Biden drops out of the race.

[Redemptionman]

There really is no reasoning with Liberals or Anti Trumps- it is a point lost in futility. Even when faced with facts they will ignore them and say yep we are right. The two party system needs to go away or at least allow for run offs in Presidential elections.

Anyone see the Palestinian protestors today at the Capital? Interesting bunch, burned an American flag had a Palestinian flag flying proud. No one charged them with an insurrection or actually no one in the MSM even covered it all. Half or more the Democrats where not even there for BiBi's speech.

Interesting to say the least.

Peaceful democrats and their supporters outside the Capital and Monuments today- this could be an insurrection and would have been had this been a conservative crowd.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Anyone who votes for that party really needs to examine themselves, their values, and what they believe. For any one party willing to do this should never be allowed to hold office in the United States....The two party system needs to go away or at least allow for run offs in Presidential elections.

Congratulations, Redemptionman, you've just mocked the value of voting in this country and staked out the position of a dictator: the public should vote for only one party (the dictator's party, course) and anyone who votes otherwise should be punished. Should we just tear up the Constitution and go to a one party (Republican) and punish anyone who doesn't agree and votes differently? That's the Chinese Communist Party approach. I wouldn't want that for the U.S. but perhaps you'd be comfortable with that. If you support the Constitution, then you should support the idea of everyone having the free choice to vote for the candidate he/she most prefers and that no one should have to fear any kind of punishment for it.

 

[Redemptionman]

Congratulations, Redemptionman, you've just mocked the value of voting in this country and staked out the position of a dictator: the public should vote for only one party (the dictator's party, course) and anyone who votes otherwise should be punished. Should we just tear up the Constitution and go to a one party (Republican) and punish anyone who doesn't agree and votes differently? That's the Chinese Communist Party approach. I wouldn't want that for the U.S. but perhaps you'd be comfortable with that. If you support the Constitution, then you should support the idea of everyone having the free choice to vote for the candidate he/she most prefers and that no one should have to fear any kind of punishment for it.

Lol, and you are the one who puts words in my mouth as you like to say. My vote in my state really doesn't count since I live in a dark red state anyway. However,. I like Robert Kennedy he is on the ballot and a great choice, better than the blue donkey option. Anytime of the week and twice on Sunday. That would be a great democracy choice or even Bernie Sanders but we know how that worked out last time.

How do you say that about me when the Democrats just disenfranchised 40 something million voters along with possibly breaking party donation rules by switching to another candidate 4 months before an election. They are supposed to give that 84 million back to the DNC coffers until they have a candidate announced which they didn't do. So, I ask you who is the greatest threat to democracy?

It ain't Trump.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I unequivocally, gleefully, happily, joyfully state that I've NEVER voted (or considered voting) for a DONKEY candidate for elective office (at the municipal, county, state, territorial, or federal level)!!!

If you voted for the candidate you truly thought was the better person for the job and didn't just blindly vote Republican (or whatever other party candidates you voted for) then I applaud you for voting with some careful thought, even if in some of those elections I might have voted differently than you did. We'd be far better off if most Americans made thoughtful choices and took the little time it takes to express their choices by voting. If you just voted straight party ticket every election regardless of candidate quality, on the other hand, that doesn't help the country get the best leaders. I've voted mostly Republican myself, but when the Republican on the ballot is clearly the inferior choice, I don't vote for him/her out of party loyalty or whatever. I'll vote for the candidate who is best suited for the job. And sometimes the best candidate is not the Republican party pick.

 

[army judge]

If you support the Constitution, then you should support the idea of everyone having the free choice to vote for the candidate he/she most prefers and that no one should have to fear any kind of punishment for it.

I supported our constitution to the point I spent 35 years of my life serving and defending the United States of America.

That said, I especially loved defending and protecting our Republic, along with everyone of our constitutionally mandated rights. Yes, that includes our right to speak our own thoughts, likes, dislikes, and desires.

Yet, today I observed savages, ne'er do wells, and terrorists being allowed to run amok in front of Union Station. Many of those savages and terrorists were bound and determined to disparage one of our oldest and strongest allies, the nation state of Israel.

Israel, the birthplace and religious home of one of the kindest, honest, sincere persons I've ever known, SGT Joey Jacobs, scion of a wealthy northern California family, Stanford graduate, who turned down a direct commission as an Army journalist, to earn his way on his own merits. Joey was killed in a firefight in the jungles of Nam just three months into his 13 month tour. His brother wrote me a letter and called my mom with the news of his untimely death. Mom in turn passed the sad story along to me. To this day, Joey's death brings a tear or two to the eyes of this old warrior. He was such a wonderful person.

