Let's take some of these Big Oil subsidies and work on free electricity for the citizens of the lower 48 (corporations are except).
Big Oil Subsidies? And what exactly ARE those? I'm tired of hearing this lie...
Most of the "subsidies" people come up with are nothing but rules about how taxes are figured and most of these rules govern how and what "Big Oil" (and little oil and fractional well owners) get taxed on....
Plus, NONE of these amount to a hill of beans compared to the REAL subsidies, tax credits and government incentives (like loan guarantees) for Solar, Wind and other renewables AND the immensely favorable and accommodating treatment they get by regulators like the EPA and Utilities councils that Oil could only dream about getting...
The 5 hottest years on record have all been since 2010. 11 of the 12 hottest years have been since 2000.
Only if you accept adjusted temperature readings..
The key here is "on record". How log have we actually been keeping good records of temperatures world wide? Not even 100 years. Oh some places we have good records for hundreds of years, but other places we don't have good records going back just 50 years. How can you figure the climate is changing with only 100 years of "recorded" history? We cannot even figure out how fast the climate changes from that record with any assurance, unless the natural cycles are under 50 years (1/2 the time domain) and then it's really an educated guess based on the assumption that the natural cycles don't have components which are more than 1/2 the observed time domain.
Then there is all the "normalization" of the data you must do to factor out observation errors, urban sprawl, equipment changes and station location changes. This involves a pile of statistics, number crunching involving taking averages, looking at standard deviations and a pile of assumptions that are used to "clean up" the data to remove all the various errors that might or might not be there. Finally, once you have combed though the data set and corrected any anomalies you think exist in it, you can do your climate "study", write your report and earn your grant money.
In foreign policy and in life, sometimes the "right" thing to do isn't 100% clear and sometimes even doing what seems to be the right thing brings you a bad outcome. You must make your best choice based on the right motives and move on. Hindsight is 20/20 and there is benefit of reviewing one's mistakes, however, if one is honest with themselves up front there will be no need of questioning your motives.
SO, what am I saying here? Simple... Yes, some of what the USA has done has not worked out well, we've made mistakes. However, in nearly ALL of these cases the *motives* behind our involvement are NOT nefarious but noble and we regret the results as much as you don't like them. But don't confuse a bad result with having bad motives. Bad motives do produce bad results, but good motives can also produce undesired/unintended results, so you cannot judge the motives by the results alone.
Let's just say that a couple of lower level executives sent E-Mail about some embarrassing things to a lot of people within the company. Some of these things where known to be true, some where widely speculated to be true and most made up out of thin air.. They included photographic evidence where appropriate (photo shopped in most cases)... I think may who read the E-mails saw that they were obvious fiction, but judging by the reaction by some I'm guessing they where close enough that some folks got worried about the other shoe dropping...
Let's also say that I dare not give out any more information in today's PC age lest I inadvertently find myself on the wrong end of a lawsuit....Besides, your imagination is likely better than anything I actually did... So have your own fun.
Yea, we should have just let the communist in Russia and China overrun or friends in South Korea, that's the ticket....
Do they even try to teach history in school these days? Do folks have ANY idea what the geopolitical situation was right after WW2 and WHY we went into Korea under the authority of the UN?
No, what memo? LOL.. Oh you mean the DNC talking points about why Hillary lost the election memo... No, I didn't get a copy, I'm not on their mailing list and I don't watch MSMBC or CNN... My bad..
It's Classified eh? LOL Right, why haven't the details been leaked then? We've had leaks of classified information though out this whole dang process so being classified doesn't seem to be a valid reason we don't know it... My guess is there is nothing to leak... But hey, what can I say? I'm not cleared to see this stuff, nor are you (I assume) so we are not resolving this debate here. I mean the Flynn conversation with the Russians getting exposed was from classified information and we found out about that, Obviously somebody doesn't mind leaking classified stuff.... Yet we don't yet have the incriminating details because they are classified? You are kidding...
