More and more people are seeing what I’ve been seeing for a while: in the opinion of our Ruling Class, every foreign enemy is Hitler, every crisis in Munich and everyone who doesn’t get on board with fighting the new Hitler is Chamberlain. This is what they’ve sold us again and again since 1945. To be fair, nobody wants a repeat of World War Two. Six years of killing, 60 million people dead, uncountable physical damage to the civilized world. It is just too horrible to contemplate going back into such a shambles. But, here’s the thing: a repeat of World War Two has always been highly unlikely. The ingredients are hard to come by.
The first ingredient has to be a Great Power defeated but not destroyed. Germany was completely and utterly defeated in World War One. Had the Germans not called it quits in November of 1918, then the Spring of 1919 would have seen a massive allied invasion of Germany with a 3 million man American army in the van and the total allied armies equipped with tanks and planes to make mincemeat of any German defensive lines (and, as it turns out, the first airborne troops – US General Billy Mitchell envisioned dropping thousands of US soldiers behind enemy lines as the offensive started). Had the Germans fought on then the only result would have been more killing and a destroyed Germany. The Krauts quit to prevent that. They shouldn’t have been allowed to do that.
To be fair, the Allies didn’t have our luxury of hindsight so they couldn’t know that right after the war the Germans would cook up the “stab in the back” legend which excused German military failure and laid the blame for defeat on first the socialists and, later, the Jews. But some Allied leaders did have some foresight…notably Marshal Foch and General MacArthur both pointing out that the peace treaty was, at best, an armistice of twenty years. They could see this because while Germany was defeated even the supposed harshness of Versailles did nothing to cripple Germany’s latent power. It was still a united nation. It still had its industrial base. It retained an army which anyone could see would be exceptionally first rate as the Germans retained only the best of the best in the ranks. All Versailles did, really, was to clear the board and allow the Germans to start building from the ground up a new and more deadly force – and the Germans started working on this within a year of the peace (the Germans built new U-Boats in Holland and tested out tank and plane designs in the USSR, for instance). There’s the first necessary ingredient.
Second is a charismatic leader able to spellbind the Great Power’s people and forge them into a united force for conquest. Can such a person rise again? In theory, yes. But the thing about oddities is that they’re, well, odd. Not easily replicated. Plus in the German case you not only had to get that leader, he had to dovetail in with decades of the preaching of racial superiority by others who came before him…in other words, there had to be plowed ground ready to be seeded with the charismatic leader’s ideology. We do not have in any foreign leader that particular sort of person with that particular sort of ground to work with. Keep in mind how totally Hitler captured the German mind: German soldiers would throw themselves on enemy machine guns shouting “Heil Hitler” while they died. Even at the very bitter end the soldiers desperately fought completely hopeless battles for their leader. The chances we’ll find another like this are very low – almost nil.
And now comes the really hard part: once you’ve got your Great Power defeated but still intact and looking for revenge combined with your charismatic leader you need the most crucial thing: a huge run of luck. I mean like hitting the lottery five times in a row luck. The sort of luck where an observer looking back on it goes, “just ain’t possible!”.
The luck of being appointed Chancellor just as his popularity was waning. The luck of Hindenburg dying just as he’s reaching for total power. The luck of the French not destroying him in 1936 over the Rhineland. The luck of the Anglo-French agreeing to remove the Czech threat to the heart of Germany in 1938. The luck of the Anglo-French delaying Polish mobilization until August 31st, 1939. The luck of Stalin agreeing to back up Germany’s invasion of Poland. The luck of France’s massive army remaining immobile against a German military screen in the West as Poland was destroyed. And then the greatest stroke of luck of all – when Germany invades France and hits the weakest part of the French line in the Ardennes the French general on the scene totally flubs the response even though he had an armored division in place to pinch off the German offensive before it could get going. You can see why Hitler thought himself a providential genius after all that.
