Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200445)

Your beliefs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200429)

People have been spewing stuff for decades. You probably have been spewing stuff for decades. You're the one who brought up communism and how Republicans (and Independents) had a big jump of approval for Putin as if that was supposed to be related to socialist communism and that it's the "Republicans keep saying Democrats what the United states to a communist socialist nation?"

So I pointed out, that actual Communists, the CPUSA, are aligned with Democrats, and absolutely against the Republicans and especially want to get rid of Trump who is a danger to their goal of instituting Progressive agendas.

Since you equate approval of Putin to communism to the U.S. becoming a Communist Socialist nation makes one wonder why you lefties keep thinking that Trump supposedly liking Putin is a danger to U.S. security if we're never going to be socialist or communist.

At any rate, what I have been spewing is that through the Democrat Party, as it is progressing, we will become a totally Progressive State, not a Constitutional Republic. Granted, I consider Progressivism a socialistic ideology in that the government under that ideology is not limited. But, of course, that is just spewing.

So, your vision being the standard, Progressivism is perfectly fine, just another valid interpretation of the Constitution to suit the changing times, and we will continue on as a free people whose unalienable rights will be protected by Progressive "interpretation." And, of course, since there may only be a quarter million Communists in the country who are devoted to changing our system of government, they could not possibly have anything to do with the country wide mostly peaceful riots and influencing the Democrat party, while working with them and through them, into an agenda that is strikingly, if not completely, similar to theirs.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200433)

How is he undermining the Constitution?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200437)

The national debt, before Trump, was already on the path to trillion dollar deficits forever--and that was with reduced military spending and a sequester on military spending. The military, at a time when it was claimed by the military command, if I remember correctly, that it would be difficult to maintain a war on two fronts, and Iran, radical Islamists, Russia, North Korea, and especially China, were dangerously expanding and high tech modernizing their militaries. It was the military command, not Trump, who decided on how much the military needed.

I don't know if Eisenhower foresaw the 20 trillion dollar deficit that Trump had "inherited." Or if he foresaw an economy crippling pandemic that required several trillion dollars to finance.

And yeah it was the military leadership and military hawks in Congress and the administration that called for the 700 billion dollar budget. McCain asked for Congress and the White House to work "expeditiously" on a budget agreement that secures the increased $700 billion for the military following years of spending cuts. He also said "After nearly a decade of asking our troops to do more with less, we hope this agreement will allow the military to begin to rebuild and ensure that process can continue into next year," and Jim Mattis pressed for a sweeping budget deal that would realize a long-sought Pentagon goal of lifting the caps on defense spending under the sequester process.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200452)

The Armed services statement, they had to make one because of the Stable Genius
“I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending our troops to combat when it’s required for national security and a last resort...We take this very, very seriously."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200459)

So then, the Iraq wars and the Viet Nam war were fully justified and folks should quit bitching about them.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200461)

The only people I've heard trying to make them into ammunition are Trumplicans

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200474)

I've heard a lot of people on the right and left say that those wars were not justified, were even illegal, were America interfering in other people's business, America trying to nation build, the ClA and the pentagon lying or justifying their requests for money, immoral, and all kind of street protests against them, as well as condemnations from our major medias as well as from politicians, especially from the left.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200459)

So then, the Iraq wars and the Viet Nam war were fully justified and folks should quit bitching about them.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200477)

Old news

History is always old news. I responded to your "The Armed services statement, they had to make one because of the Stable Genius“ 'I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending our troops to combat when it’s required for national security and a last resort...We take this very, very seriously.' " History shows your Armed Services statement is highly questionable and that there is some merit to what Trump said.


Biden's son served in Iraq

What's that got to do with the veracity of your Armed Services statement. Biden's other son was discharged from the navy because of his cocaine use. Is that significant of Biden's character or view of the military, or qualification to be President?

My only real concern about Biden is that as President he will be a Progressive tool.

Tweety dodged the draft in Vietnam, though he had his own personal war against STDs while dating and can't remember what foot his bone spurs were on.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1200480)

The comment was made about the generals, not the POTUS. You know the "f*ck*ng generals are a bunch of pussies. They care more about their alliances than they do about trade deals.”

Those guys.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1200489)

We really could use another whistleblower right about now.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200496)

Ask and you shall receive
Breaking —> Senior Department of Homeland Security official alleges in whistleblower complaint that he was told to stop providing intelligence analysis on threat of Russian interference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1200449)

Justice dept seeks to defend Trump defamation case

Not sure if this fits. But its way away from past practice and 1 step closer to the justice department completely under his control

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200515)

No, no more than his lies about the Mueller report
Tweety has to provide a DNA sample by the fifteenth of this month.
Odd that you wouldn’t be willing to do that and prove your innocence, what he’s doing is like taking the Fifth.
The Carroll case was at a delicate moment for the president when the Justice Department intervened. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers had tried to put the lawsuit on hold, but a judge ruled last month that it could proceed. That ruling had also seemingly cleared a path for Ms. Carroll’s legal team to pursue its request that Mr. Trump provide a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she was wearing at the time of the encounter.
The department’s motion to take control of the case came as Mr. Trump’s private lawyers were facing a deadline to appeal an order compelling a deposition and a DNA sample.

In portraying the Justice Department’s intervention this week as unremarkable, Mr. Barr did not explain why the administration had waited more than 10 months to step in.

The move to portray the case as centering on an official action by Mr. Trump has drawn scrutiny. A federal judge reviewing whether the intervention was legitimate will have to decide whether Mr. Trump was acting within the scope of his employment as president when he disparaged Ms. Carroll
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200521)

Trying to construe the president’s self-serving words about a purely private matter as official acts conflates the person of the president with the nation’s government. That is what occurs in dictatorships, not democracies. President Bill Clinton paid for his own lawyers when he defended himself in the Paula Jones lawsuit. The Justice Department should not now be helping Mr. Trump wriggle out of responsibility for his own words in a private matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1200489)

We really could use another whistleblower right about now.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200496)

Ask and you shall receive
Breaking —> Senior Department of Homeland Security official alleges in whistleblower complaint that he was told to stop providing intelligence analysis on threat of Russian interference.
[

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1200499)

Ahhh . . . another whistleblower complaint released by Adam Schiff. Probably good to wait before passing judgment.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1200805)

Imagine: Had he been truthful & honestly leveled with the American public, framed a total lockdown, social distancing & mandatory mask wearing as patriotic, he could have crushed the pandemic, saved countless lives & would now be cruising to an historic landslide.