Trump

[RowdyRebel]

And I find your insistence upon censoring the free speech rights which happen to take form in a manner which you find disagreeable to be troubling and un-American.

Yes, it is against the law. However, the law is in conflict with the Constitution and is therefore invalid.

I find it just as repulsive as you do to see someone burning our flag. The difference is, I believe the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, with strict prohibitions upon the actions of our government. When the government acts in violation of the Constitution, EVEN IF I AGREE with what the government is trying to accomplish, I must oppose the unconstitutional action. If you allow the government to overstep its power on THIS issue, where do you draw the line? When they start forcing you to quarter soldiers in your home? Perhaps when they retry you for the same offense?  Or perhaps just when you are no longer free to exercise your religion? When do you finally say "You've gone too far!", and who will be left to help fight your fight when YOUR rights that YOU want to exercise are being infringed upon when you stood idly by (or worse yet ENCOURAGED) while the government trampled upon the rights of others because you agreed with the premise behind the unconstitutional actions?

We either have a Constitution that matters or we do not. I will defend the Constitution EVERY time. It worries me that so many are willing to pick and choose when to defend the Constitution, based upon how they "feel" about an issue. For those who served, their oath was to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegence to the same...". It says nothing about protecting and defending the flag...only the Constitution. So to infringe upon a person's right to speak out, expressing whatever grievances he might have with our government, just because you disagree with his methods is violating your oath to defend the Constitution.  

Yes, I find the act of burning our flag repulsive, but I will defend their right to be an idiot until my last breath. I don't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution I will defend and which parts are OK to infringe upon. I will defend it IN ITS ENTIRETY.

[kscarbel2]

This whole problem with Russia is really disastrous for America, for Russia and for the world.

“Donald Trump is right. We need to figure out a way to end this cycle of hostility [with Russia] that’s putting this country at risk, costing us billions of dollars in defense and creating hostilities.”

“The big issue [for America today] is can we, should we be able to create a new and positive relationship with Russia. It makes no sense that we are at the hostility level that we are.”

“The question is, can we have a more peaceful, effective relationship with Russia, utilizing interests that are similar, in a realistic way, to make this world a safer place, and get off this dangerous hostility with Russia.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[kscarbel2]

Trump Says He’ll Spend More Than $500 Billion on Infrastructure

Transport Topics  /  August 2, 2016

Donald Trump on August 2 proposed a plan to rebuild U.S. infrastructure that costs “at least double” the amount that Hillary Clinton has floated, in what would amount to a massive new government program.

Asked by media how much he'd spend, the Republican presidential nominee said, “Well, I would say at least double her numbers, and you're going to really need more than that. We have bridges that are falling down. I don't know if you've seen the warning charts, but we have many, many bridges that are in danger of falling.”

Clinton's plan, which is estimated to cost $275 billion over five years, calls for setting up a national infrastructure bank to help fund large-scale projects, an idea that President Barack Obama advanced only to see it stall for lack of Republican support.

Trump was vague when asked how he'd pay for his much larger plan.

“We'll get a fund. We'll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates,” he said. Who would provide the money? “People, investors. People would put money into the fund. The citizens would put money into the fund,” he said, adding that he'd use “infrastructure bonds from the country, from the United States.”

The financial practicality of such a proposal is highly doubtful, particularly when considering that Trump, who tends to be slippery on policy details, said in the same interview that unlike his opponent, he wouldn't raise taxes.

“I'm doing the biggest tax decrease,” he said.

U.S. spending is projected to fall about $1.4 trillion short of the $3.3 trillion needed through 2025 for airports, highways and other infrastructure, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.

While Obama spurred spending on public works by helping cover the interest on about $188 billion of state and local debt, the program lapsed in 2010. Democrats have been unable to revive it because of Republican opposition in Congress.
The political viability of a massive new infrastructure plan is also doubtful, as Republicans have spent years battling new taxes and government spending. Trump's remarks received immediate pushback on the right.

House Speaker Paul Ryan's office said he was more focused on his policy plans than Trump's.

“The Speaker is focused on the House GOP’s ‘Better Way’ agenda,” said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong.

Rory Cooper, a Republican strategist who opposes Trump, called his proposal “essentially the Obama stimulus argument” and added, “Half trillion tax dollars toward mythical projects to ‘create jobs.’ Nearly every Republican member of Congress voted against this in 2009.”