This belief, by the way, is what did Hitler in. He really thought he was unbeatable…that a string of very bizarre luck was something he willed into existence. The luck ran out first over the skies of Britain and then in the rubble of Stalingrad. But, still: horrible war. Never want to do that again. And provision should be made in case someone else starts to get on a run of luck like that. But this doesn’t mean that every foreign enemy is Hitler and every crisis is Munich. We must stop being stampeded into bad actions by people who are not only lying to us about the threat but are, themselves, very stupid and ignorant people. That’s why they overuse the Hitler analogy, by the way: they’re too stupid to come up with anything else. We stop letting them use that on us and it’ll stop being used.
Absent a Hitler, any foreign crisis is just a thing to be dealt with based upon our perceived needs at the time. It isn’t the precursor to World War Three…it is just Russia wanting the Donbas. Do we let her have it? Try to stop it? These are empirical questions to be answered on a case by case basis. Subsidiary questions are: if we let her have it, what price do we extract from Russia? If we try to stop it: to what extent? That is, how far are we really willing to go to keep Russia out? Rational arguments can be made both ways on this – and it is in the rational argument where we’ll eventually arrive at the best solution. Shouting its Hitler II and you’re a Putin stooge if you don’t drop a hundred billion into arguably the most corrupt nation in Europe is…bad. Unwise. In fact, it is so bad and so unwise that only a complete moron or a con artist would go that route.
As I’ve endlessly yammered on about lately, it is time to rejoin the real world. Paraphrasing Bismarck, if I am convinced that well-reasoned national policy requires it, I’ll see American soldiers fire on Russians or Iranians or Chinese without batting an eye. If we are pressed to it, then war to the knife. But I also believe that cool headed diplomacy backed up by force-in-being will resolve most foreign crisis. Do keep in mind that if Germany and France had between them a military force of, say, 600,000 ready to go in 2022 then a joint declaration by them that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be casus belli then almost certainly there would have been no Russian invasion. But, also, it doesn’t mean that Russia would get nothing…because if the Russian demand is that Ukraine turn over the Donbas to Russia or Russia will invade, then it is time for the Great Powers to get together at the table and see if a solution short of war could be found. In the real world, diplomacy is backed by force. In the fantasy world, it is backed by a Clinton Administration memo which means nothing. A powerful EU confronting a powerful Russia probably means Putin gets half a loaf. Maybe a quarter of a loaf. But he doesn’t get nothing. And war is avoided because everyone is well armed and ready to use it to make sure that Russia doesn’t try for the whole loaf.
And do keep in mind that the Russo-Ukraine crisis can become a World War if things are managed badly. Much like WWI growing out of a fracas in the Balkans. Nobody really willed that war into existence but a whole string of dumb decisions came together to make it happen. It might well be a dumb decision for us to go to the mat to stop Russia because that might draw in other powers who don’t want Russia humiliated and soon we might find the lights going out all around the world. Much better, as noted, to have armed diplomacy to come to a reasonable solution before things get out of hand.
And now to a last point on this: NATO was a huge mistake. Never should have entered into it. The theory was that Soviet Communism could only be deterred by collective security…and that does have some basis in fact if the USSR was militarily aggressive. But it wasn’t. Certainly not right after WWII and for a couple decades afterwards. Russia had been wrecked by the war. Sure, Stalin and his successors would have fought if they thought it necessary…but they weren’t about to go launching into WWIII any time soon. They couldn’t (people forget that without massive Anglo-American material aid, the USSR would have been compelled to peace in 1943, if not sooner). All NATO did was allow the Europeans to skimp on their own defense. All through the Cold War the NATO allies failed to really live up to their commitments. Sure, their armies in the 1980’s were massively larger than now…but not as large as they were supposed to be. All of them sought cuts in defense spending to use on social programs…all of them coasted along on the back of American military power. Absent NATO, the British would have had to retain a very powerful Navy (powerful enough to secure Britain’s trade unaided) while the French would have had to retain a very powerful Army (powerful enough to stop any theoretical Russian invasion at the Rhine). And our part of defending the West could have been a mere diplomatic note stating that the operation of a hostile naval force around the UK or the invasion of France by a hostile power would trigger American intervention. The Europeans would still have been backed up by us…but not dependent on us. And Europe would have been strong enough to force a diplomatic resolution to the Russo-Ukraine crisis.