But if you want to construct some alternate reality where because it's classified it's somehow not commonly known... Be my gest... I don't' believe that and YOU still have zero proof.
It will be awhile, but if the pirate continues doing this, they will find him and grind them into dust.
Most people don't realize that the BEST jokes are the ones that happen only a few times and when the jokester does it enough to be noticed but stops before they get caught.
Some of my best pranks are ones I only did a few times with long intervals in between. The best being an E-mail prank that I only pulled twice in 3 years and nobody suspected that it was me until a decade later after I told the Sys Admin staff the secret on my last day so they could fix the hole. I still remember the crazy searching for the perpetrator and the hand wringing memos from embarrassed management types getting posted on the bulletin boards in the break room....
Then there was the changing of the channels in the cafeteria TV's that just mysteriously happened even though they where out of reach and the remote controls locked up in the boss' office...I did that one a couple of times a week, using an IR recording/playback device, for a month, stopped when the Boss set up a surveillance camera, then did it every few weeks once the camera disappeared. I'm sure it drove him crazy because he was complaining about it in public... Not sure if he caught on to me after I left there or not, but I got really tired of CNN only on the TV's at lunch.
No, I'm saying that *generally* the Russians have been the aggressors in the conflicts we've had with them either directly or by proxy since the cold war, not us. I know that folks like to paint the USA as the overriding aggressive military power in the world running around creating havoc due to our imperialist bent, but this simply is NOT true. We have put our oar in a couple of places that in retrospect where mistakes or where the results where less than we had hoped, but in most cases our purpose is to better the world and not just enrich ourselves.
History is full of examples of this, where the USA spent treasure and shed our own blood for the betterment of others...
The US wastes a ton of money on things that do not improve our readiness at defense. It's a huge waste but too few dare criticize it lest they appear unpatriotic. You could cut the budget by 1/3 and still spend more per capita on defense than most countries.
Hmm... You sound like Donald Trump...
Having worked for the department of defense both directly and as a contractor, I am well aware of how money gets seemingly wasted. Most large government activities are inefficient. Some of this is though fraud and abuse and THAT you can find and fix, but some of the waste is very intractable. I was a government contracting official, charged with contracting with suppliers to buy things, at one point. I can tell you that this cost issue seems to be overblown to me, given the rules and requirements of the department of defense. Things like the $600 toilet seat and $250 hammer are actually NOT what they seem when you looked at the circumstances behind them and the rules everybody had to follow....
The Federal Regulations I had to follow where literally full shelf of binders in my bookcase. The first page contained a purpose clause that went something like this "The purpose of these rules is to avoid the appearance of fraud and abuse when the department of defense buys stuff"..
Go back and re-read that until you see the REAL problem here...
Some don't agree and felt that the war in Iraq was justified. In fact, CONGRESS agreed at the time with both Iraq and the Afghan wars. Heck, even the UN agreed with this decision... I'm sorry you don't agree, but you are entitled to think what you want.
You continue to make confident assertions of things for which you have zero real evidence. There is a whole lot of supposition and assumptions, but no actual evidence that Trump and Russia acted together and lots of people have been looking at this under a microscope for MONTHS (if not over a year if you believe Comey's testimony that HE started looking back in early 2016). We've had all sorts of stuff coming out, leaks of all kinds and a lots of pontificating by the democrats about how "THIS new revelation is the smoking gun" over and over but not one of them have actually worked out. We've had talk of impeachment, criminal collusion, obstruction. now treason, and no proof of any of it has surfaced.
So what's going on? This whole narrative of Trump and the Russians is made up and forwarded by those who have political axes to grind. It's NOT about the truth or even stopping law breaking, but about political power and doing damage to Trump. It's the only way the democrats have left to try and forward their agenda, forward their cause though the "Resist" movement, being obstructionist and the like. This is about politics, not about Trump or what he actually did or didn't do.
