Hodad

You go to the dermatologist to have an irregular mole analyzed. It's measured and graded and the doctor tells you it's malignant and will have to come off. The girl at ULTA beauty tells you it looks benign. You're the kind of guy who thinks those pieces of advice are equally valid and the un-credible opinion deserves as much weight as the expert evaluation. In other words, a dumb guy who's likely going to die when that beauty mark metastasizes. 🙄

If you think that, you have no idea what was happening inside the certification process. The mob was just the tip of the iceberg. Educate yourself.

Sure, nobody erected gallows at the Capitol and nobody chanted to "Hang Mike Pence!" Except they did, liar.

As always, you lie. He was asked to denounce white supremacists and to tell the Proud Boys to "stand down and not add to the violence." Trump instead chose told them to "stand back and stand by." It's on video. Your gaslighting won't work. Trump wouldn't condemn or denounce them. Instead he told them to "stand by"! They understood exactly what he meant and celebrated it. "Standing down and standing by sir," the account wrote. The account then posted two videos of the answer, including one with the caption "God. Family. Brotherhood," in which a man howled at the TV in response to Trump's response." ... Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs also posted after the debate that he was "standing by," and he said the president "basically said to go f--- them up." "President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA... well sir! we're ready!!" Biggs wrote."

Jan 6 is the day we almost lost our democracy. No joke, no hyperbole. We were exactly ONE person away from a constitutional crisis unlike anything the country has seen before: Mike Pence. If the Vice President had followed Trumpco's criminal scheme, had caved to the pressure and threats, had been cowed by Trump's rabid mob, howling for his death, we very well could have fallen into some state of chaos or civil war. I disagree with almost everything Pence has ever said politically, but that day he stood strong, did his duty and upheld his oath to defend the constitution. That day he was heroic. And I still continue to be shocked and appalled that Republicans want to put back in office the man who tried to overthrow our government.

Congrats for finally catching on. Took a while to get there. No injection of cash into NATO. Just countries spending on their own militaries. 👍

Yes, it's all very crazy. The idea that millions of people will believe lies about factual events without reason or evidence--or, in this case, contradicted by reason and evidence--is fascinating and terrifying. I keep wondering when the rational Republicans will get fed up with these kooks and tell them to shut up and sit down and let the grownups run the party like they used to. Or break away from a party that no longer represents anything that it used to.

Oh, I'm certain that Epstein knew or somehow associated with a lot of people who didn't know what was going on. I think it's pretty unlikely that Trump was one of those people. "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life." So when he boards the "Lolita Express" and is surrounded by a gaggle of very young women who have no business being there, I think even Trump can put 2 and 2 together. Whether Trump partook or not I can't say (we know he's not above cheating on his wives, paying for sex and using women) but it's almost certain the wares were offered, don't you think? Mr. "locker room talk" surely chatted with Epstein about his hobby, don't you think? It seems pretty unlikely that Trump knew enough to nod and wink at Epstein's predilections in the public press while not understanding how far Epstein would go.

As I've told you now a dozen times, there are almost no "NATO" funds. The member countries spend about $3 billion collectively on NATO overhead- office facilities, staff, etc.. All the actual spending is countries spending on their own militaries. Regular old defense spending. And again, where the money "comes from" doesn't matter. Whether it originates as tax revenue or is found under a couch cushion, that has no bearing on the fact that there is no profit motive to keep NATO alive, nor is NATO a third-party positioned to profit from countries' defense spending.. There are just the member nations trying to get more security at lower costs. What you're proposing is as stupid as claiming that some mysterious "they" in a co-op apartment building is sabotaging the plumbing so that the co-op continues to be relevant, so the co-op can get some money. Well, no, that's not how any of that works. There are just shared costs, and if costs go up, it's bad for all the members. There is no party positioned to benefit from co-op expenses.

Nooooooope. Let's set aside the insane conspiracy theory crap and your poor understanding of the word seditious and revisit Trump's speech. Transcript here Fairly early in the speech he instructed them to be peaceful, exactly one time. Then he spent an hour selling his rabid mob the same pack of election lies and framing the moment as an existential crisis: they had to act NOW to stop the steal and save their country. And he told them to march down to the Capitol and do that. He told them to fight 21 times. He told them that in cases of fraud, special rules apply, before finishing with: "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country. And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come. So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue..." You are so full of crap. You're the same shameless, spineless who twill ell us that it's fine for a president to pressure and threaten election officials to "find" him more votes. The same transparent liar that tells us it's fine for a president to extort foreign leaders for campaign favors. The same amoral creep who tell us it's no big deal if he boasts about sexual assault and complain when he's held accountable for exactly that behavior. Just fark off. Nobody is buying your bullshit.

Taxes have absolutely nothing to do with your fundamental ignorance of all things NATO or with your ridiculous--impossible--conspiracy theory, Hostess Cuupcake. Instead of admitting the mistake and moving on, you want to die on this stupid hill? Great, enjoy!

Trump reduced LEGAL immigration. Didn't reduce illegal immigration. That's a FOX news fantasy.

Eh, these lucrative arrangements have been public knowledge for years. Republican voters didn't care about this transgression any more than they cared about the sexual assaults, the extortion, the insurrection, the fraud, or any of the other deplorable behavior. Trump is and always has been a corrupt con man. They're just into it. People without morals like people without morals.