Blogs For Victory 
I think we tend to put each of life’s events in boxes as separate incidents generally independent from each other. But in reality, there’s a whole lot of overlap where it’s simply considered a coincidence. When something catches our attention and the relationship between 2 things strike us as odd, mentioning is often labeled a conspiracy (usually by those with something to hide). This may be simple coincidence or not.
https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/03/03/holy-st-sean-davis-shares-damning-and-crazy-connection-between-trumps-would-be-assassin-and-zelenskyy-n2409264?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=52ce413f6fb58c7873c6b911b92d704d389047e1deec5d09abd903754eeb0b1f&lctg=26664402
Our default position is “coincidence”. Buuuuut…it is clear Zelenskyy had a vested interest in Trump not becoming President. Even absent the war with Russia – Trump would still want an accounting on Ukrainian corruption.
Now, to be sure, the nut is just a nut, first and foremost. He doesn’t need orders.
But I’d like to find out just who was talking to the guy…
Jaw dropping corruption from the party that was worried about Nancy Pelosi’s share portfolio.
Trump’s bilionaire “crypto czar” is heavily invested in a fund whose top 5 holdings are the same 5 in the US Government Crypto Strategic Reserve.
There’s also a number of very suspicious trades at high leverage just before the announcement and which indicate insider trading.
Meanwhile Trump’s crypto coin has lost supporters $12 billion in value — who benefitted? Is this what we want Presidents doing, engaging in pump and dump schemes? He has always been a con man. Look into the Melania coin for another shameful conflict of interest.
He’s also crowing that he donates his salary back to “our Country” whilst at the same time having spent 278.5 years worth of presidential salary on his golfing exploits.
This administration seems to have no coherent world view or grand plan beyond Trump’s own self aggrandisement, accumulation of power, attention and the cowardly political machinations of the people around him.
And now we have an announcement of tariffs starting on 2 April. 92% of the proceeds from trump’s first term tariffs on China went to bail out US farmers battered by China’s retaliatory tariffs.
I hope you’re all ready for increased inflation and decreased economic growth.
Trump believes that tariffs are “not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country”. He keeps repeating this. Is he just stupid or being deceptive or both?
I wonder if he knows where 80% of potash used in US agriculture comes from?
So after accumulating $30 trillion in debt over the last 20 years, you’re now worried about billionaires??? You’re late to the party sweetheart. And the claim that Trump has spent 278 years of Presidential salary golfing at his own golf courses, displays a deeply partisan bent and deep ignorance of economics. And if you’re worried about costs being passed on to the consumers in regards to tariffs, why did you always support higher corporate taxes?? It’s the same thing honey.
You see Lynn, this is why Democrats are despised. You have no vision, no principles, no core values, and no common sense. You just bitch and moan about everything … you’re miserable people to be around
But she IS persistent.
if you’re worried about costs being passed on to the consumers in regards to tariffs, why did you always support higher corporate taxes??
Excellent point.
You see Lynn, this is why Democrats are despised. You have no vision, no principles, no core values, and no common sense.
Pretty rich being lectured by a conservative about having no principles.
My goodness, you are certainly quite defensive here, aren’t you? Maybe criticism of “Lynne” strikes too close to home?
What is it about being a conservative that gets your panties in a wad? The belief that we are best governed by the people, through their state and local governments, than by a massively powerful Central Authority run by elites? Is it that rejection of collectivism that is stuck in your craw?
Or are you still stuck in that mind-muddle of focusing on PEOPLE—-and on stereotypes of people, at that—-instead of actual ideas and concepts of governance? Or just the cheap thrills of snarling at people?