 

[Redemptionman]

the part that makes you go WOW the most is what Hamas and other Muslim terrorists do to the LGBTQplusLMNOP crowds in their country?

They throw them off buildings and cut there heads off, something the left obviously supports by supporting them.

 

[army judge]

I'll vote for the candidate who is best suited for the job. And sometimes the best candidate is not the Republican party pick.

I vote for the person I believe to be the one best suited to perform in the office, as well as the one I believe not deceiving or lying to the voters.

However, never has the party of elephants connived, lied, conspired, and deceived the public more than the 46th President and his cabal of evil doers.

For example, why in the world would a sitting president order our Border Patrol, Immigration Personnel, and Customs Officers to OPEN our borders, allowing 20,000,000 unknown savages, mentally challenged, criminals, drug dealers, pedophiles, sexual deviants, illiterates, all unable to support themselves entry into our once great nation?

All the while, few, if any donkeys commented on such stupidity.

Then that same imbecile doles out unknown millions of taxpayer money, perhaps billions, to these 20,000,000 (and counting) invaders.

If this isn't addressed sooner, rather than later, more children, females, young citizens will be killed, or mired in the debilitating cycle and death spiral of drug addiction.

The Hans Christian Andersen Children's fable comes to mind.
Hans Christian Andersen published this cautionary tale in 1837, though its message resounds clearly today. The Emperor's New Clothes is about two poor and opportunistic weavers out to make a fool of a king and his entourage. Thankfully, not everyone buys-in.

The Emperor's New Clothes

The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen

americanliterature.com

May God Almighty protect and save our republic.

 

[Tax Counsel]

So, I ask you who is the greatest threat to democracy?

It ain't Trump.

My hope is that no candidate is a threat to democracy. But Trump doesn't help himself when he makes comments like he'd be dictator for a day if reelected. He's used that line more than once. Sure, that might just be one Trump's over the top statements (that's his style after all) that he really doesn't mean. But it opens the door to accusations that deep down he harbors the desire to be a dictator. He doesn't help himself with the moderate voters he needs to win over with that kind of rhetoric. It helps him get news coverage, and Trump wants all the media exposure. So do a lot of other politicians. But those kinds of statements, while getting his face on the front page helps drive away some voters he might otherwise get. IMO he'd be doing a whole lot better if he just stopped speaking off the top of his head and instead gave some real thought as to the impression those statements are going to make on the voters.

The public should always be alert for any effort that steers us towards dictatorship, whether from the left or the right. I don't think right now either Harris or Trump has the support to pull off any coup. My bigger concern is that Trump is not a very good leader, frequently changes his mind with blowing political winds, and puts his desire to be famous, popular, and powerful front and center of pretty much everything he does. Running the country isn't something he's all that interested in doing.

 

[Tax Counsel]

and I was going to mention that most civil case filings have in them a prayer for relief. This is a prayer to what? to whom? It to me has a historical higher power reference.

You are looking at the word prayer in only a religious context. That's understanable given that in our modern society people rarely hear that word used in any nonreligious way. But like many English words and phrases, this term has more than one meaning. The term prayer for relief as used in the law is a pretty old term (and the legal profession today still uses a fair number of rather old legal terms) from the 1700s and, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. means a "request to the court and appearing at the end of a pleading, esp. a request for specific relief or damages". It has no religious meaning and is not a prayer to any God. That fact is obvious because the pleading is directed to the judge rather than God to decide.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I supported our constitution to the point I spent 35 years of my life serving and defending the United States of America.

That said, I especially loved defending and protecting our Republic, along with everyone of our constitutionally mandated rights. Yes, that includes our right to speak our own thoughts, likes, dislikes, and desires.

Well said.

It's not disagreement itself that is threatening the nation but rather the increasingly vicious and violent manner that disagreements are being expressed today. I support the right for anyone to demonstrate peacefully. If the demonstration become violent, results in destruction of property, or other criminal acts I support punishing those who commit those acts, even if I happen to support the underlying position they have.

 

[army judge]

It's not disagreement itself that is threatening the nation but rather the increasingly vicious and violent manner that disagreements are being expressed today. I support the right for anyone to demonstrate peacefully. If the demonstration become violent, results in destruction of property, or other criminal acts I support punishing those who commit those acts, even if I happen to support the underlying position they have.

I agree with you.
However, who ignored or allowed what the future terrorists or savages did yesterday afternoon outside of DC's Union Station?

No one, citizen, immigrant, or legitimate visitor to the USA should be allowed to foment violent and/or destructive behavior without law enforcement intervention.

I hear the incessant accusations and caderwalling regarding the behavior of what some term the "insurrectionists of January 6th".

