party pretty much due to the very reasons I’ve shared here. I also believe most Americans simply do not assimilate to what the Democratic Party has become, and we can only hope they continue down the same misguided path, the one that will ultimately put the final nail in.
Please get your facts straight. Save for Anwar al-Awlaki, the rest were not targeted by Obama. They were, however, in close proximity to the real non-American target. All three were active in supporting terrorist activities.
Anwar al-Awlaki, (of underwear fame) was plotting to kill others, Americans included, and was an imminent threat."Anwar al-Awlaki, (of underwear fame) was plotting to kill others"
Well, then, why wasn't he captured and put on trial and given his due process?
Isn't that what the left is obsessed with even during war?
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.
Yup. Drugs
Gabbard retracted intelligence report on Venezuela
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reportedly retracted intelligence on the Trump administration’s dealings with the Venezuelan government.
Special envoy Richard Grenell was listed as a subject in the memo, which detailed in-depth conversations with his counterparts overseas.
Grenell, who also oversees the Kennedy Center, reportedly negotiated with top officials in the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in an effort to secure benefits for American energy companies, the Times reported.
Grenell’s conversations, documented by the spy agency, were steered toward formulating an agreement that would have boosted Chevron’s oil operations in Venezuela, which in part serves as a large funding source for the government. The agreement would have been in exchange for hostages.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly opposed the deal and opted for a militaristic approach to the Maduro regime.
Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, told The Hill’s sister station NewsNation that the retraction “has nothing to do with the contents and is about the unmasking of Americans, and protection of civil liberties, something the previous administration abused and used as a political tool.”
The reported retraction comes as the U.S. has increased its presence in the Caribbean, turning up the heat against drug cartels in the region. Maduro described the deployment of several U.S. ships, a submarine and Marines as “an extravagant, unjustifiable, immoral and absolutely criminal and bloody threat.”
Actually, ECO started the conversation. Maybe it is others who didn't follow it.
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???Declining to address others on this forum is less about courtesy than avoidance—the fear of being repeatedly contradicted by facts.
That's worse than the one they show of Biden.
Oh yes and they were so so worried about Biden and yet ignore this. Sort of callous I think.
Didn't know where to put this - so I will put it here.
"Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro convicted of plotting coup, sentenced to over 27 years in prison"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/11/americas … latam-intl
Hopefully in four years it will be Trump's turn.WOW....
Trump baselessly attacked this woman.
The mortgage fraud claim against Lisa Cook is false, per documents obtained by Reuters. Bill Pulte's accusation, the sole pretext Trump used to fire her from the Fed, was that she claimed two homes as primary residence. These docs show she did not....The loan estimate, a document prepared by the credit union, states “Property Use: Vacation Home.”
Trump has absolutely not a care or concern for what he does to people. He's a POS
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fed-go … 025-09-12/I can't believe this slipped by. This is incredibly outrageous..."involuntary lethal injection" for the homeless...
Literally suggesting euthanizing undesirable populations.... Oh but don't you dare compare them to Nazis because THAT would be too hateful!
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/19 … 7208888512I had to check the context around that vile statement from the Right. It turns out it is WYSIWYG.
Here’s the context behind that viral post (AI):
The line comes from Fox & Friends on Sept 10, 2025. During a segment about crime, homelessness, and mental illness, co-host Lawrence Jones argued for institutionalization/jail for people who “won’t take help.” Brian Kilmeade then interjected: “Or involuntary lethal injection… Or something. Just kill them.” Co-host Ainsley Earhardt was on set. A clip and transcript were posted by Media Matters.
Media Matters
The quote spread via X posts like the one you linked (Spencer Hakimian). As of now, I can’t find a public on-air correction or apology from Fox/Kilmeade. The clip circulating matches the words in the Media Matters transcript.
X (formerly Twitter)
Bottom line: it wasn’t a policy proposal; it was an on-air remark by Kilmeade that explicitly referenced “involuntary lethal injection” and “just kill them” in the context of homeless/mentally ill people—hence the outcry and comparisons people are making online.
That must be the way Kilmeade and Jones really feel about the homeless. No wonder the radical Right is seen as so violent.And how many millions are consuming this slop daily? It's OUTRAGEOUS but I doubt it even phases maga folks.
I have been meaning to research for any evidence that Kirk's violent words have led his followers to carry them out. The answer is - none yet, but I will ask again in a month or so now that Kirk was killed. This is what AI found.
Kirk spreads violent messages to our youth about gay men. Is there any evidence people are acting on it?
ChatGPT said:
Thought for 39s
Short answer: there’s no verified case where someone carried out an attack and explicitly cited Charlie Kirk as their motivation. What we do have are (a) documented incidents of harassment/assault by people affiliated with his organization, and (b) broader evidence that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric correlates with more threats and violence—without isolating one speaker as “the cause.”
Here’s what’s on record:
Direct causation to Kirk: None publicly documented. Even commentators who strongly criticize his rhetoric have had to correct overstatements (e.g., Stephen King apologized for falsely claiming Kirk advocated stoning gay people).
EW.com
Incidents tied to people around TPUSA: In 2023–24, two individuals connected to Turning Point USA admitted to harassing and assaulting a queer Arizona State University instructor; ASU’s president condemned the attack. TPUSA said the organization wasn’t involved, but the case shows how its ecosystem has spilled into real-world confrontations.
The Guardian
+1
Harassment linked to TPUSA campaigns: The Professor Watchlist pushed by TPUSA has led to campaigns of online harassment against listed faculty, according to academic organizations and coverage. That’s not the same as violent attacks, but it’s documented harm associated with the project.
AAUP
+1
Broader context (not Kirk-specific): Multiple datasets show anti-LGBTQ incidents rising as hostile rhetoric has surged nationwide.
ADL/GLAAD tracked 350+ anti-LGBTQ hate/extremism incidents (June 2022–April 2023), with over half connected to false “groomer” narratives.
GLAAD
FBI hate-crime data show continued increases in offenses motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity bias into 2023–2024.
Department of Justice
+2
Department of Justice
+2
The Williams Institute’s analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey (2022–2023) finds LGBT people face higher violent-victimization rates than non-LGBT people.
Williams Institute
Bottom line: It’s fair to say Kirk’s rhetoric is part of a wider ecosystem that correlates with increased harassment and threats against LGBTQ people; it’s not accurate to claim there’s public, tested evidence that his words directly caused specific violent acts. If you’re making a careful argument, stick to what the record supports: document the TPUSA-adjacent harassment case(s) and cite the broader trend data rather than alleging a one-to-one causal link.
Department of Justice
+3
The Guardian
+3
ASU Newsroom
+3Yep, prominent TV host casually proposing murdering homeless people through lethal injection is one of the worst.
"Involuntary lethal injection or something. Just kill them."
CRICKETS FROM MAGAWell, not Crickets anymore. You got a probably doctored YouTube for an answer, lol.
Have you noticed that there is no response in this or other forums when it is proved the Right is more politically violent than the Left? I wonder why? Have they no defense?
I'll leave it to Bill Maher to get the thread back on topic:
https://youtube.com/shorts/FDFtzRwyj3w? … SbI7vernv7Do you think that the Fox News idea of euthanizing the homeless is a good one? A viable solution to the homelessness problem in this country?
She was on topic.
All Maher was saying that like the Right already has, the radical Left (AOC) can go too far left, something I have always said.
Is Fox going to fire Brian Kilmeade or this is just the kind of thing viewers tune in for??
Gosh you really wonder what other ideas he has in his head, right?
"Just kill them”
But, yeah… it’s "the left". LMAOLisa Cook needs to have defamation suits waiting for when Trump and Pulte leave office.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/business … -house-fedTrump is asking appeals court to remove Cook before Tuesday’s Fed meeting, despite lower court order finding no cause for her removal....a sick, vindictive man. But his followers are SO pleased with his actions...
I had to go back and listen to Adam "It's a Mad World"
Now here is a reasonable use of YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOWgqp4ZfA
I don’t know what’s more shocking, that Kilmeade said “just kill them” about homeless people, or that the two idiots on the show with him didn’t even flinch when he said it....
Grocery inflation highest since 2022 as Trump tariffs pile up...who's pleased??
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/11/trump- … s-rise-cpiTrump is leading us further into the Dark Ages where he is cutting most Americans off from critical information.
1. Hate Crimes by state used to be available state-by-state in a consolidated table (Table 13) prior to 2020. Now, you can only get to that data by using a tool they provide and get it yourself by selecting a state, getting a report, selecting another state, getting a report, and so on.
2. Now he wants public corporations to report less frequently.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/economy/ … c-earningsI hope somebody sets up a legal defense fund for federal employees unjustly PURGED by the Autocratic Trump administration so each one can bring a separate suit against Trump like Comey is doing.