What is it about being a conservative that gets your panties in a wad?
What is it about being you that causes you to respond in such a manner? Referring to other comments as “Punky,” talking about their panties, accusing them of crawling out from under bridges… Do you think this makes you sound intelligent?
As for conservatives, even your claim that conservatives believe in local government falls flat when local governments don’t behave the way you want them to. But in general, Trumpism has caused conservatives abandon their own principles.
Oh, grab a tissue and calm down. “Punky” is short for “Punkin”, a common endearment in the South. And anyone who thinks that a query about someone’s panties being in a wad is an actual reference to panties is really deep into the crotch-centric obsessions of the Left. You’re big on Google—check out the relationship between trolls and bridges.
Then your second paragraph is just argy-bargy gobbeldygook. Clearly you feel that you must opine, but missed the memo that this is only if you ever actually have something to say. Otherwise it’s just more peevish sniping and airing of your emotional dirty laundry.
Local government is best – but the local government cannot violate the laws of the federal government. That’s just part of the deal – as long as the fed is exercising valid federal authority, no local or State law can be at variance from it.
For instance, it is definitely a federal responsibility to decide what foreigners can be in the country and under what terms. No “sanctuary” law can invalidate this and it is incumbent upon State and local law to conform to federal law in this matter…you don’t get to tell your local cops not to help ICE in the lawful execution of the laws.
Mark, my comment was poorly worded. I was responding to Amazona’s claim that conservatives believe “that we are best governed by the people, through their state and local governments, than by a massively powerful Central Authority run by elites.”
This is, of course, her Tenth Amendment argument. What I meant is that today’s conservatives don’t even believe that. That is, they are fine with “a massively powerful Central Authority” so long as it acts in ways they support.
Well, you’re view is an absurdity – we’re all out here cheering on DOGE which is explicitly dismantling the central authority.
You might be thinking of things like Trump’s plan to deny federal funds to colleges that allow anti-Semites to run wild…and 20 years ago you’d have a point. We used to believe all that bullsh** about “the answer to a bad idea is a better idea” and so forth…now we know that your side ruthlessly suppresses us at every opportunity…so, now we’re going to do it to you and laugh as you sputter with impotent rage.
Your rules. You wanted this. Enjoy!
It just won’t work on us any longer – we’ve decided not to be suckers.
Federal involvement (in giving federal funds to schools) stems from the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, allowing the federal government to address disparities and ensure equitable access to education.
That is, this funding is an interpretation of an amendment which stretches the definition of “equal protection” far beyond that of equal education regardless of race. It is not, however, a delegated duty or responsibility of the federal government, and the extension of funding to the claim this enables equitable access to education is highly subjective and influenced by politics.
Therefore, ending federal funding to schools which violate equal treatment of people based on race or religion is consistent with the intent of the 14th Amendment and is also consistent with the 10th Amendment, and is another move to limit the influence of agencies and political appointees in controlling our government. That is, to reduce the size, scope and power of the federal government. That is, to undermine and erode the Central Authority so necessary to Leftist governance.
And that’s what’s been wrong with interpretation of the 14th – addressing disparities would be to ban a law which gave 10k per student to this school but only 5K per student to that school. You can’t deny a right or privilege to anyone if someone has that right or privilege. But the idea that it means we have to massively federally fund education even when the recipients hate us is nowhere in there.
Yet there is no “right or privilege” to money.
Laws like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 demonstrate federal efforts to shape and fund education while respecting the 10th Amendment. ESEA provided federal funding to schools, particularly those serving low-income students, through Title I. This act and its successors aimed to improve education standards across states by linking funding to measurable outcomes.
But that is a law, not an amendment, and it is based on an assumption that it is possible to “improve education standards across states by linking funding to measurable outcomes.”. This Act, and its successors, is actually somewhat capricious and arbitrary, based on magical thinking which has since been proved to be false.
And you can’t “respect the 10th Amendment” by ignoring or violating it.