On financing infrastructure, “everyone agrees we need to do it,” said Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat. “But nobody wants to pay for it."

[kscarbel2]

Clint Eastwood defends Trump's 'racist' remarks: 'Just get over it'

The Guardian  /  August 3, 2016

Another Republican luminary has gone public with strong feelings about Donald Trump. Really, really strong feelings. He didn’t pussyfoot like Paul Ryan. He wasn’t a convention no-show, like John Kasich.

Hollywood tough guy Clint Eastwood emptied both barrels in an interview with Esquire magazine, aiming squarely … at those who have taken the presidential candidate to task for racism and other, well, rough edges.

“He’s said a lot of dumb things,” the actor and director said of the man who has pilloried Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, women, and the list goes on and on. “So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody – the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist’, and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it”.

Eastwood’s advice to America: “Just f*cking get over it. It’s a sad time in history”.

This country, he said, is plagued by what he derided as “a pussy generation”, and he wasn’t talking about all those cute videos your mom posts on FaceBook.

Trump, the actor fumed, is “onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.

“We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff”, Eastwood continued. “When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist”.

He knows a thing or two about racial slurs, as anyone who has watched the movie Gran Torino can attest. In it, he plays Walt Kowalski, a retired auto worker and Korean War veteran who hates the Asian, Latino and black families that move into his changing neighborhood.

Before he gets a change of heart and becomes heartwarmingly friendly with an Asian teen who was pushed by gang members to steal his eponymous car, Eastwood/Kowalski lets loose with pretty much any slur you can think of – “chinks”, “zipperheads”, “jabbering gooks”.

In a bar scene when he’s surrounded by his old, white guy friends, he lets loose with a joke that sets them all off laughing: “I’ve got one”, he starts, waving his half-full pint glass. “A Mexican, a Jew and a colored guy go into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, ‘get the f*ck out of here’.”

Ba dum bum.

“And then when I did Gran Torino”, Eastwood told Esquire, “even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect’. And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight’. The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately’.”

On Trump’s deriding Indiana-born US district judge Gonzalo Curiel for being unfair because of his Mexican heritage, Eastwood was dismissive. “Yeah,” he said, “It’s a dumb thing.”

Eastwood has not endorsed his rhetorical soulmate, he said, but given a choice between the billionaire real estate mogul and the former US secretary of state, he’ll vote for Trump in a heartbeat. After all, Hillary Clinton said she’d carry on Obama’s legacy, which is anathema to a man who was once the mayor of an upscale seaside town in California.

Besides, he said, Clinton’s is “a tough voice to listen to for four years”.

The worst thing about politics today, says the man who describes himself as part of the “anti-pussy generation. Not to be confused with pussy” – is that politicians basically put him to sleep.

“They’re boring everybody,” he said. “Chesty Puller, a great Marine general, once said, ‘You can run me, and you can starve me, and you can beat me, and you can kill me, but don’t bore me.’ And that’s exactly what’s happening now: Everybody is boring everybody. It’s boring to listen to all this shit. It’s boring to listen to these candidates.”

If he were writing a stump speech today, Eastwood said, it would be, “Knock it off. Knock everything off.”

If only.

 

[1965]

Dirty Harry has spoken & I like it

[carlotpilot]

right on clint  couldnt have been said any better.        wonder if he still owns the hogs breath

[Jason O]

Too bad Clint Eastwood didn't run for president.  He'd have my vote. 

[kscarbel2]

Donald J. Trump? Never.

The National Interest  /  August 8, 2016

There was a brief moment when I thought I might hold my nose yet vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election. I found myself in agreement with several elements of the late April 2016 foreign-policy speech that he delivered hosted by the National Interest. He appeared to extend an olive branch to Israel and the Arabs, and even to the NATO allies, although he insisted that they fulfill their commitments to increase their level of defense spending to 2 percent of GDP. He also outlined in more detail than previously his vision of what America’s defense posture should look like. He supported strategic nuclear modernization, a robust missile-defense posture, and an increase in Army end-strength, in the size of the fleet and in that of the Air Force. Even Trump’s posture toward Russia seemed a bit more balanced than was previously the case. He made it clear that he would only engage that country from a position of strength.