"Maurene Comey, prosecutor in Epstein and Combs cases and daughter of former FBI director, sues after being fired"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/15/politics … nt-lawsuitI listened to about 15 minutes of Trump's press conference this afternoon - that was all I could stand. During that time, my guess is he threw out one LIE every 15 seconds on average,
The man is clearly mentally ill and in some other world but the real one.
I had ChatGPT do a search. It turns out Trump issues 21 LIES or lie-adjacent statements a DAY. and between 0.8 and 1.2 LIES or lie-adjacent statements A MINUTE when at a news conference.
That is absolutely amazing and says a lot about those who are silent about it. It must really jangle their head trying to process it all.
I think that is testimony to the Cult influence. I reported several times that what happens in a cult is that the cult member's brains LITTERALLY become rewired. Instead of an Input going through
As a refresher, here is what happens in both the normal and cult person's brain.
1. The sight and/or sound of Trump goes into the audio or visual cortex which parses what it sees or hears.
2. The signals then pass to the temporal-parietal areas which maps the words to concepts.
3. Then the salience network (anterior insula + dorsal ACC) flags “politics/Trump = important.
4. Then, given that the information is salient enough to bother with, the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is activated.
At this point, the nerve impulses diverge depending on whether it is a normal person or a cult member processing things.
NORMAL PERSON:
5. In the PFC, the dorsolateral PFC + anterior cingulate cortex engage in error-checking and skepticism: cross-referencing facts, recalling contradictions, evaluating source credibility.. The PFC is working toward scrutiny and possible rejection.
CULT MEMBER:
5a. In the PFC, the the ventromedial and dorsolateral engage — but not to critically weigh truth.
5b. Instead, the PFC is often used in motivated reasoning: finding ways to defend or justify the claim, drawing on memory and identity-consistent narratives.
5c. In short: the PFC is working, but in the service of reinforcement in order to avoid Cognitive Dissonance
To me, at least, the science tells me exactly what is going on between those on this forum who critically analyze what Trump says (called TDS by some) and the apologists who are attempting to avoid the obvious contradictions their brains observe.I got one better... what is Gammora?
OK... This group probably doesn't get the reference.
Hmmm...you think someone who spends their time listening to Trump, just to ask ChatGPT how many times he lied has TDS?
BTW Grok is far superior to ChatGPT...much more capable of in depth analysis carrying forward the conversation and projecting forward.ECOs AI quote produces a source from the Washington Post.
"That would naturally lead the AI to (1) pull the 21 lies per day average from The Washington Post fact-check database, (2) do some quick math to give a “0.8 to 1.2 per minute” figure, and (3) expand into the neuroscience / cult explanation you saw.
What the Washington Post actually reported
Their Fact Checker database tracked 30,573 false or misleading claims by Trump over 1,440 days in office.
That works out to ~21 claims per day on average.
They did not report a per-minute “lie rate” — that part seems to be someone else’s spin.
Where “0.8–1.2 per minute” could come from
If Trump spoke at a news conference or rally for, say, 30–60 minutes, and fact-checkers counted 20–30 false/misleading statements in that one speech, someone could divide it and claim it’s about 1 per minute." AI
I simply asked AI Does President Trump lie daily? Here is the reply--
"I think it depends on how you define a “lie” and how much weight you give to exaggeration, hyperbole, or off-the-cuff remarks. Critics often argue that President Trump lies daily because fact-checkers have catalogued thousands of statements from him that they consider false or misleading. Supporters, on the other hand, frequently see many of those same statements as rhetorical flourishes, campaign talk, or exaggerations meant to drive home a point rather than intentional deceptions.
So, if you take the strict standard that every factual inaccuracy or overstatement equals a lie, then you could say he lies often, even daily. But if you separate exaggeration, opinion, or blunt salesmanship from deliberate lying, the picture looks different. Much of the disagreement about this really comes down to interpretation and whether one sees his style as dishonest, or simply unconventional and blunt." AI
So, do you see the difference in answers? AI is a tool, and is only as good as the user. It can be easily manipulated.Did you ask AI to fact check the oval office presser yesterday??
No, I figured it was too soon for anybody to have counted. But for the part I did listen to, it probably averaged 3 per minute. It got so bad, I had to turn it off.
My question is, WHY is that OK with the Trump supporters on this and other forums?
≈0.8/minute — Washington Post Fact Checker (Glenn Kessler) on Trump’s Dec. 28, 2017 New York Times interview: 24 false/misleading claims in ~30 minutes = one every ~75 seconds (≈0.8/min).
The Washington Post
NPR (Aug. 8, 2024 press conference): 162 misstatements/exaggerations/outright lies in 64 minutes ≈ 2.5/minute. (The count itself is widely referenced; AP also did a fact-focus on that same presser.)
X (formerly Twitter)
+1
WIRED (2020 debate segment): 11 false/misleading claims in ~8 minutes ≈ 1.38/minute during that stretch.
RedditFair questions;
Here are the guidelines ChatGPT uses for when I ask about Trump Lies.
1. False or Misleading Statement
* The baseline meaning is that Trump made a statement that is factually false, misleading, or without evidence.
* Sometimes this means an outright fabrication (stating something that never happened).
* Other times, it’s exaggeration, cherry-picking, or using a statistic in a deceptive way.
2. Intent Implied by “Lie”
* Strictly speaking, “lie” means knowingly making a false statement with intent to deceive.
* Fact-checkers are often careful and say “false or misleading claim,” since proving intent is hard.
* But in shorthand (and in the spirit of your term “Trump lies”), “lie” usually covers both deliberate falsehoods and misleading claims repeated despite correction. Repetition after correction is often treated as evidence of intent.
3. Scope in Usage
In press-conference/rally tracking, a “Trump lie” might include:
* A verifiably false claim (e.g., “We had the biggest crowd in inauguration history”).
* A misrepresentation (e.g., crediting himself for economic stats that pre-dated him).
* A claim debunked previously, but repeated as fact.
4. So, put simply
When you say “Trump lies,” I understand you to mean:
False or misleading statements made by Donald Trump, usually presented as facts in public speeches, press conferences, or rallies — often repeated even after correction, which gives them the character of outright lies.Here is what I got when I asked ChatGPT the same question - Does Trump Lie daily?
Short answer: On average during his presidency, yes.
The Washington Post Fact Checker logged 30,573 false or misleading claims in 4 years, an average of about 21 per day (with big surges in campaign periods). In year 4, the rate rose to ~39 per day.
The Washington Post
+2
The Washington Post
+2
PolitiFact’s 1,000-check review finds ~76% of Trump statements they rated were Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire, showing persistent daily-scale inaccuracy when he’s active publicly.
PolitiFact
In single events, the rate can spike dramatically—for example, 162 misstatements in a 64-minute press conference on Aug. 8, 2024.
AP News
If by “lie” you mean only knowingly false statements (intent), fact-checkers often say “false or misleading” because intent is hard to prove. But by the common shorthand used in coverage, his rate of false/misleading claims was daily and often heavy when he was speaking frequently.
Didn't I ask you that? Trump's lies are very well documented.
Hint: "I won the 2020 election".
Another hint: "My father was born in Germany".I don't know what to believe anymore and I feel sorry for everyone who knows too much about Trump.
Just let me think all is well and how it seems on the surface, according to Fox. Lol! The Right's way of thinking is actually very comfortable.
Who wants reality?
Actually, I can handle "reality," but IS IT????? (what is it? and where is it?)I can actually understand that.
I watch my kids and relatives (who are mostly Trumpers, but some are not) blithely going through their lives not aware of the calamity that is getting ready to fall on their heads. And that "calamity" is non-partisan for whichever side you are taking, calamity is about to happen.
I should add Sam Altman is a Con-Artist's Con-Artist... WorldCoin... OpenAI... he is going to make Elizabeth Holmes look like a saint when it's all said and done.
This was who Microsoft tried to hand off their AI research and ChatGPT to...
No thanks, I'd trust the devil to keep his word more than I would trust ChatGPT.So what is the deal with the Democrats willing to shut the government down...demanding illegal immigrants be put back on social security roles, USAID and NGOs get their funding back and trillions be added to the spending?
Well, look at the ridiculousness of the last presidential term. The consequences of an open border! No one complained or said a word for four years. I remember complaining to friends, family and strangers, but they just gave me their zombie expressions.
Imagine that our political climate has been and is orchestrated. We humans are so easily led. Imagine that someone has been studying us and knows how easily we are persuaded to go this way or that way.
They are well aware of the conditions required for a Mussolini/Hitler type take-over to alleviate the curated social calamity, chaos and financial collapse.
A downward spiral is is very easily prompted if allowed/facilitated by the people. After it happens, Presto!
We've got just the man or woman for you.
Who do they have waiting in the wings, I wonder.
I really don't think it is Gavin Newsome or Sandy Cortez.
Maybe the Mam guy in New York.You mean TRUMP'S OPEN border? You ignore the fact that Biden kept or made humane several of Trump's policies that the courts allowed.