And here you circle back to the “you just make s**t up”. Everything that passes through your filters gets distorted and tainted, and becomes useless.
There is a structure to our government. The federal government has specific and designated duties and authority. Anything not so delegated is the responsibility of the states, or of the people. It is not complicated—but then, it does require basic knowledge of the actual Constitution, of its delegated duties and responsibilities, and that is just not how the Lefty trolls roll.
The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. See? Not so complicated. If something is specifically delegated to the federal government, that supersedes state or local authority. If it isn’t, then it is up to the states or the people.
Google it.
Sorry, but the Deputy Assistant Director for Diversity Affairs getting fired doesn’t affect me. And even if it did, I’m enough of a patriot to know that some pain is worth it to save the country – no sense keeping the grift going as the nation dies.
I know you’re over at MSNBC and BlueSky eagerly eating up the polls showing Trump’s support dropping but it just isn’t happening. We voted for this – and polls that were 5-7 points off last November aren’t exactly reliable.
But you believe whatever you want to believe. We’ve been on here long enough to know that no amount of facts or logic will move you guys off your positions. We here on the Right have had enough wake-up calls that we’re all ready for the hard task of Making America Great Again…you guys continue to pretend that somehow it’ll all be ok no matter how lousy the policies are.
Got your talking points, I see.
Nobody is listening any longer. We know its all just a fraud to try to get back into power so the Democrats can steal some more.
ooooh, look who crawled out from under her bridge clutching her tattered narrative and all ‘cited about dumping it here. Let’s see what’s got her panties all in a wad. Well, she thinks Trump spends too much money playing golf. That’s relevant to—nothing. But it’s a Leftist thing, worrying about someone else’s money. Now she’s all fretful about “very suspicious trades”—-a little late to that party, Punkin.
Rich guy whose payrolls have put billions of dollars into the pockets of workers over the past decades goes into politics, gets less rich—-ooooh, get a rope!
Poor anti-capitalist Socialist who’s never had a job goes into politics and ends up a millionaire with three houses—no prob.
That’s just the way these folks “think”. It makes as much sense as claiming that reducing the size, scope and power of the federal government is the same thing as an “accumulation of power”. Yet they toss out sneers about alleged failures of “coherence” as if they have ever experienced any, or would recognize it if they tripped over it. And so soon after worshiping at the altar of the most incoherent babbling husk of a president in our history. Maybe instead of fussing about “coherent” she should think about “consistent”.
But here’s something to ponder, Punkie, should you ever decide to do such a thing——we didn’t elect a president for his “world view”. We’ve had enough of globalists and the New World Order, blah blah blah. What we wanted, and what we got, is a president with a clear concept of AMERICA. But nice try, rummaging around in your grab bag for some words you think might be insulting, irrelevant as they are. Like “cowards”. Yeah, standing up to the status quo while getting death threats for doing so is, you know, like so cowardly.
New Word Of The Day: POTASH.
New Word Of The Day: POTASH.
Is it a new word for you? Maybe try Google.
Not a new word, Miss Priss, just a new Word Of The Day. Evidently one that is supposed to carry great significance.
“Miss Priss.” Oh, that’s a good one.
Potash is in the news today, so it’s not surprising that another commenter would bring it up.
Everything about your posts calls to mind the image of the pursed-lip prissiness of the Church Lady. Don’t like it? Then stop acting like that.
A lot of things are in the news, but not “brought up” in a silly effort to make a silly point.
Everything about your posts calls to mind the image of the pursed-lip prissiness of the Church Lady.
Hmmm. The last time I posted anything on here of substance was to answer your question to me, “Are you sure millions of dead people aren’t getting Social Security?” I pointed out in detail how the answer is in the very same SSA paper that Jeff Childers quoted from when he claimed the number of “zombies” receiving checks is “unquantified.”
But you and Mark deleted that comment, apparently because it made your claim that I’m “just making s**t up” ring false.