Trump did not convince me, though I am a lifelong Republican who intends to vote for all the other of my party’s candidates whose names will appear on the ballot in November. His staunchly negative attitude toward free trade worried me; I felt that his stance was the canary in the neoisolationist coal mine. I was concerned that he seemed cavalier about the possibility that his insouciance toward both trade and alliances would lead Japan and South Korea down the road of developing an independent nuclear capability. I did not see how his self-vaunted negotiating skills would bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians; to the contrary, his meddling was likely to drive them further apart. I could not abide by his proposals to deport eleven million illegal immigrants, many of them Hispanic, and to build a wall on the Mexican border. He mistakenly characterized those illegal immigrants as Mexican rapists and criminals when the majority of these people actually hailed from elsewhere in Latin America and were less likely to commit violent crimes than were American citizens. Finally, I remained deeply troubled by his attitude toward Muslims, which not only threatened America’s relationships with Sunni states already uneasy about American reliability, but smacked of racism that hearkened back to the 1930s, when the Klan hounded Blacks, Jews and Catholics, and “America First” was the watchword of bigots.

For all that, I felt Trump had turned a corner with his National Interest speech, that perhaps he had begun to listen to those advisors who were encouraging him to moderate his tone. I was wrong. His subsequent behavior has demonstrated time and again that the only voice he really seems to hear is his own, and that without a teleprompter, he remains the quintessential rabble rouser, who pays little if any attention to the consequences of what he offers to cheering crowds. Trump has doubled down on his critique of NATO, to the point where he has created the impression among the members of that alliance that it is of no value to him, and, by extension, neither are they. He has not modified his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is meant to be a major symbol of America’s role as a Pacific power. Nor has he altered the impression that he has few if any qualms about Japan and South Korea going nuclear, or, for that matter, going it alone. While his hostility to China remains undiminished, his mildness toward Russia has persisted as well. Moreover, his astounding ignorance of, and seeming indifference to, current events—notably that Russia invaded Ukraine—calls into question whether he has any real ideas about international security other than those he reads from his teleprompter.

Yet none of the foregoing has led me to conclude that I could under no circumstances vote for Donald Trump. Rather, it is his behavior, his thin-skinned narcissism and particularly his acting out of the many incendiary statements he seems to enjoy tossing out, that have rendered him completely unfit for the highest office in the land. His attack on the Hispanic heritage of an American-born federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University smacked of a degree of racism that could not even be termed “thinly veiled.” His clashes with the Khan family, American Muslims who lost their son in Iraq, were completely out of the bounds of common decency. And his mimicking of a disabled reporter, now widely televised in a Clinton campaign ad, was nothing short of a disgrace.

I am fortunate to have been blessed with many grandchildren. Five of them are either teens, or are preteens. Their parents have brought them up to be upstanding young citizens, respectful of both the men and women who wear our country’s uniform as well as of persons who may not look or pray as they do. I cannot abide by the prospect that Donald Trump would be their president, and thereby offer them a role model that runs totally counter to the values that have been instilled in them. Every candidate has faults—Hillary Clinton certainly has no shortage—but Donald Trump is beyond the pale. He is a disgrace to the Republican party, and, far more important, to the United States and all it stands for.

[kscarbel2]

Trump's economic plan: no 'death tax', less business tax, and fewer regulations

The Guardian  /  August 8, 2016

In an attempt to reset a campaign recently flogged by a series of controversies, Donald Trump outlined an economic vision for the US, including dramatically slashing taxes, and took sharp aim at Hillary Clinton.

In a nearly hour-long speech, unusually reading from a teleprompter, the Republican presidential nominee suggested Detroit itself was an example of “the living, breathing example of my opponent’s failed economic agenda”.

“The unemployment rate [in Detroit] is more than twice the national average,” Trump said. “Half of all Detroit residents do not work. Detroit tops the list of the most dangerous cities in terms of violent crime. These are the silenced victims whose stories are never told by Hillary Clinton.”

Trump said his economic plan would reverse a lagging recovery in jobs from the 2008 recession, in part by reducing income tax brackets from seven levels to three – of 12%, 25%, and 33% – and entirely eliminating income taxes for individuals who earn less than $25,000 annually, or $50,000 for a married couple. That’s a change from September 2015, when he initially proposed four brackets that would pay zero, 10%, 20% and 25%. He said it would mark the “biggest tax revolution since the Reagan tax reform”.

“We will make America grow again,” Trump said.

Trump said he would lower corporate tax rates from 40% to 15% – a rate he said punished “companies for making products in America”.