* Biden ended the infamous, inhumane, and deadly Remain in Mexico policy
* Title 42 was ended by the Courts. When it ended, Biden replaced it with his Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule.
* The wasteful and USELESS border wall that Trump barely got started was canceled saving the American tax payers millions.
* The Asylum “transit ban” (2019 rule) was canned by the Courts
* Asylum Cooperative Agreements (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) Terminated Feb 2021 Ended by choice
* “Metering” turnbacks at ports - Condemned and ended by the Courts
* Biden did in the even more inhuman Trump practice of Family where they ripped children away from parents and then lost them. Since Republicans wouldn't do it, Biden created an EO to reunify the last children with their parents
* Biden changed Trump's Large-scale interior ICE arrest surge to throw all undocumented immigrants out of the country to one that focused on 1) National Security Threats, 2) SERIOUS Criminals, and 3) Border Crossings in the last 100 days. He did a much better job of that than Trump did.
Also not mentioned is the Republican push to draw migrants to the border with the fake Open Border claims.
You have anything to back all that up? Anything at all?
Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants from collecting Social Security...But they pay millions upon millions into it taking the burden off of American citizens. - In other words, Americans are collecting welfare from the immigrants.
Being a Republican, nothing surprises me. Certainly not watching the other side add all kinds of crazy ideas to their list to keep the Government open. It certainly makes for some strong talking points for Republican campaigns in the midterms. When Democrats keep piling on extreme antisocial proposals or exaggerations, it’s hard not to use that as an example of why voters need to pay attention and hold the Democrats accountable. I mean, they are doubling down--they have nothing to offer, they are done. I mean, just think what the general public will think of this BS. I am very pleased with Trump and his administration.
Well, yes! Always:
"voters need to pay attention and hold leaders accountable."
However, paying attention is the hard part.
We might be paying attention to what is bad, sold as good. This is a very scary thing to contemplate. We must know what is truly bad and good... beneficial or detrimental ... to what?
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Charlie Kirk's T shirt featured the most important word when he died:
"FREEDOM"... (within the boundaries of morals and the golden rule as promoted by Jesus and all the great saints.)Kathryn, Absolutely, paying attention is the hardest part. So much of what we see and hear is presented as “good” when it’s actually harmful, and distinguishing the two requires focus and discernment. You’re right, everything ultimately comes back to the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Charlie Kirk’s emphasis on “FREEDOM” is a powerful reminder that true liberty must always exist within the boundaries of morality and the golden rule, as taught by Jesus and other great moral leaders. It’s a call to stay vigilant, thoughtful, and principled in how we live and interact with the world.
Does that make up for all the hate speech he spewed?
Jesus clearly would not have approved of Charlie Kirk (but wouldn't have wanted him dead either.)
How do you respond to these statements:
1. Jesus is sharply critical of hypocrisy, pride, and using religion to justify harming others - which Kirk clearly did with his words
2. Jesus believed that entrance into the Kingdom is tied to “doing the will of my Father”, not just claiming religious identity.
3. Jesus repeatedly stood with the marginalized and warned against judging or excluding others unjustly. - Which Kirk did a lot (judging, that is)
4. Didn't Jesus say that beliefs rooted in fear, exclusion, or animosity would seem inconsistent with his teachings.
5. Didn't Jesus speak of separating sheep from goats based on how people treated “the least of these.” - And we all know Kirk treated the "least of these" very poorly with his words.
My position is that Jesus’ teachings suggest he would have a problem with beliefs or actions of Kirk that harm, exclude, or misrepresent God’s love. Didn't the way Jesus confronted Pharisees show he might strongly rebuke Kirk’s attitudes, even if grace covers his sins?
And you are not holding Trump accountable why?
The same deal the Republicans are willing to do the same and as they have SO MANY times before.
You know as well as I do that USAID and NGO funding has nothing to do with it, although the 12 to 14 million (and the hundreds of thousands of people who already have died - I provided you that data previously) people who will die from that lack of funding certainly care, But what the Democrats care most about is not letting the Republicans knock millions MORE off of health care, over and above the millions of Medicaid users who will be dropped (the CBO says that is IN ADDITION to those who shouldn't be on it in the first place).
It is clear Republicans don't care if Americans have medical insurance or not.
The inability to see what is right in front of us
Wow ! What A Load Of Hypocrisy!
"Harris has weighed in on Disney’s decision to pull ABC’s "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" off the air "indefinitely," defending Kimmel and slamming what she calls an "outright abuse of power" by the Trump administration.
"What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power. This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out. Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats," Harris wrote on X about Kimmel’s suspension. "We cannot dare to be silent or complacent in the face of this frontal assault on free speech. We, the people, deserve better."
Many X users, including Musk, the platform’s owner, were quick to point out Harris’ own past statements, and some suggested they appeared to support censorship.
Musk revisited a 2019 tweet by Harris when Trump was serving his first term. Harris, a U.S. senator representing California at the time, was running for vice president when she made the post on X, now Twitter.
"Look let's be honest, @realDonaldTrump's Twitter account should be suspended," Harris wrote on Sept. 30, 2019.
Musk re-posted the message on Friday, adding a thinking face emoji.
Kimmel's show was pulled after he accused conservatives of reaching "new lows" in trying to pin a left-wing ideology on Tyler Robinson, who is accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk, even though prosecutors reaffirmed those ties in an indictment.
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said, sparking outrage.
There have been several questions about the role the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) played in the suspension. Those questioning the move are on both sides of the aisle, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, warning conservatives they "will regret" setting the precedent.
"What he is saying is Jimmy Kimmel was lying. That's true, he was lying, and lying to the American people is not in the public interest," Cruz said on an episode of his podcast. "He threatens explicitly, 'We're going to cancel ABC News' license. We're going to take him off the air, so ABC cannot broadcast anymore' … He threatens it."
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr joined Fox News' Sean Hannity Sept. 17, the day the suspension was announced, and defended the move.
"Broadcasters are different than any other form of communication," Carr said, pointing to affiliate groups like Nexstar and Sinclair that announced they would no longer carry "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" He argued that local stations acted appropriately, saying they were "standing up to serve the interests of their community."
"Over the years, the FCC walked away from enforcing that public interest obligation," Carr said. "I don’t think we’re better off as a country for it."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Saturday that the decision to "fire Jimmy Kimmel and to cancel his show came from executives at ABC."
"That has now been reported," Leavitt said. "And I can assure you it did not come from the White House, and there was no pressure given from the president of the United States."
The Biden-Harris administration has seen its share of censorship controversies, particularly in its interactions with social media companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During a 2021 press conference, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration was "flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation."
In August 2024, just ahead of the presidential election, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a letter that the Biden-Harris administration pressured Facebook to censor Americans.
Zuckerberg made the admission in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, more than a year after providing the committee with thousands of documents as part of its investigation into content moderation on online platforms."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-m … ontroversyIt sounds very much that you and Musk are comparing what happened on Jan 6th (Trump's incitement of it was the reason Trump was kicked of Twitter) is equivalent to Kimmel's joke? You are aware that 1) Kimmel didn't "accuse" anybody of anything - he made a joke - and 2) even if he had Kimmel wasn't the President, was he, and Trump wasn't making jokes when he called his army to DC.
That is the very definition of a false equivalency. Harris was correct in what she said - the Republican gov't should not be making business and censorship decisions for private companies.
It is amazing, isn't, that used to be - BT - a core Republican principle. Well, AT, not any more.Hypocrisy... oh yeah...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIq-BBzoSLI
They don't care... if you are not one of them... they want you shut down, shut up, shut out... they have written books on it... they have manifestos and soon as they return to power it will be right back to DEI ... destroy the family... destroy America...
Is not their violence and hypocrisy evident?
Do you enjoy trying to debate with zealots and the insane?You want to see insane?... Looks like he accidentally posted a private message...
no hiding the political retaliation and weaponization.
It’s all out in the open.
This was deleted one hour later...HEY, all look over here... Diversion. Defend your Harris's hypocrisy, or one could call it a lie.... So, let's
"What we are witnessing is an outright abuse of power. This administration is attacking critics and using fear as a weapon to silence anyone who would speak out. Media corporations — from television networks to newspapers — are capitulating to these threats," Harris wrote on X about Kimmel’s suspension. "We cannot dare to be silent or complacent in the face of this frontal assault on free speech. We, the people, deserve better." Harris
Musk revisited a 2019 tweet by Harris when Trump was serving his first term. Harris, a U.S. senator representing California at the time, was running for vice president when she made the post on X, now Twitter.
"Look let's be honest, @realDonaldTrump's Twitter account should be suspended," Harris wrote on Sept. 30, 2019. Harris
Maybe you might want to address my subject before diverting to what Trump posted. I see a clear level of hypocrisy in Harris’s character, and I could easily point to more examples of her double standards. In the end, though, it’s worth noting that diversion itself is one of the greatest forms of hypocrisy.Oh yes, the focus should be on something that Harris said in 2019 rather than Trump tweeting out his private messages.. his private orders to Pam LOL.