Anyway, hurling insults and me and Lynne just makes you look small.
You really need to get over your obsession with me and your conviction that I control this blog. I know where you got it, but it is time you think it through and evaluate the credibility of your source and any reasons he may have had to give you that impression. Sometimes people don’t know as much as they think they do, so when they try to show off they just end up illustrating how not-in-the-loop they really are. The thing is, your incessant whining about what a big meanie I am is really annoying. Be that Low-T whiner if that is how you do you, but please spare us.
“Looking small” is based on being someone who can only snipe at people, and that pretty much sums you up. And “looking small” to someone like you is hardly an insult. All you do is a pseudo-political version of Mean Girl gossip, and try to engage us so you can proceed to your default position of bickerbickerbicker. It’s a sad transparent effort to get attention, and like all temper tantrum throwers your psyche doesn’t seem to care if it is negative, scornful, dismissive attention.
You are not entitled to post here. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that says you have a right to come here to snarl, spit, attack or just regurgitate your canned narratives. If you want to do that, you used to have a forum designed specifically to give you and your kind a stage upon which to emote. This is not that stage. It was a failure, because it appealed to failures, so now you keep crawling back to the successful site, where you are simply not welcome.
As for what you seem to think was a compelling argument, which you admit was prompted by a question and not a declarative statement (“Are you sure….”) all you did was point out that NO ONE KNOWS how many dead people are getting payments. It’s funny/sad that you think your inane comment was “of substance”. (You love to smirk about “checking Google”. Check Google for the definition of “unquantified”.) Which is not even close to debunking a claim as a query is not an assertion. Only someone as delusional as you could believe that quoting the statement that a figure is “unquantified” means you have proved that there is proof of its number. And only someone desperate for attention could still come here whining about this.
BTW, you keep trying to pass off “Lynne” as real. That’s not working very well for you so far though “she” seems to be meeting your need for an imaginary friend you can pretend likes you and thinks you are smart.
As for what you seem to think was a compelling argument, which you admit was prompted by a question and not a declarative statement (“Are you sure….”) all you did was point out that NO ONE KNOWS how many dead people are getting payments.
What I did is point out that the report itself specifies the number. (Well, it said “approximately” which is not really specifying a number.) But revealing that kind of ruins Jeff Childers’s entire thesis—no one knows!—so it couldn’t be admitted on his blog, or even here.
BTW, you keep trying to pass off “Lynne” as real. That’s not working very well for you so far though “she” seems to be meeting your need for an imaginary friend you can pretend likes you and thinks you are smart.
You’re imagination is getting the best of you.
bickerbickerbicker whinewhinewhine
And now (at least for the moment) Zelenskyy is singing a different tune – likely induced by the European leadership who know they can’t actually support Ukraine absent US support.
I was reading some articles on the war and while solid info is hard to come by, I did find plenty of articles – from Ukraine-friendly sources – indicating that not only is Ukraine having trouble getting people in the army (draft dodgers are a huge problem) but they are suffering from a high level of desertion. Some reports indicate whole units are melting away; as many as 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers are currently AWOL.
Reading other articles, I can perceive what Russia is doing now: using artillery to conquer. Call it 7,000 artillery pieces were in storage at the start of the war – Russia went to war with the most modern artillery (mostly self-propelled) and this has been hit hard by the Ukrainians…but those 7,000 guns, I’m betting, have been called up…or at least some substantial number of them. They are old, of course, and horrifically vulnerable to air attack…but if the Russians control the skies (and I’m thinking they do as if they didn’t we’d have a lot more reports of Ukrainian planes and drones active deep into Russia) then that isn’t a problem…and as the Russians learned in 1915 from the Germans at Gorlice-Tarnow, if the enemy has guns lined up hubcap to hubcap and is able to just blaze away at you with no counter-battery response, you’re cooked. You just can’t hang on forever. Now the stories of North Korea providing ammunition make a lot more sense…not that Russia doesn’t have a lot of shells, but when you’re really bombarding your expenditures are massive and you’ll open up as many sources as you can. It seems to me that the Russians are just bombarding until the Ukrainians run away, or are so weakened that even a modest Russian force can push them back. And then you just roll the guns forward and attack the next spot.