“This, ladies and gentleman, is backwards – it’s backwards,” he said. “All of our policies should be geared towards keeping jobs and wealth inside the United States.

“No American company will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes,” he continued. Clinton’s economic vision entailed “onerous regulations”, which would put small companies “totally out of business, and you won’t be able to start – you could never, ever start – a small business under the tremendous regulatory burden that you have today in our country.”

Trump said he would eliminate the estate (death) tax, which currently applies to estates larger than $5.45m for individuals, or $10.9m for married couples.

“No family will have to pay the death tax,” he said.

Trump spoke at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit before 1,500 members and guests of the prestigious Detroit Economic Club, a business and professional organization that routinely serves as a stop for presidential candidates.

Trump’s economic plan appeared to mimic proposals offered last fall by his campaign and later highlighted on his campaign’s website.

In March, the group Citizens for Tax Justice said his plan would cost more than $12tn. Trump also reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his plan to ask TransCanada to renew the permit for the Keystone pipeline.

The newest proposals included a temporary moratorium on regulations from federal agencies.

Trump also pitched a plan to allow families to “fully deduct” all childcare expenses from their taxes, which he said would “reduce cost in childcare, offering much needed relief to American families”.

.

 

[david wild]

So don't vote for Trump, let Clinton win, then what ??? 4 more years of less than shit, I don't know about you but I have had enough of playing second fiddle to the rest of the world, I don't care who he pisses off, what are they going to do other than piss and moan ??? bomb us ??? let's get real, who really cares what any other country thinks of us, do you think they care what we think of them ?? we are better by far than the rest on our worst day, that is why every one wants to come here, kinda like NH. and MA.  I'm sick and tired of hearing how Trump is going to end the world, get real, he will line up the best there is at their job, let them fix the shit we are in and sit back and take credit for it, just like any good boss with good help.  Problem with Clinton, she thinks she knows it all, and wont ask for any help,  kinda like the shit for brains leader we have now. So don't vote Trump, but then don't complain when Clinton sends this once great country down the drain.    

[kscarbel2]

22 minutes ago, david wild said:

So don't vote for Trump, let Clinton win, then what ??? 4 more years of less than shit, I don't know about you but I have had enough of playing second fiddle to the rest of the world, I don't care who he pisses off, what are they going to do other than piss and moan ??? bomb us ??? let's get real, who really cares what any other country thinks of us, do you think they care what we think of them ?? we are better by far than the rest on our worst day, that is why every one wants to come here, kinda like NH. and MA.  I'm sick and tired of hearing how Trump is going to end the world, get real, he will line up the best there is at their job, let them fix the shit we are in and sit back and take credit for it, just like any good boss with good help.  Problem with Clinton, she thinks she knows it all, and wont ask for any help,  kinda like the shit for brains leader we have now. So don't vote Trump, but then don't complain when Clinton sends this once great country down the drain.    

Hillary Clinton? Never.

The National Interest  /  August 8, 2016

When Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington as president and first lady in 1993, the Wall Street Journal editorial page went on the attack, suggesting they brought with them from Arkansas a brand of politics that was inherently corrupt, with personal gain routinely and consistently factored into official decision making. The paper took a lot of heat for this line of editorial criticism in the absence of definitive proof of mendacity on the part of the new president and his wife.

Then came the cattle-futures scandal, in which Hillary hauled down a $98,540 profit in cattle futures in less than a year of trading on a $1,000 investment, without maintaining the normally required fund reserve to diminish the risk of leverage. Further, she was advised on the matter by an outside lawyer for Tyson Foods, a giant Arkansas company with big interests before the state government, where Bill Clinton served as attorney general and then governor.

Thus began a pattern that has led us to Hillary Clinton now as the Democratic presidential nominee even as multiple polls indicate that fully two thirds of Americans consider her dishonest and untrustworthy. During the Clinton White House years, following the cattle-futures scandal, came "travelgate," "filegate," and the Whitewater land investment scandal, in which a box of missing papers, under subpoena for two years, miraculously appeared in the White House living quarters—but only in copy form; the originals were never recovered. It seemed that the Clintons were constantly mired in scandal or hints of scandal, always struggling to stay ahead of nettlesome little revelations that raised persistent questions about their ethical rectitude.

There can be no doubt that these episodes from the distant past, combined with Hillary Clinton’s more recent ethical lapses related to her doing public business on a private email server, have contributed to her reputation as a person who can’t be trusted to tell the truth or conduct herself strictly on the up and up.