Harris made a statement that Trump's Twitter account should be suspended back in 2019? I don't give a shit... It's freaking Twitter... Let me know if she ever ordered personal attacks on her perceived enemies... We have a feeble old man posting revenge orders in the middle of the night..Hey, ALL LOOK OVER HERE at Trump's criminal conduct. That is NOT a diversion.
And yes, let's be honest - Trump's SUCCESSFUL call for insurrection Twitter account should have been deleted. So Harris was right."I see a clear level of hypocrisy in Harris’s character,
Character? Which individuals and or organization/corporations has Trump called for deletion??So surprised you diverted. LOL TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! Yikes, maybe address the subject.
HOPEFULLY, others take note of this problem --- I mean, her diversions are getting to be so evident, aren't they?So when Harris does something it's double standards and terrible character?
When Trump does it it's just wonderful....
Got it. When folks point out the behavior of particular individuals that they believe is lacking in character...make sure you acknowledge that you felt it was ALSO problematic when Trump did the same thing....OR just say that you don't give a shit when Trump did the same exact thing. Otherwise, the argument is disingenuous.
Let's have some honesty here. It's one of the other and labeling it "diversion" doesn't change that fact.I think the irony is lost on them when you say "So when Harris does something it's double standards and terrible character?
When Trump does it it's just wonderful...."
That is why they never try to justify their hypocrisy.
Trump is the President. Trump is the Threat to America. Harris is not and never has been. Why are you so concerned with Harris? She is self-destructing anyway. Is it because you are too embarrassed to discuss Trump and his corruption?
Seems to be that some folks want us to be upset about Harris's "*character" and "double standards". ... FOR THE EXACT THINGS THAT TRUMP HAS DONE AND DOES. LOL
WOW! What a sudden change of direction! She was your pick, and you backed her at every turn; you must have a short memory. As for me, I have never wavered in sharing my view of our president. I think he is doing an excellent job and couldn’t be more pleased with his performance. I really appreciate his outspokenness, his transparency, and the deep love he shows for our country. I am in no respect embarrassed, I am proud of him, and myself for voting for him...
And his apologists don't want him held accountable. WHY?
"They don't care... if you are not one of them... they want you shut down, shut up, shut out... they have written books on it... they have manifestos and soon as they return to power it will be right back to DEI ... destroy the family... destroy America... Ken
Isn’t the violence and hypocrisy obvious? They don’t care. The hypocrisy on the left has been palpable for a long time and now it’s clearer than ever, they seem determined to shut down any voice that represents common sense, American values, and religious faith. I’ve said for years I thought they would fail, and I still believe they have: their far-left manifesto has been exposed, most Americans never bought into it, and many who did are abandoning it once they see the danger. I also realized something important from all my back-and-forths with the left: debating them often accomplishes nothing but feeding a sickness. When we give oxygen to that rhetoric, we keep it alive and help it spread, so I’m done fueling it. I’ll only engage with people I can talk to constructively. So tell me, Ken, do you still enjoy debating “zealots and the insane,” or are you as tired of biting the hook as I am?
Note how my comment immediately drew a diversion. Should anyone really take the hook? They cannot, in any fashion, defend that manifesto; they can’t even face it head-on, because deep down they know it collapses under the weight of facts and common sense. All I see is diversion and trolling, where they dish out only what suits them. So the real question is,
is it worth wasting time when your words only fall on deaf ears?Transference (in psychoanalysis/therapy) aka Projection: when a person redirects feelings and desires (often unconsciously) from one person to another, especially from early relationships (e.g., with parents) onto a therapist or authority figure.
Example: A patient treating a therapist with the same resentment they feel toward their father.
Seems to me that is what is being done here."is it worth wasting time when your words only fall on deaf ears?"
Look at the Kirk thread... when I did hit them with some straight to the point bigger picture stuff today... it is ignored...
Getting beyond the trivial and petty your side did this... my side did that...some people can't handle it; their lives revolve around that Left - Right battle.
They need that belief that the Right is evil... or Racist... or Sexist... their ideology... their faith... falls apart without it.
I am probably "Right Wing Extremist" to many on here... I'm the MAGA supporter... because I recognized Trump was better than the alternative... that's all it takes to be a fascist to some.
The extremists can only see the world in that way... you are a believer or you aren't... you are one with them... or you are one of 'them'."Look at the Kirk thread... when I did hit them with some straight to the point bigger picture stuff today... it is ignored...
And that was what? But sort of funny because you generally evade all substantive, to the point questions posed... Specifically on the motive of RobinsonKen, almost missed your reply. I couldn’t agree more. I’ve come to the same conclusion; most of the time, it feels like words just fall on deaf ears. I’ve caught myself feeding the problem by even engaging, and I don’t see the point anymore.
Like you said, when you do try to step back from the petty Left vs. Right nonsense and speak to the bigger picture, it gets ignored. Some people can’t handle anything outside of that constant “us versus them” cycle.
The Democratic Party has nothing in the way of a plausible agenda; they offer nothing that even resembles American values. I do agree with Charlie Kirk that we need to promote our conservative values. But I don’t feel that getting stuck in back-and-forths with chat bait does anything to honor our movement.If you notice, even above... the replies often center around whatever particular nonsense is being parsed out by the "News"... the current feed... the News cycle...
I am finding that less and less interesting all the time... I am not interested in the current hot topic when it comes to political angst... assassinations and murders tend to bring me back in... but the small stuff I try to ignore these days.
But when I find a particularly forthright and insightful response given by anyone... including Willow... I will respond.
Today for instance Willow said:
"Absolutely no one has Biden or Pelosi on their mind when they get an energy bill that has increased since the Trump regime came into power. I don't think anyone gives a shit about Pelosi or Biden when they walk through the grocery aisles... No one is going to give Biden or Pelosi a second thought when the ACA premiums skyrocket . That's the reality out here on the streets Ken..."
And I replied:
An astutely accurate and on target statement...
The people... "on the streets" ... as you say... will blame the top dog...
We could go into the depths of why that is... but that is irrelevant really.
Another saying is true however "Give them bread and circuses, and they will never revolt."
What is also true... that Class conflict has been replaced by Race and Gender conflict... for the benefit of the truly elite & wealthy that have no allegiance to any particular country, creed, race or religion.
https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/class … ty-of-marx
I was impressed, to me it seemed Willow saw beyond the Party dynamics to the truth of the matter... most people don't think much beyond who is in charge, and that is the person to blame for my current woes...
Also in that thread was this:
Credence said:
If i recall, the 2008 meltdown occurred during GW Bush’s watch, so you blame Democrats for that as well?
And I replied:
I do not blame sides... both sides were responsible for NAFTA... for Glass Steagall being repealed... for the bailouts of Wall St. "too big to fail"
The system is corrupt... it does not answer to the people... now we find out, did Trump read the distress of the people and use it to his advantage to make himself and his family as rich as any other elite we know about?
Or will he actually help the American people?
If he does both... in the process of making himself immensely wealthy he also helps 'Make America Great Again'... I am fine with that.
If he doesn't... we will know that as well by 2027...
I see some very scary things out there... things that are making me work to get ahead of the changes like I have never had to work (mentally) before...
But the cards have been delt... whatever Trump is going to bring is beyond anyone stopping... other than Trump himself.
As I keep saying... the system is f'd... the corruption runs through either and both Parties.
As I also keep saying... the below... in one form or another...
The system is corrupt... it does not answer to the people... now we find out, did Trump read the distress of the people and use it to his advantage to make himself and his family as rich as any other elite we know about?
Or will he actually help the American people?
If he does both... in the process of making himself immensely wealthy he also helps 'Make America Great Again'... I am fine with that.
If he doesn't... we will know that as well by 2027...
Yep, repeated it twice really... because THAT is my 'political' bias... I am merely assessing what is IMO.
Tulsi Gabbard... RFK Jr. ... Kash Patel ... and the collected people making up the Trump Administration on the whole...
They are either legit... and doing their best to save a country that has already had its legs knocked out from under it... the damage done during the Biden years was deliberate and perhaps too damaging to recover from...
Or they are not... and we are totally screwed... Credence's worst nightmares and then some... Cred does not fear the economic tsunami that is going to crash down on ALL Americans if Trump is truly the Con Man he believes him to be... he is focused on race and rights.
My focus is on the economy and WWIII.Without my civil rights and civil liberties in America guaranteed, why should I care about the fate of this country when it doesn’t care about me? So, yes i focus on my civil rights as numero uno and everything else has a subordinate place.
The old days of putting aside our grievances which was asked of our group over much of our 20th century conflicts is now over. As for a successful economy verses civil liberties and rights, I should not have to trade one in favor of the other, you white guys dont have to, why should I?You will have no civil rights or civil liberties when America falters...
If you had children and grandchildren you would be far more concerned with America continuing to be...