If this is correct, then its only a matter of time…and unless Ukraine can silence the Russian guns, they won’t even be able to extract much more of a blood price for Russian advances. They’d better make peace before late spring when the ground dries.
… conservatives believe in local government falls flat when local governments don’t behave the way you want them to
Well I think that’s true for everyone right? I mean look at how hard Democrats are crying right now. But that’s not the point is it? The point is this … it’s easier to replace a Mayor or Governor then it is a President or Senator, which makes government more accountable, responsive, and effective.
His comment didn’t even make sense. A belief in a certain system of government does not change when an element of that structure fails to fully express the intent.
No “belief in local government falls flat when local governments don’t behave the way you want them to”. That is an utterly stupid and meaningless statement–though understandable, coming from someone who after all these years has still never managed to elucidate a form of government he prefers to the one he insists on attacking.
As you so correctly point out, when there is a failure in local government it is more easily remedied, BECAUSE IT IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT. DUH.
I know they’re a Party that has no sense of shame, but the Democrats truly embarrassed themselves tonight.
Theoretically at least some could have stood up and said “I’m not going to go out there and make a total fool out of myself” but evidently none did. This could illustrate a total lack of self-respect and sense of personal dignity on the part of the Dem Congress, or it could illustrate the power of the Left’s jackboot on their necks. Most likely it is a combination of the two.
(BTW I noticed that the commitment of some females to wear pink didn’t extend to a willingness to go out and buy something attractive in that color.)
And came just a couple days after the voted to allow men to beat up women in sports.
Great Speech from Trump. Truly amazing what he’s accomplished in such a short time. One special highlight was when 12 year-old JD Daniel, the young man stricken with a rare form of brain cancer, who’s dream was to be a Law Enforcement Officer, was given honorary status into the secret service by Trump, who then congratulated Jason Hartley for his just announced acceptance into West Point military school.
So wonderful to know our tax dollars was funding transgender mice research (/sarc). It’ll likely be many years before we know the depth of the corruption, the misuse of our tax dollars, and the use of our own government against us. God help us all.
”Economic war” – which we win everyday of the week sweetheart. America has the largest consumer market in the world, and there’s not even a close second. Every country will pay whatever they have to have access to that market, and it’s time they pay their fair share … you know what that means right? And what is the 30% of project 2025 that has been implemented … I’d be interested in knowing that.
You can always tell when someone is just parroting a script without the slightest idea of what it means, or pretends to mean.
To be fair, nobody wants a repeat of World War Two. Six years of killing, 60 million people dead, uncountable physical damage to the civilized world. It is just too horrible to contemplate going back into such a shambles.
Au Contraire, I think there are those, sadly, on both sides of the political aisle, who would be happy to see 100 times that many deaths; who honestly (well, maybe honestly is the wrong word) believe it’s the only way to save the planet.
Those people tend to be the same who don’t believe in God or life after earthly death. So “saving” the world by destroying much of it along with its occupants would seem to place any people left back in the dark ages with near zero modern conveniences. Not much of an incentive, but then considering who we’re talking about…
Kid Rock hardly fits the image of a “typical conservative” in Identity Politics shorthand, and he came up with one of the best one-liners I have seen. Referring to the racist halftime show at the Super Bowl, he said:
(Heading off BickerBoy, yes, I know that is two lines. Grab a tissue.)
This is titled “What Mercury Does To Aluminum” but it could be called “What Trump Does To Democrats”
Ha!
Not bad for the most divisive President in American history.
I was impressed last night. A lot.
One of the most obvious/blatant impressions was the vast divide between the adults on one side trying to run the country according to its own rules and laws and the juvenile temper tantrum element on the other illustrating their total refusal and inability to do so.