Outlaw Pete wrote: » Nope, you misunderstand me. I don't trust Parnas, that's the point. I highlighted what he claimed happened at that dinner to expose the inconsistency in his story, nothing more. Seems I'm not alone taking what he says with a bag of salt:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1217846724884037632
Itssoeasy wrote: » I see that Donald trump is going to have fireworks at Mount Rushmore after he was told they hadn't any for twenty years. He said what would burn as its rock but Mount Rushmore is in a national park isn't it ? Surely having fireworks land in a wooded area isn't a good thing.
Manic Moran wrote: » I'm sure there are a number of military-focused websites you could go browse. I would submit that the problem goes beyond merely attitude to armed forces, but attitude in general. What is causing the man's chance of re-election isn't an ignorance of this, but a choice to work on the basis that verbal tirades and daftness do not create the laws or policy which affects one's lives, and that the positions of the political opposition are such that they will create laws or policy with which that voter disagrees more than those demonstrated by Trump. Oh. Keep an eye on Virginia Monday. Up until recently, the discussion on firearms boards has been along the lines of a large number of folks trying to convince a small number of folks that showing up tooled up with visible weapons (at least, visible rifles) is counter-productive for a rally. After the Governor decided to ban firearms at the rally by declaring a state of emergency (A political demonstration is a state of emergency?), the discussion has changed to debating which firearms to show up with, on the fairly reasonable supposition that the police are going to have difficulty using force against a large number of armed persons, likely mixed in a crowd with unarmed persons. I honestly can't get a read on how many people are going to actually show with firearms, but the folks are pissed. Even Antifa say they're showing up... to support the demonstration and march with the gun rights folks. I put even odds three ways on this ending with blood, the ban being ignored and unenforced, or the police managing to ensure the thousands of folks are unarmed.
Water John wrote: » The Trump admin rolls back on the quality of school meals. This was a policy originally instituted by Michelle Obama. so to make the point of pettiness they make the change, on her birthday.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back
Midlife wrote: » So an inconsistency in a story means we shouldn't trust someone?
Interesting thing for a trump supporter to say
Outlaw Pete wrote: » It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously. I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days). So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days). So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.
PropJoe10 wrote: » You do know that a very high percentage of his lies are backed up by video of him actually saying them, don't you? How do you explain that?
mcmoustache wrote: » That's the thing. This isn't like lying about something that's unknown or unknowable like a dispute between two people's account of their private conversation. The video is all there for everyone to see.
hotmail.com wrote: » Unelected First Ladies make policies now?
Midlife wrote: » Pretty impressive that an agricultural lobby can get the country to row back on healthy food for children. Trump came to power saying that the country didn't work for the people but special interests have had a field day under him.
aloyisious wrote: » I was thinking along the lines of "because of the presidents attitude, we're not voting for the party this time as it is not doing anything to rein in his damaging effect on the party but we're also not voting for anyone else so you lose our votes" meaning that the other party gets its own usual votes giving it a greater number in the overall. Magnify that across the board from dis-satisfied voters with the different constituencies and electoral houses, then it should have an effect outside the norm. While there'd doubtless be dis-satisfied people and voters within the Dems with their elders, it's the GOP and Don Trump that I am referring to here as he's POTUS.
Wait. Should they give up on enforcing the rule of law because they can't control people with guns safely? That seems to be what you are saying. That is a big issue. Anyone thinking of showing up to this event should be top of the list of people not allowed to have guns.
Manic Moran wrote: » That may depend on whether you ascribe to the belief that a large number of voters in the US vote not "for the person I support", but "against the person I dislike most". I suspect a large number of people do indeed do so. That comes down to the nature of the competition for the seat, both internally and across the parties. Doubtless a number will go 'a pox on both of you', as I did, but they seem to be a minority. Except if you're a Bernie fan, possibly, going by 2016 results. Why? What makes you think that people don't routinely bring guns to rallies in Virginia, where one in every ten adults has a license to carry? So far, the only major trouble has been caused by a car. Basically, the governor is declaring a state of emergency because people will be doing what they are legally entitled to do, under the laws of Virginia. So it's not 'enforcing' the rule of law, it's 'suspending' the rule of law. He has the legal authority to make such a suspension of rights, but he's driving the gun rights proponents point for them in doing so. Most states of emergency tend to involve natural disasters or mass lawlessness. There is no such trigger here.
Brian? wrote: » They have done so since at least Eleanor Roosevelt, possibly earlier. I’m not as much of a political anorak as you though, so I am not really sure.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5e7421d1b72840ccd9e51db307da48ea.svg)