It is not like you can move to China and become successful and rich there... or Japan... or Russia... or anywhere else I can think of... America still allows for people to climb, to excel, to reach their potential, to be something other than what they were born into.
Most places don't... and never will... and if you are a foreigner not born into that culture/society it is ten times harder.I would rather see the whole she-bang fall than live in tyrannical/fascist environment, that allows second class citizenship. That is how serious it gets, Ken.
I am more concerned about my progeny enjoying equal rights and opportunities in a multi cultural democracy, if America continues to avoid that standard, then I have no use for her, and ultimately, neither will they.
Where have you been, Ken, we all know that in America the chances of your moving upward in social class mobility is remote at best. You have been reading too many Horatio Alger primers. Living in a society like this one, the reality is missed that being rich is always not the standard over peace and justice, living ones life with an attitude of sufficiency rather than one of greed or avarice. The objectives you speak of may not be important to everyone.
Only conservatives are willing to accept oligarchies and fascism as the ultimate way to subdue the left, but you can become rich and exploit your neighbors. Who would want to live here under those circumstances?
We are all mortal, you have a handful of years to revel in your new toys mostly taken from others who have to do without. Is it worth it?That is the hardened mindset I see from the Left extreme of the wing... which is more normalized in media and by politicians, so I guess the extreme has become mainstreamed for Progressives...
"I would rather see the whole she-bang fall than live in [what I am told is a] tyrannical/fascist environment"
That is the mindset... so many on the Left express and/or believe that Trump is Hitler reborn, that MAGA are Fascists, and then the addendums for so many depending on the flavor of their extremisms...
To the hardcore feminist, Male is the root of all evil... holding hands with them are the Pedophiles who see CIS Male as the oppressors keeping them from expressing and enjoying their deepest desires... and the Transgenders are holding hand with them fighting those oppressors and fascists as well...
You lived through the evils that perpetuated and allowed for second class citizenry... but I say it is better to speak from within to ensure those things never return... than to join hands with those insane... immoral... criminal elements that fight to destroy the country, the civilization, that evolved to free all men and provide equality regardless of sex or race.No harder than the mindset of the Right, Ken, authoritarianism and tyranny which I consider far worst. I prefer the excesses of the left over this any day. My insistence on civil rights and civil liberties is now extreme left wing now?
Yes, I believe all those negative Left ideas about Hitler and Trump sharing many points in common. He continues to prove it to me each passing day.
We have tried to speak from within, we have doing it for centuries, but all of you continue not to listen. So perhaps, we need a different tack. YOUR country has backslid to the point where all those vaunted values you speak about are becoming no more.Civil rights and freedoms—encompassing protections like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, equality before the law, and personal autonomy—are typically measured by indices such as Freedom House's Freedom in the World (focusing on political rights and civil liberties) and the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index (incorporating personal, civil, and economic freedoms). These reports assess countries based on expert analysis, legal frameworks, and on-the-ground conditions.
The United States ranks 23rd in the Freedom in the World 2025 report by Freedom House, with an aggregate score of 83 out of 100 (categorized as "Free"). In the Human Freedom Index 2024 by the Cato Institute, it ranks 17th with a score of 8.39 out of 10.
For comparison, top nations like Finland (100) and Switzerland (8.94) score higher due to stronger equality measures and less political dysfunction. For details, check Freedom House or Cato Institute websites.
Now... lets consider why those top nations are at the top.
Racial Makeup of Finland:
Finland is one of the most ethnically and racially homogeneous countries in the world, with the vast majority of its population identifying as ethnic Finns, who are predominantly of white/Caucasian racial background.
Population of Finland:
As of 2025, Finland's population is approximately 5.62 million.
Switzerland, with a population of approximately 8.93 million as of 2025, is ethnically diverse compared to Finland but remains predominantly European/White (96%) Other 4% includes people from Turkey (70,000), Eritrea (50,000), Sri Lanka (40,000), Syria (30,000), and others.
Among the handful of nations with populations exceeding 200 million the United States outperforms all other large nations due to strong constitutional protections (e.g., Bill of Rights), an independent judiciary, and high marks for freedom of expression, assembly, and religion. While facing challenges like polarization and incarceration rates, its overall scores are superior to peers like Brazil (lower due to corruption and violence) or Indonesia (restrictions on speech and minorities).
These rankings draw from expert assessments of legal frameworks and real-world conditions. For full reports, see Freedom House or Cato Institute sites.Who is to say that even in homogeneous societies that that is the reason there is less threats to civil rights and civil liberties for minority populations. It is only the American excuse that their “difference” explains the disparate treatment. From what I have read most of Western Europe has a better record regarding these matters than we do.
This gets back to the argument we are having in two other threads... as to the Founding Father's backgrounds and the foundation this Nation was built on.
If a society, no matter how large, shares the same beliefs, the same language, the same history it is far easier to support freedoms, perceived and real... and civil rights... especially if there is no racial disharmony, no cultural differences, no language barriers, etc.
The more populace the Nation/Society the harder it is to maintain freedoms and rights for all, especially as you inject people from different backgrounds, beliefs, language and religious/social norms.
You don't get cohesion and civil society by taking people from a very Western Liberal society like Sweden and mixing them with millions from Somalia.
Sweden - Swedish society is characterized by a strong emphasis on religious freedom and tolerance. The Swedish Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice one's religion, prohibiting discrimination based on religious affiliation. The Swedish government actively promotes religious freedom and tolerance, and there are no laws that restrict religious expression or criticism.
Somalia - The combination of a highly conservative Islamic society with a tightly controlling clan structure means that anyone suspected of becoming interested in Christianity is at risk of being killed by members of their family or clan, with the clan structures regarding this as an honor killing.
The two cultures, with very different histories, language and beliefs aren't going to mix so well... not now... not ten years from now... not until one belief and social norms completely dominates/destroys the other... we call it assimilation, some call it generational adaption into the greater society.
Problem for Sweden... today that Somalia culture has grown to over 20% of that Nation's population, with no interest in assimilating.Why do we need all these harmonious ideas to adhere to the Christian belief that we should treat others the way would want to be treated? Nothing magical or extraordinary about that. I have read through the Bible twice if only to keep rightwingers from lying to me about its contents. Hebrews were told to admit foreign residents as long as they submitted to the laws the hebrews had to obey from Jehovah.
Under the “New Covenant”, the laws as laid down by Jehovah for Hebrews are not relevant. The laws are now of a secular basis to the point that I can believe or not believe any religion that I wish and I don’t want my government attempting to promote one religion over the other.
"admit foreign residents as long as they submitted to the laws "
"From what I have read most of Western Europe has a better record regarding these matters than we do." - Credence
That is because until 2015 or so, when they opened up the floodgates of migration... most of Western and Eastern Europe was relatively homogeneous.
Poland for example, refused to accept migrants from nations outside of Europe (they took in many from Ukraine, but the difference in culture is minimal)... hence, their crime rates and social unrest have not increased, their economy is thriving better than it was ten years ago...
The issues arising in France, Sweden, and other nations that are over 10% immigration from non-Western nations on the other hand... well... they are having serious issues... social and economic... as taking in millions of people and putting them on your Welfare/Social-Services is likely to do.
The question is, what will promote US winning WWIII? If we are already in that war, how are we winning it? Is Charlie Kirk helping us win? Is Trump helping us win? Can a president on the Right help US win? Can someone on the Left help US win?
If not, why not?
If so, how so?
There will be triumph from casualty. Who will suffer?
Who will win and what will winning look like, based on what?
I would say that a spiritual revival will help one side win.
What type of spiritual movement? Turning Point?
or some other religion?
or a new religion?
Wondering
The answers are based on the triumph of human strength, will and, ultimately, motivation. Will it be a positive motivation or a negative motivation: To hate and destroy toward some bad ... or to love, preserve and build toward some good.
You are speaking of YOUR side - it is called Transference.
Transference (in psychoanalysis/therapy) aka Projection: when a person redirects feelings and desires (often unconsciously) from one person to another, especially from early relationships (e.g., with parents) onto a therapist or authority figure.
Example: A patient treating a therapist with the same resentment they feel toward their father.
Isn't that what you are really doing?
Here it is ...
"Didn't the way Jesus confront the Pharisees
SHOW he m i g h t strongly rebuke
Kirk’s attitudes ..." (as though he were a Jewish priest?)
I cannot support or reject unsupported statements such as these.
Your work's half done. You would have to provide direct quotes from both Jesus and Kirk.
So, I would say its time to open that thread.According to Mrs. Harris, Trump is abusing his power as President by attacking his critics in the media and threatening anyone who speaks out against him and his party. She does not agree that Media corporations should fold to his threats and she does not believe that Jimmy Kimmel should be shut down by his company.
... but of course, she will not admit that what Kimmel said was accusational and false.
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Jimmy Kimmel
He accused the RIGHT of insisting that Mr. Robinson is NOT THE RIGHT and "doing everything they can to score political points from it."
Accusing one political party of this "new low" alienates half the nation. They need the whole nation to watch their broadcasts in order to make a profit.