Does it matter? That’s for the voters to decide. But every voting booth decision requires a multidimensional analysis that includes an assessment of the favorable and unfavorable attributes of each candidate. Herewith an assessment of Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable attributes, constituting a case against her. This isn’t designed to be definitive for any voting decision but rather a warning that all candidates have downsides, and Clinton’s are significant.

One could argue, in fact, that the Democratic Party was reckless in granting her the nomination, given her past embroilment in scandal and prospects that new revelations could catch up with her during the campaign or through her presidency. Although FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend an indictment against her related to her email server, he said she was "extremely careless" in her handling of "very sensitive, highly classified information." Thus, he declined to take actions to destroy her candidacy and left it to voters to assess the magnitude of her lapses.

But the recklessness of her behavior is reflected in questions now being raised about whether damaging new revelations about her could be forthcoming from hackers, foreign or domestic, who gained knowledge of her activity via her unprotected server. Security experts have suggested there is a strong likelihood that China, Russia and other hackers gained access to all 63,000 emails on Clinton’s private, unprotected server—including the 33,000 she destroyed under the contention that they were merely personal and had nothing to do with her official actions and decisions.

But if those emails contain evidence of questionable actions, as the Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz has argued, Russian President Vladimir Putin "will have the capacity to blackmail her at will" should she become president.

What kind of evidence of questionable actions could be found there? We don’t know, but it would be imprudent to dismiss the possibility that it could be related to the Clinton Foundation, that international good-works institution created by Bill Clinton that doubles as a repository of political/financial power for the Clintons. It has served as a lucrative way station for Clinton cronies waiting for Hillary Clinton’s next campaign. It has positioned Bill Clinton to collect huge speaking fees from major overseas and American corporations and from foreign governments—some $105 million for 542 speeches between the time he left the White House and the time Hillary left her job as secretary of state, according to the Washington Post.  It has rewarded Clinton friends and political allies within a Clinton network that constitutes a potent political force.

The foundation, we learn (through not from the Clintons), continued to receive money from foreign governments even during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, although she had promised that no such money would be accepted during her public service. The money flowed in from such countries as Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Swiss bank UBS contributed some $500,000 after Secretary Clinton helped settle an IRS problem dogging the bank. The Associated Press reported that Hillary Clinton excised from her official State Department calendar some seventy-five meetings she held with "longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and corporate and other outside interests."

Was there actual corruption going on here in the form of quid pro quos, or merely the appearance of corruption? We don’t know, though those 33,000 emails may hold the key to that question. But, in any event, we see a pattern that first came to light with the cattle futures scandal—big sums of money flowing to the Clintons as they conducted official business to the benefit of the individuals and organizations providing the money.

Leaving aside the corruption question, the Clinton Foundation represents a giant stride toward American oligarchy—the flow of power from the people at large to clever and connected elites who know how to game the system to their political and financial advantage. It is noteworthy that, in this year of seething political anger directed against the country’s elites, Hillary Clinton is emerging as the likely next president even as she projects herself as the embodiment of what is stirring all that national anger.

Which brings us to another major element in the case against Hillary Clinton. She will give us, as many have suggested, Barack Obama’s third term. The country is deeply divided on the Obama presidency, and it’s appropriate that Americans should debate his legacy as his departure nears after White House eight years. But, whatever one may say about him, it can’t be denied that he failed to solve the country’s crisis of deadlock. When the country needed a new paradigm of governmental thinking to break the deadlock and move the country in a new direction, he doubled down on the stale old politics perpetuating the political stalemate of our time.

There is no reason to believe Hillary Clinton would break the deadlock. She represents the politics of old when the country desperately seeks something fresh, capable of scrambling up the old political fault lines and forging new political coalitions that can give propulsion to a struggling America. Hence, under her leadership, we likely will see the continuation of the current deadlock crisis for another four years. That’s a long time for that kind of crisis to fester, generating ever greater anger, frustration and civic tension.

[kscarbel2]

Trump: TPP Will Be Bigger, Worse Disaster Than NAFTA

Bloomberg  /  August 9, 2016

Trump speaks about his economic plan. He speaks at the Detroit Economic Club

Video - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-08-08/trump-tpp-will-be-bigger-worse-disaster-than-nafta

[kscarbel2]

BBC  /  August 9, 2016

An open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts has warned that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history.

The group, which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden, said Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president.