I already know the answers, silly. You clearly do not. That's why I asked you questions that are impossible to answer. Again, you don't seem to understand what NATO is or how it works. Otherwise you wouldn't have spoken of an "injection of cash" from countries [into NATO]. Members countries direct spending on/to NATO infrastructure is almost nothing. Their primary obligations and commitments are to spend 2% of GDP within their own countries, spending on their own military. They aren't giving it to NATO. There is no "injection of cash." Read your own damn link. It's just one paragraph long. Read it. "Mr. Stoltenberg highlighted rising defence investment across European Allies and Canada, amounting to more than $100 billion extra in recent years, adding that Allies are determined to keep up the momentum." ^^Countries investing in their own defense capability.

Hey, dipshit. Your posts don't vanish into the ether just because they were on an earlier page. We can all see what you said. Here it is again: Being dumb isn't a crime or a moral failing. Just your misfortune in the genetic lottery. Lying about what you said, however, is totally within your control. That's 100% your fault. You absolutely said that NATO is courting conflict to keep NATO relevant so that NATO can keep collecting money. When the truth is that NATO is an alliance, not an independent entity, it collects almost no money, and it represents a net savings to the member states--and to the taxpayers of those states since you incorrectly seem to think that figures in this conversation. Grow up, own up, and move on, you deluded toolbag.

lol sure. Why don't you tell the class where this "injection of cash" came from and where it went? Tell us how much money moved from member countries to a NATO account? Tell us how NATO, as an organization, "profits" from conflict?

Jeebus. The posts you are quoting (and apparently not reading) explicitly mention taxes. The original source of funds has absolutely zero relevance to your insanely stupid conspiracy theory. Let's recap. You proposed that NATO is actively courting conflict with Putin to justify the continued existence of NATO, in order to continue securing funding. "MONEY!" you said. This is incredibly stupid because: 1. NATO is not a third party, but an alliance of nations. There is no "they" in NATO to be collecting money. There is no "they" with a profit motive. 2. NATO itself cost almost nothing to run. There is an utterly inconsequential amount of operational overhead, like offices and some civilian administrative staff, but $3 billion is nothing. Even if NATO were an independent third-party decision maker--which again, it's not--nobody is courting war for loose change. 3. Member nations are already funding their own defense, within their own nations. They are not shipping money to a third party. Their NATO commitments are simply commitments to funding levels. 4.. The existence of NATO actually saves money. Member nations have to invest less in individual defense because of a commitment to joint defense. 5.. And in all of this, it's completely irrelevant where the funds come from. There is nothing even remotely complex about any of this. If you can't understand it at this point, there is little hope that you are capable of understanding it ever. Just carry on being an unhinged conspiracy kook.

Okay, I guess DO double down on on the stupid. 🙄 I guess you think if we weren't NATO members we wouldn't have to fund our individual national defense. Taxes would magically go down! 🤪 Which is absurd. We'd all actually have to pay more for defense without the benefit of a joint security alliance. In fact, that is what the beef has been with countries meeting or not meeting their NATO obligations. Some countries, cloaked in the benefit of joint security, were slacking off on their defense spending. They were spending less on defense, confident that if Putin got aggressive their allies would pick up the slack. Think of it as an HOA, where every member in the neighborhood agrees to spend 2% of home value annually on upkeep and maintenance of their own property as well as a shared access road. There is no money-making element of NATO. Nobody is opposing Putin to justify the existence of NATO for ongoing financial gain. That's just bog stupid.

Apparently you don't know what NATO is or how it works either. It's not a third party. There is no "injection of cash" into NATO. Those "investments" are the member nations investing in themselves, in their own defense readiness. Fur example, the commitment to 2% of GDP doesn't mean taking 2% and putting it in an envelope and shipping it off to NATO. It's not a protection racket. It's a commitment to our own defense spending and readiness. It's funding our military.

You really don't seem to have even the slightest clue of what NATO is or how it operates. It's an alliance of nations, not a third-party for-profit entity. There is no money-making scheme. If NATO ceased to exist tomorrow there would be zero reduction in our budget or tax rates. We'd actually have to spend more money to achieve the same level of security outside of an alliance. And, again, $3 billion is less than trivial for any of the member countries, let alone all of them together. It's not moving world events. What you proposed is just incredibly stupid. Don't defend it. Don't double down. Just call it a "momentary lapse" and move on.

Right. We're not talking about a moral fan base. The worse he does, the more they love him. They won't be disgusted by Trump leering at a gaggle of underage Ivanka lookalikes on Epstein's plane, they'll be jealous.

Maybe turn off FOX news? It's got you out of touch with reality. "72 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they are worried or very worried about climate change and 21 per cent said they were not very worried. Only seven per cent said they weren't worried about it at all."

Out of curiosity, why would laws be passed to prevent this. The law that was passed, and amended to the constitution, is there for a pretty good reason, no?

Sure, Mr. Chamberlain. Just let him have Czechoslovakia. That'll be the end of it... And just to recap, your theory of geopolitics is that the member countries of NATO, which fund NATO, are courting conflict to justify keeping NATO alive, because they are greedy and want to keep getting the money they contributed? 🤪 And to top it off, the total budget for NATO is a paltry $3 billion per year. Which doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket.🤣

Nah, we'll just put some ice in it. Like our glaciers and the Antarctic shelves.