_______________________________________
PS "White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Saturday that the decision to 'fire Jimmy Kimmel and to cancel his show came from executives at ABC.'
'That has now been reported,' Leavitt said. 'And I can assure you it did not come from the White House, and there was no pressure given from the president of the United States.'"
SharleeOh my ..
On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources....
Investigative reporting by Carol Leonnig. Kash or Barbie need to release the video...
What to Make of the Tom Homan Bribery Allegation? | National Review https://share.google/yuqqu9iPMCYzhrSMJFacts thus far--- Quote from Homan. Statement from DOJ
No quotes from accusers. Just unsubstanciated accusations. But hummmmmy feed.
Homan's Response
Tom Homan has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, labeling the allegations as "BS." He maintains that the investigation was politically motivated and that he did not engage in any illicit activity.
Despite the recorded exchange, the Justice Department under the Trump administration closed the investigation in 2025, citing insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. Officials noted that Homan was not serving in an official capacity at the time of the meeting and that there was no clear evidence of a direct quid pro quo.Of course he denies it - all criminals do. He was being investigated for bribery. FBI agents reported it.
Reports say the FBI ran an undercover sting in 2024 and video-recorded Homan accepting $50,000 in cash from agents posing as contractors—so “red-handed” in the colloquial sense. But he wasn’t charged, and after Trump returned to office the Justice Department closed the probe, saying there wasn’t “credible evidence” of a prosecutable crime.
No doubt Trump directed the probe be closed so he could hire him to become the nation's Hermann Göring counterpart.
Also, until you stop using "unsubstantiated accusations" then it is fair and proper for others to use them - especially if they are credible from the MSM.
Trump's killing the investigation into Horman is just another example of his corruption.This all happened under Biden? LOL. And like the Dems wouldn’t have broken this story — seems they didn’t because there was nothing there. I do get a laugh that some here omitted the fact that this was all done by an FBI plant under Biden. You really are something else. Why on earth would a new DOJ even bother looking into something the last one already found no wrongdoing? Maybe look to dates, and ask why now, why not under Biden ---
Do you ever take a moment to think things through with a bit of common sense? But of course, cling to this new conspiracy; it makes absolutely no sense.The investigation under the Biden Administration was of an unrelated issue that Homan became part of. The investigation never began with Homan as a direct target...The investigation into Homan grew out of an unrelated counterintelligence probe.
Not even willing to go any further with this conversation, I shared my view. The article you posted holds nothing that points to Homan breaking any laws. Nor has he been charged. I am never willing to accuse or insinuate that someone committed a crime without them being charged. I will leave you to insinuate he committed a crime. I have nothing in common with you; I find your views very opposite of my own. it would seem you would understand that and pass my comments by.
LOL why would the Trump Administration charge him? That's laughable... Americans deserve to see the video. And it's interesting to know that Homan has not denied taking the money...
And my god, accusations without evidence or proof??
Leticia james, Lisa cook??? Adam Schiff?? PLEASE.
SUMMONING DOJ BARBIE TO GET ON THE BALL WITH THOSE PROSECUTIONS LOL
Let's have a good look at the article Willow shared --- It is a great example of how context should matter before forming a view. I capitalized words that jumped out at me...
"WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION YET to form a legal judgment about how BAD the Tom Homan bribery ALLEGATION is. The story was APPARENTLY first reported by Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian at MSNBC, and has now been followed up by the New York Times and other outlets.
What’s reported SOUNDS bad.
Homan was running a consulting business during the late phase of Biden’s term, but he was active in supporting Trump and it was WIDELY BELIEVED — not least due to things Homan himself was saying — that he’d have a VERY CONSEQUENTIAL post in homeland security and immigration enforcement IF Trump won. A SUSPECT the FBI was investigating in Texas was OVERHEARD CLAIMING that Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for border security business contracts TO BE AWARDED IF Trump was elected president, according to “an INTERNAL Justice Department summary of the probe” that SOMEONE ALLOWED the reporters to review.
Sometime afterwards, the FBI arranged an Abscam-style sting operation: An UNDERCOVER agent POSING as a potential contractor IS SAID TO have met with Homan and paid him $50,000 in cash, with the meeting COVERTLY RECORDED on video.
The report says the investigation of Homan has been shut down by the Trump Justice Department. The following joint statement on the matter was provided to MSNBC by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel:
This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found NO CREDIBLE evidence of any CRIMINAL WRONGDOING. The Department’s resources must remain focused on REAL THREATS to the American people, not BASELESS INVESTIGATIONS. As a result, the investigation has been closed.
This is carefully worded. The qualification of “CREDIBLE” suggests that there WAS evidence of criminal wrongdoing but that the Trump investigators assessed it to be UNCONVINCING. The fact that the matter originated under the Biden administration does not make it inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY — it was APPARENTLY a field investigation in Texas, not a case put together by political appointees in Washington, D.C.; AND NOTE: the Biden DOJ and FBI did NOT LEAK this PRE- or POST-election. Plus, the fact that the Biden people were running the DOJ would NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE what’s on the video.
Moreover, even if EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING IS LACKING, Homan holds an INFLUENTIAL POST in the government. Plainly, there is more at issue here than whether a criminal case COULD BE made against him. That’s why you can be certain that Democrats will be DEMANDING that the video be produced to Congress, which will put the Trump-allied Republicans in a tight spot.
On the other hand, there COULD BE significant legal problems with the case from a criminal-prosecution perspective.
Obviously, IF Homan ACCEPTED $50,000 in cash, that would be VERY SUSPICIOUS. People in legitimate consulting transactions typically write checks or transfer money in a similarly transparent manner because they know they’re not doing anything wrong. Nevertheless, it’s NOT A CRIME to accept cash (of course, it must be properly accounted for). Homan was not a government official at the time of the alleged payment. The MSNBC report indicates that the DOJ and FBI – prudently in my view – did NOT TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION because they wanted to see if Homan FOLLOWED THROUGH by arranging contracts; had he done so, the investigators MIGHT HAVE established solid quid pro quo evidence. But Homan was EVIDENTLY kept out of such business in the transition and in his administration job, and, in any event, no such evidence EMERGED.
Meantime, MSNBC consulted Randall Eliason, a former DOJ public corruption prosecutor and now a law professor. He THEORIZES that Homan could not have been charged with bribery since he was now a public official at the time of the alleged payment, but he COULD HAVE BEEN charged with conspiracy to commit bribery, because conspiracy “is the agreement to commit a criminal act in the future.” But that omits a crucial principle of law: A person cannot conspire with an undercover government operative.
A conspiracy, as Eliason SUGGESTS, is the meeting of the minds to commit a criminal offense; you CANNOT have a meeting of the minds with a government agent because the agent does NOT ACTUALLY INTEND to commit a crime — the agent is investigating potential crime. To have a conspiracy, there must be at least two people in the criminal agreement who were NOT UNDERCOVER government agents. (To be clear, I am not faulting Eliason here. This is a rudimentary conspiracy-law tenet, so for all I know he MAY HAVE EXPLAINED it to MSNBC, only to have the reporters miss the significance of it, or otherwise decide NOT TO INCLUDE it in their story.)
WE CAN’T evaluate the case against Homan until we know what was said in the recording, why he took the money (IF HE DID), and why the transaction was in cash. Homan hasn’t been charged and he’s presumed innocent. But Congress should look into this, including whether it WEIGHED INTO President Trump’s decision to give Homan an administration job that did NOT REQUIRE a Senate confirmation process rather than nominate him for a cabinet post."
Once again, what's it! Really discussing to promote this form of narrative with nothing to back up a crime. This is a great example of left rhetoric, which promotes a crime without evidence. They smear and slander a man who has no way to defend himself. Vile folksNotice my caps. YOU CAN'T TRUST A THING THE TRUMP DOIJ SAYS.
And, yes we CAN evaluate when given VIDEO and SOUND evidence of a crime.
I suspect they will prosecute him when an honest administration returns to office.And this would be a case that Homan what absolutely go after the investigative reporters for libel, right? I mean if it's just so clear-cut... I don't think we should hold our breath for that one.
The question now? Will Pam go after James, Comey and Schiff as she was directed to do by Trump. The false claims of mortgage fraud have blown up. So it will be interesting to see what they concoct next
“The cash payment, which was made inside a bag from the food chain Cava, grew out of a long-running counterintelligence investigation that had NOT been targeting Mr. Homan.”
The American people deserve the videoShould have asked Biden to release that video, and LOL the Epstein info. He could have done so; the alleged sting went down on his time.
I will let you get in touch with Garland and ask about the alleged video.According to reporting, the investigation was very much still underway during the last days of the Biden Administration...
FBI expected to keep monitoring Homan to determine if he landed an official role and would make good on steering contracts in a future Trump administration.... The Trump Administration was apprised of the ongoing investigation during his transition period. The administration dropped the investigation when Trump came into office...