Many of the signatories had declined to sign a similar note in March.

In response, Trump said they were part of a "failed Washington elite" looking to hold on to power.

The open letter comes after a number of high-profile Republicans stepped forward to disown the property tycoon.

"He weakens US moral authority as the leader of the free world," the letter read.

"He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the US Constitution, US laws, and US institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."

"None of us will vote for Donald Trump," the letter states.

Trump said the names on the letter were "the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess".

"We thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place," he continued.

"They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold on to their power and it's time they are held accountable for their actions."

Also among those who signed the letter were:

• John Negroponte (a British-born American diplomat of Greek descent), the first director of the NSA and later deputy secretary of state;
• Robert Zoellick, who was also a former deputy secretary of state and former president of the World Bank;
• Two former secretaries of homeland security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff.

The letter echoed similar sentiment shared by some Republican national security officials in March, but the new additions came after Trump encouraged Russia to hack Clinton's email server.

Missing from the letter were former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

The letter was drafted by John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with edits from Bob Blackwill, a former George H.W. Bush White House adviser, and Eliot Cohen, also a former adviser to Rice.

Some of the latest letter's signatories plan to vote for Mr Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton while others will refuse to vote, but "all agree Trump is not qualified and would be dangerous," said Bellinger.

[RowdyRebel]

Even if Trump doesn't fix a damn thing wrong with this country, he won't screw it up half as bad as Clinton. All of these "never Trump" people need to remember that the next president will definitely pick one, and potentially select 2 or 3 others to sit on the Supreme Court, affecting decisions for the next 30+ years. The judges Trump has suggested are pretty darn good...IF he sticks to them...and even if he doesn't, they won't be half as bad as what we know to expect from Hillary.

This is yet another "lesser of two evils" election, and it would be tough to find a greater evil than what Hillary intends to do if allowed the opportunity.

Never Hillary.

[HeavyGunner]

This country WILL fold if Hillary gets in. We are trillions in debt, half our actual "citizens" and illegal aliens are on assistance and are encouraged by the current administration to use more and it's your right to use them to level the playing field with people hat actually work. We can't afford shitty forced medical care under obamacare, it's been proven that they passed a crummy bill that was not well thought out that is not working. The working class cannot take anymore freeloaders or other forced programs we have to pay for. We simply cannot work just to be able to exist.  Shooting for the moon is what used to set America apart from everywhere else and motivated many people when the sky was literally the limit to what you can/could achieve. Who's motivated to work harder when 40% of your check or more goes to taxes, hefty medical insurance etc etc?  I don't think the average person really comprehends how deep of shit we're in. I truly believe the US will fold, go bankrupt and really leave us in a very vulnerable state. Can you imagine Hillary negotiating with hostile countries to get us funds to start from scratch?  It's a scary election and we're in deep deep trouble

[41chevy]

16 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

BBC  /  August 9, 2016

(Donald Trump) "would be the most reckless president" in US history.

The group, which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden, said Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president.

"He weakens US moral authority as the leader of the free world," the letter read.

"He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the US Constitution, US laws, and US institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."

You take their main points and a single thought comes to mind, ignore Trumps name  they could be talking about Obama or Hillary.

Edited August 10, 2016 by 41chevy

[Underdog]

You take their main points and a single thought comes to mind, ignore Trumps name are they could be talking about Obama or Hillary.

One thing you can count on from liberals and Democrats, whatever they accuse their opponents of doing, they are usually guilty of it themselves. Smoke and mirrors... "LOOK OVER HERE !!! DON'T LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING!!!

[kscarbel2]

16 hours ago, kscarbel2 said:

BBC  /  August 9, 2016

An open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts has warned that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history.

The group, which includes the former CIA director Michael Hayden, said Trump "lacks the character, values and experience" to be president.

Many of the signatories had declined to sign a similar note in March.

In response, Trump said they were part of a "failed Washington elite" looking to hold on to power.

The open letter comes after a number of high-profile Republicans stepped forward to disown the property tycoon.

"He weakens US moral authority as the leader of the free world," the letter read.

"He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the US Constitution, US laws, and US institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary."

"None of us will vote for Donald Trump," the letter states.

Trump said the names on the letter were "the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess".

"We thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place," he continued.

"They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold on to their power and it's time they are held accountable for their actions."