The difference is that Donald Trump and the Trump crime family have actually committed treason, colluding with a hostile foreign government.
I'm going to stop you right there. This assertion has NO proof. Not to mention that Treason has a constitutional definition (Article 3, section 3).. Plus, what does "colluding" look like and how's THAT a crime? And in what way is a hostile foreign government describe Russia?
Now I suppose that it is theoretically possible that your confident assertion of collusion turns out to be true, the problem you have is up to this point, there has been zero evidence of this narrative. The Russians were trying to mess with the election (mostly unsuccessfully), but there are zero actual facts that provides a hard link with coordination with Trump or his campaign. Muller is looking, until he comes up with something, your assertion is premature (what's more it's dangerous should Muller not find what you think he will.)
Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution. We are NOT at war with Russia. In fact, we have treaties with them, participate in the UN with them and are not in open military conflict with them either during the campaign or up though today. We are not on great terms, to be sure, but this is NOT war. If there is no open conflict, there can be no treason. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." How is what you think Trump or his campaign actually did Treason? We where NOT in open conflict with Russia and Trump and his associates obviously didn't "wage war" (as in take up arms) or "give aid and comfort" (Harbor those who where or aid in committing hostile acts on the USA)
What Trump Jr. did was stupid, but it wasn't illegal or treason. Nothing changed hands, no information, nothing, in that meeting. Both Trump Jr. AND the lawyer who where there agree on this. You are choosing to not believe what they claim, but have zero evidence they are lying. So what do you have?
I never said the USA hasn't dabbled in stuff it shouldn't have, only that "Generally" we have NOT been aggressive where we didn't have a national interest related to trade or stability.
It's interesting that the events you bring up. Clinton wasn't involved in nation building in Serbia, but took action based on humanitarian issues brought on by the use of WMDs. You can argue the USA wasn't the aggressor, but merely taking on the role of policeman.
The supporting of the Checken rebels was CLEARLY about countering Russian aggression, similar to what's happening in the Ukraine right now. Surprisingly both conflicts coming from the leadership of Putin.
So your point really gets lost in your examples...
Shesh... Really? You oppose one of the few purposes of the Federal government actually mentioned in the constitution?
Defending the United States and its interests is a hugely expensive effort because it's a difficult task. But by all means, let's unilaterally disarm and ignore what has happened EVERY time we did this before (not!)... Yea, we won WWI and WWII but had we not disarmed just prior to their start the effort would not have cost us as much material and blood.. Korea is another great example of not being ready; how many men died before we could get our act together there?
History repeats itself. AND Those who know history are condemned to sit and helplessly watch while the world repeats it...
History shows that McCarthy was seeing "Russians" around every corner... Treason in any interaction with a "Russian" real or not... McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
What has been the #1 news story for the last 9 months? How's this any different?
The Cold War should have ended 25 years ago. But we just can't let it go.
Who is WE you are talking about?
Since the fall of the Berlin wall and Glasnost in Russia, who has been the aggressor and why?
The cold war WAS over until the Russians under Putin decided that they'd revive it for geopolitical reasons. Putin is doing all this in order to keep looking powerful and getting elected, but at this point it's all just show. Putin knows that a full frontal conflict with the USA would be a disaster for him, but he certainly is willing to take the risk of starting something he cannot finish in order to stay in power.
And what's the US's motivation? Generally we just want to engage in profitable trade and keep oil prices low/stable...With a bit of "keeping the terrorists at bay" thrown in of course.
If you think so, I guess it's true to you... By the way... Do you know who FIRST brought up the Obama Birth certificate thing and when this was done? You know right?
Trump? WRONG!
It was Hillary Clinton's Campaign when she was in a primary fight with Obama for the democratic nomination who FIRST tried to use this... Oh but she's backed away from that so you don't care any more.... Well, Trump has ALSO backed away from this birther thing too. So why are you insisting on bashing Trump with this but don't care that Clinton used it too? Perhaps you are just partisan, or worse, just hate Trump for some reason? Either way, you are a hypocrite unless you hold Clinton to the same standard.