Trump's ineptitude and mental instability is right in front of us, but those on the Right simply don't see it.
Here is an example. Trump promises to stop autism, he “won’t let it happen anymore.” Somebody who has his intellect together would never make such a promise.
He is also going down Junior's rabbit hole by claiming that autism (who nobody knows what causes it) is caused by vitamin deficiency and Tylenol.
You might ask - what does cause autism? The best answer science has right now is "Autism is recognized as a neurodevelopmental condition with complex genetic underpinnings, influenced by many genes and some environmental factors (e.g., advanced parental age, extreme prematurity, prenatal exposures to certain toxins)."
That said, Trump is going to convince 78 million Americans of something else that isn't true.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/21/health/t … ism-reportThis is why the Democrats, thank God, will retake the House and hopefully the Senate - Trump's One Big Ugly Bill.
"Rural health clinics are closing after Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ raising the legislation’s political risks
It is no longer a matter of WHEN because it is happening NOW and will continue to gain speed all through the election season.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/22/politics … tiful-bill
And THAT is what is right in front of MAGA - the loss of their health care.Tell me more about language that incites...tell me more about how your SO offended by the language of Harris or Ocasio-Cortez or any number of other Democrats that have been mentioned in these threads....
Ice barbie attacks the Democratic Party: "They aren't just liberals anymore. If you look at the Democrat Party, they're a party of communists and marxists and socialists."
She throws in all three because she doesn't know the difference between them LOL ...The White House thru Bullshit Barbie is now saying Tom Homan didn't take the $50,000 in cash. That was not part of their statement on Saturday. Multiple people familiar with the case say he did accept the money, as does an internal government document reviewed by investigative reporting by Carol Leonnig...
This is incredibly ripe for a Congressional investigation. There is a recording out there of the cash handover. We know it even happened in a bag from Cava, a fast casual chain. The FBI agents doing the undercover sting can testify themselves. They can't cover this up....
the group Democracy Forward has filed a FOIA requesting the release of the Homan video/audio...Senate Judiciary Cmte Democrats launch review into Tom Mushmouth Homan investigation...
Letter to Justice Dept:
“Under your management, DOJ has touted its commitment to transparency and released records from other closed investigations. This case should be no different...”
We deserve to see the video...
Republicans spent years falsely accusing Joe Biden of bribery, now there's evidence a top trump official accepted a bribe and their response is 'we don't care'....There is nothing false about the money Hunter Biden and other Biden family members raked in.
https://oversight.house.gov/release/com … ina-money/
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/re … -companies
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/medi … .09.23.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-bi … %EF%BF%BC/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter … obalt-mine
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/03/3 … Disclosure
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/ … lic-outcry
Two ICE detainees have died, and a third is in critical condition after being shot by a sniper in Dallas early Wednesday morning...the gunman killed himself.
Press conference coming...Comey reportedly to be indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Trump just fired a prosecutor who opposed the case.
Blatant and brazen weaponization of the government against Trump's political opponents....INDICTED....
The new U.S. Attorney that Trump installed specifically to indict Comey HAS NEVER PROSECUTED A CASE IN HER CAREER....
Let the comic relief begin...
The Justice Department we have long known is dead. As in many authoritarian states, it now exists as an arm of the government to punish trumps enemies, regardless of the law. A tragedy for the country with lasting implications, even when this case is dismissed.... Which it will be lol.Well, what I once only hoped for has now become fact.
Did you hear about the January 6th crowd?
... there were 275 FBI agents in the crowd?
Inciting the riot... leading the crowd... assaulting the officers?
Followed up with Biden's labeling every Patriot a Domestic Terrorist...
Every Trump supporter guilty of Treason...
When the treason was government insiders trying to keep power and control for themselves, trying to subvert Democracy... trying to nullify the Will of the People... fleecing American's of their freedoms and future.
BREAKING: President Trump just DROPPED THE MIC.
REPORTER: Are you worried a Democrat president will indict your FBI director now? [Following Comey]
TRUMP: "Well, that's what they tried to do! They went after me for 4 YEARS, and that doesn't include the 4 years I had in the White House!"
"It began before I got to office! BEFORE I got to office, I heard rumors about Russia! I said, WTH do I have to do with Russia?!"
REPORTER: Is this revenge, or justice?
TRUMP: "Justice...also, you can't let this go on. They are sick, radical left people - and they can't get away with it. Comey was one of the people...he's a DIRTY COP. Everybody knew it."
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1971580099490107597
I like this reply to it:
https://x.com/attackdogX/status/1971580699917619488
Would be nice to see them prosecuted for it.TRUMP: "Justice...also, you can't let this go on. They are sick, radical left people - and they can't get away with it. Comey was one of the people...he's a DIRTY COP. Everybody knew it."
Comey was a REPUBLICANHe was a closet Leftist...
Do some digging on him, fun, innocent stuff will pop up like this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/james-c … d=47399967
And this...
A few weeks after his message about “86”ing President Donald Trump, former FBI Director James Comey once again revealed the Left’s nefarious strategy to silence its opponents by referring to the Republican Party as “white supremacist adjacent.”
It’s not enough for the Left to cry “racism” against the GOP. No, the Left has launched a systematic approach to compare conservatives to the Ku Klux Klan and suggest they represent a terrorist threat—and Comey is breathing oxygen into that preposterous and dangerous narrative.
MSNBC host Jen Psaki asked Comey about fighting domestic terrorism, then turned to discuss the Trump administration “testing the system.” She asked if the former FBI director thinks “there are laws that should be put in place that would help better manage” various threats.
“Let’s say you work in the FBI,” Comey began. “You know that one of the two political parties is, let me put it nicely, white supremacist adjacent—at a minimum. And so, why would you want to throw your career on that side of the line and be summoned to Capitol Hill to be asked, ‘Why are you pursuing these innocent groups?’ And so, we have a cultural impediment to working effectively that should get more attention than it does.”
I think this exchange is rather revealing. You see, I remember when members of Congress called in then-FBI Director Christopher Wray to answer for a particularly notorious abuse involving “pursuing these innocent groups.”
The FBI Catholic Memo
The FBI’s Richmond office had written a report about “radical-traditional Catholics,” citing none other than the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The SPLC gained its reputation by suing Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy. That’s a noble cause, but when the SPLC ran out of Klan members to target, it began adding conservative organizations to the same “hate map” it used to expose the Klan.
Now, the SPLC’s “hate map” includes conservative Christian law firms like Alliance Defending Freedom, immigration reform groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, parental rights groups like Moms for Liberty, and groups of doctors who oppose the Frankensteinian transgender experiments often euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care.” It even branded an LGBTQ group—Gays Against Groomers—an “anti-LGBTQ hate group” because Gays Against Groomers opposes the SPLC’s transgender agenda.
Critics have long slammed the SPLC for exaggerating “hate” to scare donors into ponying up cash and to silence political opponents. The SPLC has a $730 million endowment and offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. In 2019, a former SPLC employee revealed that workers called it the “poverty palace” and called the “hate” accusations a “highly profitable scam.” For more on this, you can check out my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center.”
Yet the scam seems to be paying off, and not just financially. As I wrote in my second book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” the SPLC had a large impact in the Biden administration: advising the Justice Department and the Department of Education, getting an attorney nominated to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and getting cited by the FBI. SPLC President Margaret Huang bragged about the administration asking the SPLC for advice on combating “domestic terrorism.”
That seems darkly ironic, considering that a convicted terrorist used the SPLC “hate map” to target the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., for an attempted mass shooting. The SPLC condemned the attack, but kept the council on the “hate map,” anyway.
Does Comey really want to be taking the side of the SPLC on this? On Catholics, in particular, the SPLC has a horrific track record. When it branded the Ruth Institute—a Louisiana pro-family nonprofit—an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” it quoted (as evidence of hate) Ruth Institute founder Jennifer Roback Morse, who was in turn quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
That’s right, if the SPLC were to be consistent, it would have to put the entire Catholic Church on the “hate map.”
This is the major scandal to which Comey is referring. In his mind, it is a “cultural impediment” when Republicans demand answers after the FBI cites the anti-Catholic SPLC in demonizing Catholic groups.
SPLC Goes After Turning Point USA
Of course, his remarks came right after the Southern Poverty Law Center branded Turning Point USA, the largest conservative youth organization in the country, an “antigovernment extremist group,” placing it on the “hate map” with Klan chapters and claiming the group supports “white Christian supremacy.”
This is all part of the SPLC’s modus operandi—smearing its political and ideological opponents by association with the Klan and “white supremacy” and attempting to exile them from polite society, all while making a buck by scaring people into sending it money.
The truly scary thing is that Comey appears not to agree with Wray, who said he was “appalled” by the FBI Catholic memo. Comey seems to think the outrage over the memo was the real scandal—and that outrage revealed how the Republican Party defends “white supremacists.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/27/ … opponents/
Comey is as Republican as I am an Extreme Progressive.I see the word "THEY"; he certainly indicated that he believes Comey is a leftist, and a radical one at that. Oh, and thankfully, he remembered to add 'Dirty Cop"...