Also among those who signed the letter were:

• John Negroponte (a British-born American diplomat of Greek descent), the first director of the NSA and later deputy secretary of state;
• Robert Zoellick, who was also a former deputy secretary of state and former president of the World Bank;
• Two former secretaries of homeland security, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff.

The letter echoed similar sentiment shared by some Republican national security officials in March, but the new additions came after Trump encouraged Russia to hack Clinton's email server.

Missing from the letter were former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.

The letter was drafted by John Bellinger, a former State Department legal adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with edits from Bob Blackwill, a former George H.W. Bush White House adviser, and Eliot Cohen, also a former adviser to Rice.

Some of the latest letter's signatories plan to vote for Mr Trump's Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton while others will refuse to vote, but "all agree Trump is not qualified and would be dangerous," said Bellinger.

My 2 cents:  It’s funny how this damning and discrediting news about Kissinger, and I’m not saying it isn’t true, is declassified at the same juncture that Kissinger refused to be a signatory of the anti-Trump letter (above).

Full of suspense, mystery and drama, the “elections show” is sure to win a Grammy this year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kissinger hindered US effort to end mass killings in Argentina, according to files

The Guardian  /  August 9, 2016

Newly declassified files show the former secretary of state jeopardized efforts to crackdown on bloodshed by Argentina’s 1976-83 military dictatorship

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger jeopardized US efforts to stop mass killings by Argentina’s 1976-83 military dictatorship by congratulating the country’s military leaders for “wiping out” terrorism, according to a large trove of newly declassified state department files.

The documents, which were released on Monday night, show how Kissinger’s close relationship to Argentina’s military rulers hindered Jimmy Carter’s carrot-and-stick attempts to influence the regime during his 1977-81 presidency.

Carter officials were infuriated by Kissinger’s attendance at the 1978 World Cup in Argentina as the personal guest of dictator Jorge Videla, the general who oversaw the forced disappearance of up to 30,000 opponents of the military regime.

At the time, Kissinger was no longer in office after Carter defeated Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential election, but the documents reveal that US diplomats feared his praise for Argentina’s crackdown would encourage further bloodshed.

During his years as secretary of state, Kissinger had encouraged Argentina’s military junta to stamp out “terrorism”. In contrast, Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, made human rights a cornerstone of US foreign policy and were exerting pressure on Argentina’s military regime by withholding loans and sales of military equipment.

The newly declassifed cables show how Kissinger lauded Videla and other officials for their methods during his 1978 visit. “His praise for the Argentine government in its campaign against terrorism was the music the Argentine government was longing to hear,” says one of the documents.

Another diplomatic cable describes how, during a lunch with Videla, “Kissinger applauded Argentina’s efforts in combatting terrorism” and lamented that “it was unfortunate many Americans thought Argentina was a soft drink. He said this indicated that Americans are not aware of Argentine history nor of its struggle against terrorism.”

Kissinger even held a private meeting with Videla without the presence of the US ambassador to Buenos Aires, Raúl Castro, at which human rights and Carter’s foreign policy were discussed. “Videla prearranged it so Kissinger and the interpreter would meet with him privately half an hour before ambassador’s arrival,” one cable shows.

In another off-the-record meeting with the Argentinian Council of International Relations (CARI) – a group of conservative and highly influential Argentinian diplomats – Kissinger went even further, stating that “in his opinion the government of Argentina had done an outstanding job in wiping out terrorist forces”.

US ambassador Castro was shocked by Kissinger’s behaviour.

“My only concern is that Kissinger’s repeated high praise for Argentina’s action in wiping out terrorism ... may have gone to some considerable extent to his hosts’ heads,” the ambassador said in a lengthy cable to Washington.

“There is some danger that Argentines may use Kissinger’s laudatory statements as justification for hardening their human rights stance.”

Officials in Washington were furious. “[Kissinger’s] praise for the Argentine government in its campaign against terrorism was the music the Argentine government was longing to hear,” National Security Council official Robert Pastor wrote in a summary of Kissinger’s visit for Brzezinski. “What concerns me is his apparent desire to speak out against the Carter administration’s human rights policy,” Pastor fumed.

The newly released documents show that at one stage the Carter administration considered asking Pope John Paul II to intervene with Argentina’s military rulers.

A lengthy September 1980 cable marked “confidential” said that “the Church and the Pope have far more influence here than the US government and can be the most effective advocates of a full return to the rule of law”.

The cable – to US officials in Rome – says that “the Vatican may be the most effective advocate” before the Argentinian authorities, for whom “disappearance is still the standard tactic”.