I think you are making Twitter into something it's not, and sadly you are doing this for political purposes.... Did Obama not have Twitter users blocked too? Where was the outrage then? Humm?
Face it, you just don't like Trump and you are looking for anything you can grasp, however tenuous, to bash him with. It's purely political and you are just trying to dress it up as constitutional...
I don't personally care if you want to do this, it's a free country after all, but at least be honest about your motives...
This is the kind of utter nonsense that's likely to get us a second Trump term, making everybody on the ant-Trump side look like complete morons.
(And no, I didn't vote for the SOB.)
I did vote for him, and I think your analysis is right. THIS is exactly the kind of idiocy that will get us a 2nd term. The obvious obstructionist hypocrisy is on full display. You can only trade in hype and hyperbolae for so long before folks become desensitized to your effort and you have to invent some new crisis to whip up the base again. Rinse, hype up to a lather, and repeat. I don't see how Trumps opponent can compete. By the time the next presidential election rolls around, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and get caught up in something real, he will have the persona of a guy who survived the full onslaught of the opposition, the winner he claimed to be the first time around... How does his challenger compete with that?
So now a tweet is the same as a petition? That's crazy! Think of the implications.
So.. What if he refuses to answer their phone call or read their paper letter, email or FAX? Is he now REQUIRED to not block any means of communicating because it's a petition?
I think you are misreading the constitution on purpose or are flat crazy myself....
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take some of these Big Oil subsidies and work on free electricity for the citizens of the lower 48 (corporations are except).
Big Oil Subsidies? And what exactly ARE those? I'm tired of hearing this lie...
Most of the "subsidies" people come up with are nothing but rules about how taxes are figured and most of these rules govern how and what "Big Oil" (and little oil and fractional well owners) get taxed on....
Plus, NONE of these amount to a hill of beans compared to the REAL subsidies, tax credits and government incentives (like loan guarantees) for Solar, Wind and other renewables AND the immensely favorable and accommodating treatment they get by regulators like the EPA and Utilities councils that Oil could only dream about getting...
The 5 hottest years on record have all been since 2010. 11 of the 12 hottest years have been since 2000.
Only if you accept adjusted temperature readings..
The key here is "on record". How log have we actually been keeping good records of temperatures world wide? Not even 100 years. Oh some places we have good records for hundreds of years, but other places we don't have good records going back just 50 years. How can you figure the climate is changing with only 100 years of "recorded" history? We cannot even figure out how fast the climate changes from that record with any assurance, unless the natural cycles are under 50 years (1/2 the time domain) and then it's really an educated guess based on the assumption that the natural cycles don't have components which are more than 1/2 the observed time domain.
Then there is all the "normalization" of the data you must do to factor out observation errors, urban sprawl, equipment changes and station location changes. This involves a pile of statistics, number crunching involving taking averages, looking at standard deviations and a pile of assumptions that are used to "clean up" the data to remove all the various errors that might or might not be there. Finally, once you have combed though the data set and corrected any anomalies you think exist in it, you can do your climate "study", write your report and earn your grant money.
I have two old sayings for you...
Figures never lie, but liars do figure....
Lies, dam lies, and Statistics...
Which do you think applies here?
In foreign policy and in life, sometimes the "right" thing to do isn't 100% clear and sometimes even doing what seems to be the right thing brings you a bad outcome. You must make your best choice based on the right motives and move on. Hindsight is 20/20 and there is benefit of reviewing one's mistakes, however, if one is honest with themselves up front there will be no need of questioning your motives.
SO, what am I saying here? Simple... Yes, some of what the USA has done has not worked out well, we've made mistakes. However, in nearly ALL of these cases the *motives* behind our involvement are NOT nefarious but noble and we regret the results as much as you don't like them. But don't confuse a bad result with having bad motives. Bad motives do produce bad results, but good motives can also produce undesired/unintended results, so you cannot judge the motives by the results alone.
