Photos, vids, etc ....

sear said:
Private land owners spanning the Texas border have been complaining about the steady flow of illegals through their land. No relief in sight.
What would Texas Governor S2 do about it?
Click to expand...
Sppse this is an option?

Top Trump Adviser Pushed for Drone Strikes on Migrants, New Book Claims​

Stephen Miller denies the account, and a person present has "no recollection" of the alleged conversation, but the book accuses the top Trump adviser of suggesting an atrocity

www.rollingstone.com

Top Trump Adviser Pushed for Drone Strikes on Migrants, New Book Claims

Stephen Miller denies the account, and a person present has “no recollection” of the alleged conversation, but the book accuses the top Trump adviser of suggesting an atrocity
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
Click to expand...
 
And the "President" said

bCOw4HM.png
 
S2 #741
I'm unusually slow on this. I initially took your S. Miller reference as a casual, and simple (as opposed to compound) quip. BUT:
I now see the pattern you seem to have been referencing here.
President Trump's standard approach to achievement was destruction.
- Trump said he was going to improve healthcare. But what Trump actually did was to try to damage or destroy Obamacare. I've never read of any such thing as "Trump-care".
- Trump criticized Obama's nuclear agreement with Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, U.S. & Iran. Didn't Trump say with his superior private sector negotiating skills Trump would replace that with a better deal? But in the end, Trump simply broke the agreement, thereby destroying the control (restriction) it imposed on Iran.
- And on the U.S. / Mexico border Trump criticized the Obama administration "crisis". But instead of solving a problem, replaced it with a bigger one.
“... the reality is that for every parent who is not located there will be a permanently orphaned child.” Hon. Dana M. Sabraw / United States district court Southern district of California 18/08/04*, commenting on the Trump administrations failed efforts to re-unite families it separated at the U.S. - Mexico border in an attempt to address U.S. immigration policy issues * reported this date by NBC-TV News
Click to expand...
Took me a while S2. But your message in #741 seems to be: the Trump formula for presiding is:
- make promises to "improve"
- and then destroy.

Still not sure what to think about why this is so wildly popular with the MAGA crowd, unless it's as simple as they're content with if not enthusiastic about being lied to.

S2 #742
Disgusting on multiple levels.
Is there no one in the MAGA voting block with a teenage daughter?
 
Shiftless2 said:
All that matters is he's hurting "the right people".
Click to expand...
Translation:
All that matters is he's hurting the left people.

The pic in #745 is rich with indications. Is that a Ford Model-A? A relic of the good ol' days (of Jim Crow)? The flag on the hood spells it out. But the fly-paper? It seems motivation for such nostalgia is fear. The pic shows, even his hat is a frayed.
"Do you remember when you were growing up, do you remember how simple life was, how easy it felt? It was about faith, family, and country. We can have that again, but to do that, we must vote Joe Biden out." Nikki Haley
Click to expand...
Not sure what to make of this. "When you were growing up" "how simple life was" was attributable to childhood, more care-free than the responsibilities of adulthood. HOWEVER:
If Haley's stated parameters are those sought by the voter, voting Biden back in 2024 is the obvious course.

What explains this Republican disjuncture?
Partisanship trumps citizenship?

Note:
Inside Adirondack Park, NY "Trump 2024" & -**** Biden- displays are not uncommon. Inexplicable expletive?
 
S2 #748
Indeed, reductio ad absurdum.

I'd have loved to write the dissenting opinion on this ruling. Basically:
- Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins. -
So the matter before the court: where do we draw the line.
The high court, SCOTUS, the "Roberts Court" has drawn the line by distinctly anti-utilitarian standard. Specifically, the vague if unspecified objection of one shopkeeper vs potentially millions within the public pool of prospective customers. This new law court standard: the detriment of the many to suit the preference of one.

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism (y-tĭl′ĭ-târē-ə-nĭz′əm)
n.
1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved. [ Bold emphasis sear's ]

Ugly has many faces. But Republican ugly prominently features hypocrisy: pretend to justice through conservatism, but foster injustice through authoritarianism. Hypocrites !
"Among life's perpetually charming questions is whether the truly evil do more harm than the self-righteous and wrong." Jon Margolis
Click to expand...
 