Contrast that with the eerie silence emanating from today's Union Station Riots, although some of our landmarks were attacked, no arrests were made, nor were any new Congressional investigations initiated.

 

[welkin]

Anybody who believes that Biden advocated assassinating Trump is too irrational to even talk to.

To be fair Jack, if Trump said what Biden said and then there was an attempt on Biden's life or not, it would be in the news cycle for months.

Remember when Gabrielle Giffords was shot back in 2011 and Sarah Palin was blamed for inciting violence because her campaign placed crosshairs on a map targeting 20 Democratic House members to replace? Was that irrational?

Sarah Palin Criticized Over Gabrielle Giffords Presence on "Target List"

 

[welkin]

That's about as anti-democratic a statement as I've seen you make. The fundamental foundation of our republic is that the public elects its representatives, and every eligible person should be encouraged to get out and vote for their preferred candidate. Only one will win, but that doesn't mean everyone else who voted for a candidate who didn't win wasted their vote. By saying I ought to just stay home, you are indicating you don't see value in the act of voting itself, whether or not your candidate wins, and IMO that's a shame. A vote for a candidate who loses does not count for nothing. As you've expressed it, if Trump loses to Harris the votes for Trump are worth nothing. After all, as a loser in the race he would become no better than a third party candidate who loses.

You can spin it anyway you like and put words in my mouth that I didn't say or mean but, I was speaking from a practical point of view based on your saying you may vote for somebody that has no chance to win. That is simply a protest vote that has no bearing on the outcome of an election. And in a Presidental election, every vote counts. It should be about what is best for the Country even if you have to pick for the lesser of two evils. Not just about you and your vote.

For months now you have been saying that the Trump administration was a disaster. Yet when asked why you think that way, you have not given any examples why you feel that way. All we get is left-wing talking point.

Either Harris or Trump will be President after the election. If you like where the Country is headed under Biden-Harris, then vote Harris. If you want to change direction, vote Trump. That is your choice and that of every American.

In my state there are other presidential candidates on the ballot and I may well vote for one of them. They won't win, but voting for them isn't a futile act either. It expresses my distain for the state of both major parties and the candidates they've been putting forward over the last two decades or more.

Please don't preach to me about being a patriot or defending Democracy. I have served my Country, my State, and my community for my entire adult life in active political positions of authority. I will always defend the Constitution and the Rule-of-Law and the Republic against the people that want to tear it down.

 

[Redemptionman]

Anyone watch Biden's prerecorded drop out speech? Some focused on his watch which showed around 1-2 hours previous time than an actual live event. Of interesting note China and Russia scrambled a couple of long range nuke bombers to Alaska looking to test us. NATO scrambled some jets and they were turned back. Also Russia sending some more nuke subs off the coast of Florida. Awesome times indeed, and I appreciate all veterans who served this country. When the nukes start flying they will take out the east and west coast first.

Remember liberals you get what you vote for? so they shouldn't complain much having to die for their ideologies.

 

[Zigner]

Of interesting note China and Russia scrambled a couple of long range nuke bombers to Alaska looking to test us. NATO scrambled some jets and they were turned back.

NORAD (US and Canadian planes) - not NATO.
EDIT: Not "to Alaska." They remained in international airspace (but I do agree that it was a test).

 

[army judge]

When the nukes start flying they will take out the east and west coast first.

Regrettably, mate, IF nukes are ever deployed, it'll insure MAD across our beautiful planet Earth. It'll destroy our planet and end life as we know it. Survivors, if there are any, will eventually die, too.

Mutual assured destruction refers to the concept that two superpowers are capable of annihilating each other with nuclear weapons, regardless of whether they are attacked first.

In theory, under mutual assured destruction, a nuclear attack by one superpower will be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack by their target — using early warning systems, automated missiles, airborne nuclear bombs, and missile-armed hidden submarines. This will lead to the complete destruction of both. As such, mutual assured destruction — often abbreviated as MAD — is part of the military strategy of deterrence, in which one adversary threatens another with a reprisal if they attack first.

After the 1960s, mutual assured destruction was the main nuclear doctrine — the stated military principle — of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in the late 20th century. It is still in operation today between the nuclear forces of the U.S. and Russia, and experts have suggested that MAD is the reason that small states such as Israel are thought to have developed nuclear missiles. (Israel is deliberately ambiguous about whether it has them.)

According to a 2007 study in the journal Asian Affairs: An American Review, China, the third nuclear superpower, does not have the capacity to threaten true mutually assured destruction because its relatively small arsenal of nuclear missiles does not have a credible "second strike" capability, which would be needed to automatically respond to a nuclear attack.