Comey was a Republican . Why would anyone believe he was a "leftist".
LOL — All I can say is, “Let’s roll!” Classic Trump: right on the money and fully in his element. Ken, do we start counting now or guessing who’s next? One of the taglines Democrats always use is “no one is above the law.” I’m actually pleased to see Trump embracing that value. And boy, does he have a long string of lawbreakers to handle. But I have faith, he’s the one to bring them in and make sure they get their day in court.
Fun times!
Trump announced pharmaceuticals may face tariffs of up to 100 %, kitchen cabinets 50% percent, upholstered furniture 30% and heavy trucks 25% starting on October 1.
He says it is to put pressure on companies to open factories in America.
Apparently, he has no clue what it takes to build a factory, hire people and all the logistics involved. It takes years.
Pharmaceuticals will be unaffordable for some people who need them to live.
This is what happens when you elect a man who doesn't give a shit about you unless you are ultra-wealthy....Setting aside the fictional bajillions of dollars Trump keeps making up, people don’t love hearing “the economy is on fire” when they are drowning in a cost of living crisis, utility bills are up 10%, and the job market is so shaky Trump fired the person in charge of the numbers....
What is wrong with him??? Calling for microsoft, a private corporation, to fire Lisa Monaco... this man has nothing but revenge on his mind. He is a bitter, addled man...
Trump admin has diverted so many law enforcement resources AWAY from drugs to going after migrants instead.... The show of blowing up random boats really isn't a strategy.. who would have thought??
Just say you're pleased MAGA ...
And that is how Trump solves crime - stop enforcing it.
I thought this forum is the appropriate place to post this comment about Conspiracy Theories.
I am reading this fascinating book titled Politics, Lies, and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistics Perspective by Marcel Danesi, a Professor Emeritus of linguistic anthropology and semiotics. It explores how lies and metaphor—central to many conspiracy theories—can make people so certain about the subject of those lies that they ignore conflicting evidence. Research shows this kind of persuasion can condition the brain to process information uncritically. As I have proven before, this mechanism literally hardwires the brain to think, uncritically, a certain way.
I got to the section on conspiracy theories last night where it described several that boggles the mind that people believe.
* In 1894, the Dreyfus Affair erupted when Alfred Dreyfus—a Jewish captain on France’s General Staff—was accused of passing artillery secrets to Germany. He was tried behind closed doors, with judges shown a secret dossier the defense never saw, and was publicly degraded and sent to Devil’s Island. The case was propelled by a conspiratorial narrative: a supposed Jewish “deep state,” a Masonic cabal undermining France, forged “proof” (notably by Major Henry), and a press climate thick with antisemitism. In 1896, Colonel Picquart discovered the real culprit, but the Army buried the finding. Émile Zola’s 1898 “J’Accuse…!” forced the scandal into the open; yet a 1899 retrial still reconvicted Dreyfus, leading only to a presidential pardon. Final justice came in 1906, when France’s highest court annulled the verdict and fully exonerated him. The affair shows how otherwise intelligent people can be captured by conspiracy logic—echo chambers and star influencers, institutional complicity dressed up as “state security,” and scapegoating that turns doubts into proof of an even larger plot. The author uses this Affair throughout his book to illustrate how conspiracy theories work.
Modern day conspiracy theories are just a bad and pernicious. How many of you believe the following falsehoods to be true:
1. “Stolen” U.S. elections (2020/2024): Claims of massive fraud or rigged machines changing votes.
2. “Deep State”, either from the Right or the Left: A hidden cabal of bureaucrats secretly controls government policy.
3. Great Replacement Theory: Elites are importing immigrants to “replace” native populations.
4. Anti-vax microchips/5G: Vaccines (or 5G towers) are tools for tracking or mind control.
5. COVID lab/hoax extremes: Either the virus was a planned bioweapon or the pandemic was “faked.”
6. Chemtrails: Jet contrails are chemicals sprayed for weather/population control.
7. Fluoride mind control: Water fluoridation is a plot to dull the public’s mind.
8. “New World Order”: A shadowy elite plans a single world government/currency.
9. WEF/“Great Reset”: The World Economic Forum is engineering economic collapse to seize control.
10. QAnon: A secret war against a satanic, child-trafficking cabal run by global elites.
11. Censorship cartel: All major media and platforms coordinate to hide “truths” from the public.
12. AI takeover now: Current AIs are already sentient and being hidden/used to dominate society.
13. NATO/false flag wars: Major conflicts are staged by Western intelligence to justify intervention.
14. ISIS/Al-Qaeda created by the West: Terror groups are puppets of U.S./UK agencies.
15. JFK multiple-shooter theories (evergreen, still evolving with new “docs”).
16. 9/11 inside job: U.S. government orchestrated or allowed the attacks.
17. “Groomer” panic: Public LGBTQ visibility is a covert plot targeting children.
All of these are provably false and have been debunked many times over. Yet the faithful will simply not believe what is right in front of them.
"All" ... that is something that will be "provably false" down the road.
Here you go. I found the perfect retort to that statement:
https://youtu.be/SRb1sbuCNWA?si=Kk5KjFX-hCOkSDro- Let's see what we have here:
1. Non-sequitur
2. Tone over substance:
3. Word-lawyering
4. Burden-of-proof dodge:
5. Straw-response Here are some more... related to the original topic:
Dad dies of grief:
https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1981863822177546516
1 in 4 Swedish women:
https://x.com/ILA_NewsX/status/1981901404550869154
Understanding a different world... where Western Values not only don't exist, they make you a target to be preyed upon:
Why Has Rape Become an Epidemic in Somali Society?
https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/20 … li-society
In Somalia, Spike in Gender-Based Attacks Compounds Plight of Displaced Women, Girls
https://www.voanews.com/a/in-somalia-sp … 85771.html
Since the 1980s Somalia has been in constant civil war. The war has been marked by massacres by rival warlords, Al Shabaab terrorists, and Somali government forces. Between 350,000 and 1 million people have died since 1991.
The Isaaq Genocide of 1988 - 1991 is notable. Following a rebellion in the mid-1980s in Somaliland, the dictator Siad Barre launched a genocide against the Isaaq tribe, one of the largest in Somalia. The genocide, led by Barre's son-in-law Mohammed Said Hersi Morgan, killed an estimated 200,000 people. The Isaaq Genocide was carried out with massive aerial and artillery bombardments and death squads. The genocide included mass rape and forced displacement. Barre’s forces destroyed Hargeisa, the Somaliland capital. The Isaaq Genocide was the deadliest in Somalia’s modern history, but it is largely unrecognized to this day.
The Barre regime collapsed in 1991. Somaliland declared independence. A coalition led by the United States intervened in 1992 but withdrew after 18 Americans were killed in the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident. The Islamic Courts Union (ICU) defeated the warlords in 2006. The ICU was defeated by the internationally backed federal government in 2007.
Somalia is currently paralyzed by the war between the Islamic terrorist group Al-Shabaab and the Somalia government, which is supported by the US, AU, and UN. Al-Shabaab is aligned with the Islamic State. It regularly attacks civilians in Somalia and in Kenya. An increase in civilian casualties has also resulted from massacres by clan militias.
For 45 years Somalia has been a breeding ground for the most inhumane and savage natures of humanity to thrive, where terrorism is a social norm and killing is commonplace.
Europe is a major target for the Somali refugees and other immigrants. In 2012, Swedish statistics report that the Somali-born population in Sweden numbered 44,000 whilst most of the Somalis now living in Sweden arrived after 2015.
Statistics show that the Somali community in Sweden is one of the most segregated immigrant groups in Swedish society and that the same crime lord governance and use of terror to control the population has been exported abroad to Sweden.
When mass migration occurs, where there is no ability to ensure assimilation into the host culture's social norms and laws, this results in the continuation (exportation) of beliefs and cultural norms sometimes even magnifying them as the host population offers opportunity and security for the worst elements to flourish.And Netanyahu is committing genocide in Gaza and Trump, the enemy of the People, is about to get us into another shooting war by invading Venezuela, and Trump just ordered USDA to starve Americans. What is your point about Black Somalians?
Wouldn't it better to focus your ire on the person ripping America into shreds - Donald J. Trump?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/politics … ember-snapRehab Centers That Offer Treatment for Trump Derangement Syndrome
For assistance in finding a treatment center that addresses Trump Derangement Syndrome and other forms of political obsession, contact RehabNet.com via our contact form or call us today.
https://rehabnet.com/treatment/trump-de … -syndrome/I'm sure they are... and I'm sure there are plenty who need such treatment.
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?
- 8
A Party Unraveled: How the Modern Left Has Imploded
by Sharlee 4 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...
- 303
Is it right for Christians to convert tribal natives?
by klarawieck 15 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...
- 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 11 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...