"NATO ... not a reliable partner" MTG
Click to expand...
Oh?
What's unreliable about NATO? Was there a war I didn't read about? Was a former member of NATO conquered, lost to NATO membership?

Has MTG forgotten that following the attacks of 09/11/01 NATO aircraft patrolled airspace above Washington DC?

I welcome any sensible "heads up" to perils that have escaped my radar. BUT:
MTG will have to cite 3 representative examples if she wants to sway my opinion. You've not done so yet Marge.
 
S2 #752 ref MTG

MTG undermines her own credibility. The risk of falsely crying "wolf" is it can then prevent emergency response in an actual wolf attack.

MTG space laser nonsense may prevent many from even considering her position. BUT !!

Let's consider MTG's position as presented by a more sober advocate.

The Nato mindset leads to war​

Thomas Fazi / Mon, July 10, 2023 at 7:03 PM EDT
Jens Stoltenberg

... Aside from the fact that its most powerful member and de facto leader, the US, has bombed more countries than any other nation, Nato itself has a rather violent track record. In 1999, Nato began its 78-day illegal bombing campaign of Yugoslavia, the first act of aggression against a sovereign state committed in Europe since the Second World War. Many civilian targets were hit, including 48 hospitals, 70 schools, 18 kindergartens and 35 churches. Overall, hundreds of civilians were killed, including 81 children. Since then, Nato has been involved in several other conflicts, most notably Afghanistan and Libya. None had anything to do with defending its members from external aggression; in all these cases, Nato was quite clearly the aggressor. ...

And so it’s far from clear how exactly Nato is providing “security” to Europe. On the contrary, some are convinced that Nato provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by aggressively expanding eastward, systematically ignoring Russia’s warnings over the years. This represented a gross violation of the principle that had inspired the entire European security architecture since the Seventies: the indivisibility of security — that is, the notion that the security of Nato states and the Soviet Union (subsequently Russia) was “inseparably linked to that of all the others”, and could not come at the expense of another state’s security. In other words, Nato played a crucial role in unravelling Europe’s security architecture and creating the conditions for the largest conflict in Europe since the Second World. How does this square with the notion that Nato is there to guarantee Europe’s peace and security — or that, today, it represents a “bulwark” against the very chaos that it helped create? ...

This is particularly disturbing given Nato’s stated intention of expanding its activity into the Indo-Pacific region, which will obviously antagonise China. The current Nato Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, is a well-known anti-China hawk. In February, he drew parallels between Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and China, saying “we should not make the same mistake with China”, implying that Beijing should be strategically circumscribed by the West. ...

In this sense, it is striking to note the deep ideological linkages between Nato and the European Union, another of the institutions through which Washington has historically exercised its influence over Europe. This has become embarrassingly apparent under the presidency of Ursula von der Leyen, dubbed “Europe’s American president” by Politico late last year. Over the years, von der Leyen has worked tirelessly to keep Brussels committed to Washington’s hawkish stance toward Russia and China — so it’s perfectly fitting that reports suggest she has been selected to take over as Nato’s next chief.
Given von der Leyen’s track record, she’ll make Stoltenberg look competent in comparison. During her time as the Germany’s defence minister, von der Leyen was accused of allowing lucrative contracts worth millions of euros to be improperly handed out to consultants — and then of deleting all the message from two of her smartphones before returning them to the defence ministry. This seems to be common practice for von der Leyen. For the past two years, von der Leyen has systematically refused to release the text messages she exchanged, as president of the European Commission, with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, in which she personally negotiated the purchase of up to 1.8 billion doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, worth a staggering €35 billion. Overall, we can probably expect Nato’s management under von der Leyen to be even less transparent — and more prone to America’s interests — than ever.
In the meantime, it is clear the Ukraine conflict has represented a boon for the US and for the transnational military-industrial interests represented by Nato. And that is in Washington’s every interest for the war to go on for as long as possible, and for Europe to be kept in a state of permanent instability. This is why, when it gathers today, we can expect Nato to continue pushing for an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Why risk ending the war when you could be cashing cheques — both financial and diplomatic — for months and even years to come?

https://news.yahoo.com/reason-nato-won-t-admit-230345209.html
note: follow the link, there's a pic showing a banner that says "No to NATO, Yes to peace". The opposing perspective: parabellum can cepic .... : to insure peace, prepare for war
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top