But complete annihilation of an enemy is not the only way MAD comes into play. For instance, "rogue states," like North Korea and Iran, are striving to develop nuclear missiles, perhaps in the hope that they will be able to at least inflict severe damage on an enemy before they are annihilated by a nuclear counterstrike — a partial application of the MAD doctrine, according to a 2019 analysis by the U.S. Department of Defense.

The term "assured destruction" was first used in the 1960s by then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. But according to Britannica, the longer phrase "mutual assured destruction" was coined by an opponent of the policy, American military analyst Donald Brennan, who argued that it did little to secure U.S. defense interests in the long-term.

McNamara estimated that a nuclear strike force with the equivalent explosive power of 400 megatons of TNT — a "few hundred" missiles, as some military planners said — was needed to ensure an effective nuclear deterrence, according to the Brookings Institution.

But that MAD number rapidly increased, and by the time of the Carter administration in 1977, military planners argued that the U.S. needed 2,000 nuclear warheads. But about the same time officials said the U.S. needed to reduce its nuclear arsenal to 5,000 warheads, and in the mid-1990s officials talked of reducing the number again to 2,500, so clearly many more had already been built. (These numbers far outstrip the number needed to do catastrophic damage to the planet. For instance, a 2012 study by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists found that just 100 nuclear detonations of the size that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki would usher in a planetary nuclear winter, which would drop temperatures lower than they were in the Little Ice Age, Live Science previously reported.)

Although no one has tested the concept of mutual assured destruction by nuclear weapons, it seems to have prevented war between superpowers since nuclear weapons were invented in the 1940s. But it also led to periods of the Cold War when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union spent huge amounts of money to develop nuclear weapons and the methods to use them.

Experts in nuclear weapons arsenals estimate that the United States had more than 30,000 nuclear warheads in service at the height of the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s, while the Soviet Union may have stockpiled more than 40,000 warheads by the late 1980s, according to BBC News.

What is mutual assured destruction?

Mutual assured destruction, often abbreviated as MAD, it is part of the military strategy of deterrence.

www.livescience.com

 

[adjusterjack]

100 nuclear detonations of the size that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki would usher in a planetary nuclear winter, which would drop temperatures lower than they were in the Little Ice Age,

That's one way of reversing climate change.

Those of us in Phoenix would certainly appreciate cooler summer temperatures. It's 109 now.

 

[army judge]

Those of us in Phoenix would certainly appreciate cooler summer temperatures. It's 109 now.

Human beings are powerless to change, as in improve our planet. No human being, no matter how clever has the ability to part the oceans, feed the hungry multitudes, raise the dead, or any powers said to be held by a deity.

As far as 100+ degree days, I enjoy each and everyone. I suspect that my heat love developed over the five wonderful years I spent trekking through the jungles, rice paddies, the river deltas, and the mountainous regions of Southeast Asia.

 

[Redemptionman]

It is going to be tough for Trump, if I was him I would not even debate Kamalalala Harris, it is a no win situation anything he says will be made out to be racist, sexist or a combination of both. I am sure that he will react to her calling him a pedo felon and I am sure the Don will respond.

This was probably an unheard of never before seen of events only comparable to Johnson's bow out. Harris will be pumped non stop by all the liberal MSM while Vance and Trump will be vilified on the same networks. The only way for Trump to come out of this is to have Vance debate whomever her VP ends up being. If Trump wants to debate then he just needs to focus on the issues, but that will not be the case and it will be a cluster of points which make republicans look bad. Surely, people will be able to see that Harris is not what she makes herself out to be, and they will not elect such a person. It would be very bad for foreign leaders, our country, and the safety of the world.

 

[army judge]

It is going to be tough for Trump, if I was him I would not even debate Kamalalala Harris, it is a no win situation anything he says will be made out to be racist, sexist or a combination of both. I am sure that he will react to her calling him a pedo felon and I am sure the Don will respond.

From the tips of your fingers to Trump's eardrums, I hope he simply sits out any debate.

Vance will soon be seen to be a very poor choice.

Seems Vance was fond of posting on UNSOCIAL MEDIA.

The poor dummy left lots of bread crumbs behind, only to be discovered by the fake news.

His "childless cat ladies" crack, along with dozens of other crass remarks are likely to cause females to sprint to Border Czarina Harris.

However, as Jimmy was fond of saying on The Mickey Mouse Club broadcasts on Wednesday rollcall:

"Today is the day that is filled with surprises... Nobody knows what's going to happen..." On the Mickey Mouse Club, Wednesday was "Anything Can Happen Day." This video features the 2nd season roll call.

....................... ======================::::::::::::::::::::::
....................... ======================::::::::::::::::::::::
....................... ======================::::::::::::::::::::::
....................... ======================::::::::::::::::::::::