The documents do not reveal if US diplomats did approach the Vatican, and the exact role of the Catholic church during those dark years remains an issue of debate: many reports indicate that priests were present during torture sessions. It was not until 2000 that the Argentinian Catholic church finally apologized for turning a blind eye to the repression.

The cables also give a frightening picture of the delusional antisemitism prevalent among Argentina’s generals, who were convinced that Brzezinski (a Polish-born Catholic) headed a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against Argentina.

To fight against this perceived conspiracy, the regime kidnapped the successful Jewish newspaper publisher Jacobo Timerman. Thanks largely to strong pressure from the Carter administration, Timerman was finally freed, although he was stripped of his Argentinian citizenship and expelled to Israel, where he spoke to US diplomats about the torture he had endured.

“Timerman said that the main focus of questioning during his imprisonment was his role as the Argentine ‘leader’ of an alleged world Zionist conspiracy,” states a declassified cable from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

Another report from Pastor to Brzezinski – headed “You don’t look Jewish” – relates incredulously how Timerman told US diplomats that “much of the Argentine military believe that a world-wide Jewish conspiracy is at the heart of the terrorist problem in Argentina, and that you (Brzezinski) are at the head of that conspiracy”.

When Timerman pointed out to his captors that Brzezinski was Catholic, they told him it was simply a ruse, Pastor wrote. “They ‘know’ you are Jewish because they studied the New York City phone book and found that a number of ‘Brzezinskis’ had Jewish first names!” he wrote.

The documents’ release – which had been announced by Barack Obama during a visit to Argentina in March – was welcomed by Argentina’s human rights secretary, Claudio Avruj.

“We’re surprised by the speed with which the US has delivered this documentation,” he told reporters. “We thought it would take longer.”

[kscarbel2]

On 7/26/2016 at 11:05 AM, grayhair said:

If you want direct International flights, that knocks it down to DFW or IAH (Houston.)  There are people that love Houston but I don't recommend it.  More traffic, more crime too.  If you were to relocate to DFW suburbs of Grapevine, South Lake, Flower Mound, area you'd be 10 or 15 minutes from DFW.  Lots of non-stops to Europe, S. America, and Asia plus of course nearly anywhere in U.S. and Mexico and Canada.  Some of my buddies don't even bother to drive to the airport, just take a cab for $15.  Zip through TSA Pre and away you go.  And crime in those suburbs is extremely low to almost nonexistent.  C'mon down!  

I see that Grapevine, South Lake and Flower Mound have overall crime rates of 15 per 1,000 residents. That's quite low.

[41chevy]

So 70 +  Republicans are sending a letter to pull funding and support for Trump and only concentrate on the Senate and House seats. In reality giving the Presidency to Hillary with no Republican candidate for president. Apparently the wishes of the people mean nothing when it comes to preserving the status quo.

[HeavyGunner]

1 hour ago, 41chevy said:

So 70 +  Republicans are sending a letter to pull funding and support for Trump and only concentrate on the Senate and House seats. In reality giving the Presidency to Hillary with no Republican candidate for president. Apparently the wishes of the people mean nothing when it comes to preserving the status quo.

Yeah they're worried Trump is going to call them out on their bs and they may not get re-elected to their cush job while taking kickbacks and free medical care and retirement. 

[kscarbel2]

That Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the nominees for (drum roll here)...................President of the United States, is final proof that it's all merely a charade.

There is no way that the aristocracy, the powerful and very sharp people intensely focused every day on maintaining and increasing their wealth, would allow either of these dysfunctional people to run USA Inc.

Would they allow them to hold the silver briefcase with the red button? NOT.

As it was in the beginning with the founding fathers, the elite quietly push the buttons and pull the levers, while letting the masses "think" that they participate in the process.

Look at it this way. If what you see is "actually" what we have, for example a dysfunctional congress of mostly 70+ year old men that can't make (good and timely) decisions, well............then the writing is on the wall.

[mowerman]

I think they're all paranoid Republicans and Democrats because trump is gonna cut and eliminate most if their high paychecks right off the bat...lotta them are gonna take a big layout or get cut off completely... Bob

 

[mowerman]

They're all safe with Hillary business as usual Dems and rep suck the system and do nothing trump will end all those high paycheck s nobody wants that.

 

[david wild]

We should all go on welfare, then let them see who will pay the bills