A liar is a liar, but I sometimes like to elevate the level of my prose, if only to confound the MAGA hat crowd.
Thank you for your enlightening correction.
An astute observation! Mea culpa.
Your sarcasm is duly noted.
Americans will take to the streets to celebrate sports teams, yetwe seem to regard doing so for political reasons as being something only Third World Countries do.
This country was borne of patriots who’d been inspired by the French Revolution, and they are at it again (primarily for economic reasons). What we need to do is to disbelieve all the talk of our having a booming economy – it’s all being orchestrated by the man behind the curtain – who’s not such a Wizard after all.
Farmers, miners, steelworkers, etc. have joined the minorities – who have long suffered economic hardships. There’s a large base of disenfranchised who, if they could recognize their similarities, could form a coalition worthy of large protest demonstrations.
The question is, will they see themselves as “downtrodden”?Could they accept each other as equals?
Maybe Trump’s ill-advised brinkmanship will tell.
I’m not so sure about your statement being correct. An old adage says it’s “unwise to change horses in mid-stream”, but if that horseman was slowing down progress, I’d bet that a stronger horseman would rally the troops behind him.
I do know that you are astute enough to recognize a diversion when you see one, and our President has a gift for self-serving feats of legerdemain.
You failed to say why you repeated my words, then went right into something which sounded sinister.
I take you for someone who can’t recall his own ramblings.
I’d never be your “pardner”, either.
Two days ago you extracted a portion of my post (referencing a compound phrase in which I suggested that Trump may have hope that "one of his supporters…take action with extreme prejudice).
You then said "it was straight out of the Xtian ID movement. One “shepherd” speaks of a “lone wolf” and someone dies".
I felt as if my words had been misinterpreted. If not, why repeat them?
Please refrain from using my own words to associate them with some organization of which I know nothing.
It is the President who seems to be trying to put the whistle-blower(s) in jeopardy.
If you’re trying to insinuate that I would suggest that someone act in violence to remove this President, you obviously don’t know me.
We have legal recourse, and The House seems to be trying to work within their powers, but they must have access to witnesses, and particularly the verbatim recording of the July 25th phone call. That transcript is hidden in a server meant to protect items of national security.
Take note that Congress was only given an edited version. Why? Let’s find out!
Let’s hope that Chief Justice Roberts intends to preside over a fair trial. That is:
…every Senator is individually sworn in that they will exercise impartial judgement, or be recused.
…documentary evidence which has been subpoenaed will be produced. The same applies to witnesses who have thus far ignored Congressionally issued subpoenas.
To demand anything less than proper decorum in such an important trial would be demeaning to the stature of all three branches of our government.
I remember that well, though it seemed to be glossed over at the time. Right after he’d whipped his throng into a fury be telling them “Hillary wants to take your guns”, he trailed off saying “…but maybe the 2nd Amendment people will have something to say about that.”
Obviously, Martina Butina failed to accomplish that; has anyone else wondered why she was released early, then swiftly deported?