Let's just say that a couple of lower level executives sent E-Mail about some embarrassing things to a lot of people within the company. Some of these things where known to be true, some where widely speculated to be true and most made up out of thin air.. They included photographic evidence where appropriate (photo shopped in most cases)... I think may who read the E-mails saw that they were obvious fiction, but judging by the reaction by some I'm guessing they where close enough that some folks got worried about the other shoe dropping...
Let's also say that I dare not give out any more information in today's PC age lest I inadvertently find myself on the wrong end of a lawsuit....Besides, your imagination is likely better than anything I actually did... So have your own fun.
(sarcasm) I think I'm going to have a hear attack and DIE from that surprise...(/sarcasm).
Not enough funding eh? Tell me something I didn't already know..
Yea, we should have just let the communist in Russia and China overrun or friends in South Korea, that's the ticket....
Do they even try to teach history in school these days? Do folks have ANY idea what the geopolitical situation was right after WW2 and WHY we went into Korea under the authority of the UN?
No, what memo? LOL.. Oh you mean the DNC talking points about why Hillary lost the election memo... No, I didn't get a copy, I'm not on their mailing list and I don't watch MSMBC or CNN... My bad..
It's Classified eh? LOL Right, why haven't the details been leaked then? We've had leaks of classified information though out this whole dang process so being classified doesn't seem to be a valid reason we don't know it... My guess is there is nothing to leak... But hey, what can I say? I'm not cleared to see this stuff, nor are you (I assume) so we are not resolving this debate here. I mean the Flynn conversation with the Russians getting exposed was from classified information and we found out about that, Obviously somebody doesn't mind leaking classified stuff.... Yet we don't yet have the incriminating details because they are classified? You are kidding...
But if you want to construct some alternate reality where because it's classified it's somehow not commonly known... Be my gest... I don't' believe that and YOU still have zero proof.
It will be awhile, but if the pirate continues doing this, they will find him and grind them into dust.
Most people don't realize that the BEST jokes are the ones that happen only a few times and when the jokester does it enough to be noticed but stops before they get caught.
Some of my best pranks are ones I only did a few times with long intervals in between. The best being an E-mail prank that I only pulled twice in 3 years and nobody suspected that it was me until a decade later after I told the Sys Admin staff the secret on my last day so they could fix the hole. I still remember the crazy searching for the perpetrator and the hand wringing memos from embarrassed management types getting posted on the bulletin boards in the break room....
Then there was the changing of the channels in the cafeteria TV's that just mysteriously happened even though they where out of reach and the remote controls locked up in the boss' office...I did that one a couple of times a week, using an IR recording/playback device, for a month, stopped when the Boss set up a surveillance camera, then did it every few weeks once the camera disappeared. I'm sure it drove him crazy because he was complaining about it in public... Not sure if he caught on to me after I left there or not, but I got really tired of CNN only on the TV's at lunch.
Wow, what a leap...
No, I'm saying that *generally* the Russians have been the aggressors in the conflicts we've had with them either directly or by proxy since the cold war, not us. I know that folks like to paint the USA as the overriding aggressive military power in the world running around creating havoc due to our imperialist bent, but this simply is NOT true. We have put our oar in a couple of places that in retrospect where mistakes or where the results where less than we had hoped, but in most cases our purpose is to better the world and not just enrich ourselves.
History is full of examples of this, where the USA spent treasure and shed our own blood for the betterment of others...
Putin's history is a lot more self serving...
The US wastes a ton of money on things that do not improve our readiness at defense. It's a huge waste but too few dare criticize it lest they appear unpatriotic. You could cut the budget by 1/3 and still spend more per capita on defense than most countries.
Hmm... You sound like Donald Trump...
Having worked for the department of defense both directly and as a contractor, I am well aware of how money gets seemingly wasted. Most large government activities are inefficient. Some of this is though fraud and abuse and THAT you can find and fix, but some of the waste is very intractable. I was a government contracting official, charged with contracting with suppliers to buy things, at one point. I can tell you that this cost issue seems to be overblown to me, given the rules and requirements of the department of defense. Things like the $600 toilet seat and $250 hammer are actually NOT what they seem when you looked at the circumstances behind them and the rules everybody had to follow....
The Federal Regulations I had to follow where literally full shelf of binders in my bookcase. The first page contained a purpose clause that went something like this "The purpose of these rules is to avoid the appearance of fraud and abuse when the department of defense buys stuff"..
Go back and re-read that until you see the REAL problem here...
Some don't agree and felt that the war in Iraq was justified. In fact, CONGRESS agreed at the time with both Iraq and the Afghan wars. Heck, even the UN agreed with this decision... I'm sorry you don't agree, but you are entitled to think what you want.
Thanks for your service.
You continue to make confident assertions of things for which you have zero real evidence. There is a whole lot of supposition and assumptions, but no actual evidence that Trump and Russia acted together and lots of people have been looking at this under a microscope for MONTHS (if not over a year if you believe Comey's testimony that HE started looking back in early 2016). We've had all sorts of stuff coming out, leaks of all kinds and a lots of pontificating by the democrats about how "THIS new revelation is the smoking gun" over and over but not one of them have actually worked out. We've had talk of impeachment, criminal collusion, obstruction. now treason, and no proof of any of it has surfaced.
So what's going on? This whole narrative of Trump and the Russians is made up and forwarded by those who have political axes to grind. It's NOT about the truth or even stopping law breaking, but about political power and doing damage to Trump. It's the only way the democrats have left to try and forward their agenda, forward their cause though the "Resist" movement, being obstructionist and the like. This is about politics, not about Trump or what he actually did or didn't do.
The difference is that Donald Trump and the Trump crime family have actually committed treason, colluding with a hostile foreign government.
I'm going to stop you right there. This assertion has NO proof. Not to mention that Treason has a constitutional definition (Article 3, section 3).. Plus, what does "colluding" look like and how's THAT a crime? And in what way is a hostile foreign government describe Russia?
Now I suppose that it is theoretically possible that your confident assertion of collusion turns out to be true, the problem you have is up to this point, there has been zero evidence of this narrative. The Russians were trying to mess with the election (mostly unsuccessfully), but there are zero actual facts that provides a hard link with coordination with Trump or his campaign. Muller is looking, until he comes up with something, your assertion is premature (what's more it's dangerous should Muller not find what you think he will.)
Treason has a specific definition in the Constitution. We are NOT at war with Russia. In fact, we have treaties with them, participate in the UN with them and are not in open military conflict with them either during the campaign or up though today. We are not on great terms, to be sure, but this is NOT war. If there is no open conflict, there can be no treason. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." How is what you think Trump or his campaign actually did Treason? We where NOT in open conflict with Russia and Trump and his associates obviously didn't "wage war" (as in take up arms) or "give aid and comfort" (Harbor those who where or aid in committing hostile acts on the USA)
What Trump Jr. did was stupid, but it wasn't illegal or treason. Nothing changed hands, no information, nothing, in that meeting. Both Trump Jr. AND the lawyer who where there agree on this. You are choosing to not believe what they claim, but have zero evidence they are lying. So what do you have?
I never said the USA hasn't dabbled in stuff it shouldn't have, only that "Generally" we have NOT been aggressive where we didn't have a national interest related to trade or stability.
It's interesting that the events you bring up. Clinton wasn't involved in nation building in Serbia, but took action based on humanitarian issues brought on by the use of WMDs. You can argue the USA wasn't the aggressor, but merely taking on the role of policeman.
The supporting of the Checken rebels was CLEARLY about countering Russian aggression, similar to what's happening in the Ukraine right now. Surprisingly both conflicts coming from the leadership of Putin.
So your point really gets lost in your examples...
Shesh... Really? You oppose one of the few purposes of the Federal government actually mentioned in the constitution?
Defending the United States and its interests is a hugely expensive effort because it's a difficult task. But by all means, let's unilaterally disarm and ignore what has happened EVERY time we did this before (not!)... Yea, we won WWI and WWII but had we not disarmed just prior to their start the effort would not have cost us as much material and blood.. Korea is another great example of not being ready; how many men died before we could get our act together there?
History repeats itself. AND Those who know history are condemned to sit and helplessly watch while the world repeats it...
Wow... First post is a global warming, the world is going to die, the sky if falling, Trump is killing us, "WOLF!" post...
Mr. Little, is that you? Chicken?
History shows that McCarthy was seeing "Russians" around every corner... Treason in any interaction with a "Russian" real or not... McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
What has been the #1 news story for the last 9 months? How's this any different?
McCarthy would be so proud.... There is a Russian around every corner!
We are re-running history and I'm guessing with the same general results.
The Cold War should have ended 25 years ago. But we just can't let it go.
Who is WE you are talking about?
Since the fall of the Berlin wall and Glasnost in Russia, who has been the aggressor and why?
The cold war WAS over until the Russians under Putin decided that they'd revive it for geopolitical reasons. Putin is doing all this in order to keep looking powerful and getting elected, but at this point it's all just show. Putin knows that a full frontal conflict with the USA would be a disaster for him, but he certainly is willing to take the risk of starting something he cannot finish in order to stay in power.
And what's the US's motivation? Generally we just want to engage in profitable trade and keep oil prices low/stable...With a bit of "keeping the terrorists at bay" thrown in of course.
If you think so, I guess it's true to you... By the way... Do you know who FIRST brought up the Obama Birth certificate thing and when this was done? You know right?
Trump? WRONG!
It was Hillary Clinton's Campaign when she was in a primary fight with Obama for the democratic nomination who FIRST tried to use this... Oh but she's backed away from that so you don't care any more.... Well, Trump has ALSO backed away from this birther thing too. So why are you insisting on bashing Trump with this but don't care that Clinton used it too? Perhaps you are just partisan, or worse, just hate Trump for some reason? Either way, you are a hypocrite unless you hold Clinton to the same standard.
I think you are making Twitter into something it's not, and sadly you are doing this for political purposes.... Did Obama not have Twitter users blocked too? Where was the outrage then? Humm?
Face it, you just don't like Trump and you are looking for anything you can grasp, however tenuous, to bash him with. It's purely political and you are just trying to dress it up as constitutional...
I don't personally care if you want to do this, it's a free country after all, but at least be honest about your motives...
This is the kind of utter nonsense that's likely to get us a second Trump term, making everybody on the ant-Trump side look like complete morons.
(And no, I didn't vote for the SOB.)
I did vote for him, and I think your analysis is right. THIS is exactly the kind of idiocy that will get us a 2nd term. The obvious obstructionist hypocrisy is on full display. You can only trade in hype and hyperbolae for so long before folks become desensitized to your effort and you have to invent some new crisis to whip up the base again. Rinse, hype up to a lather, and repeat. I don't see how Trumps opponent can compete. By the time the next presidential election rolls around, assuming he doesn't shoot himself in the foot and get caught up in something real, he will have the persona of a guy who survived the full onslaught of the opposition, the winner he claimed to be the first time around... How does his challenger compete with that?
So now a tweet is the same as a petition? That's crazy! Think of the implications.
So.. What if he refuses to answer their phone call or read their paper letter, email or FAX? Is he now REQUIRED to not block any means of communicating because it's a petition?
I think you are misreading the constitution on purpose or are flat crazy myself....
Woosh!
I'm guessing this went WAY over some folks heads...