All you did Jim with your rant was prove you have no ethics . or integrity. seeing you think neither is a requirement as long as you Get what you want from an elected Official this is the NEW GOP.


your ability to Rationalize support For Trump is what's wrong! it's a cult and that what cults do they Rationalize to convince themselves they Are the righteous

Just like How you rationalize Green attendance to a white supremacy meeting with "did she say anything racist" :faga:

Hilary Clinton married a serial predator of women. She lied to protect him (she said the "vast right wing conspiracy" was framing him). My favorite, she went on national TV and slut-shamed his victims, calling them "looney tunes narcissists". That's exactly what she said.

You voted for her.

What does that say about your ethics?

It's a "cult" to like generationally low unemployment, no involvement in foreign wars, tax cuts, cheap gasoline, lowest black unemployment ever, killing jihadists, criminal justice reform,, etc?

If that's a cult, I'm in the cult.

During Bill Clinton's 8 years. all the democrats said to ignore his personal shortcomings, and focus on his policy. I thought they were right. So that's what I did with Clinton, and that's what I do with Trump.

You judge democrats on their accomplishments, ignoring their lack of ethics. You judge republicans very differently. Because your only governing principle is praising democrats and bashing republicans. Your every post makes that crystal clear.

My posts make it clear that I can find good ideas and bad ideas on either side, I can praise or criticize either side.


"Green attendance to a white supremacy meeting"

It was an america first conference. If it was a Klan rally, just show me the evidence and I'll agree with you. I assume there's some reason why neither you nor Pete can support your claim that it was racist gathering.

I think Green is a lunatic and an embarrassment. But she's not a white supremacist just because you and Pete say so.

During Obama's 8 years, Al Sharpton met with him dozens of times on race policy. He's a proven bigot and hatemonger. That's not in dispute. But thats OK, and Marjorie Taylor Green is the problem. It's OK when Obama meets constantly with a known bigot.

Wwatever you say...

you know you are describing yourself ....right?

Pretty bad time to be a disastrously bad real estate developer with hundreds of millions in debt coming due and your primary source of laundered money currently banned from world banks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bill Barr ethics

His boss burns down a house. He defends his boss and says there was no fire at all. Gets his boss off. Writes a book admitting there was a fire and his boss started it.

What a Great American

Let's not forget that Bill Barr was as much responsible as Trump - if not more - for politicizing DOJ by misrepresenting the Mueller Report, trying to dismiss the Flynn indictment, overruling his line prosecutors by cutting in half the sentencing rec for Stone - the list goes on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps not living rent-free in your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump said at CPAC that he’s running in 2024.
You think he was kidding?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but you post 100 times more about a candidate than you do about the sitting president.

what did Trump
say, exactly? i hadn’t heard he announced he’s running.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://twitter.com/zeitgeistgb/stat...445642752?s=21

It’s obvious that with U.S. and world opinion firmly behind Ukraine, Trump, Fox, and MAGA sycophants are terrified that their words and actions (too many to list) facilitating Russia’s goals will come back to haunt them. Never forget — play every clip from now to November ad nauseum
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

for the 5th or 6th time, from where are guy drawing the conclusion that trump and foxnews are rooting for russia here?

if someone says “Putin is smart”, do you understand that’s not nearly the same thing as saying “I hope Putin wins in Ukraine”?

you’re saying that republicans are siding with russia. i’m curious what led you to that kooky conclusion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How did we ever go from:

“In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals,” Reagan said, “I urge you to beware [of] the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all, and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and, thereby, remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

To this:

“Hating [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has become the central purpose of America’s foreign policy. It’s the main thing that we talk about,” the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson said on Tuesday. “It might be worth asking yourself, since it is getting pretty serious: What is this really about? Why do I hate Putin so much? Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him?”

Interviewed on “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump described Mr. Putin as “smart” and “savvy.” Then on Wednesday night, as reports of Russian explosions across Ukraine rolled in, Mr. Trump repeated his admiration for the Russian leader. J.D. Vance, a Republican candidate for Senate in Ohio, said during a Feb. 19 podcast interview with Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former White House chief strategist, “We did not serve in the Marine Corps to go and fight Vladimir Putin because he didn’t believe in transgender rights, which is what the U.S. State Department is saying is a major problem with Russia.” Mr. Bannon, for his part, hailed Mr. Putin as “anti-woke” hours before Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

In 2018, the political commentator Pat Buchanan said that Mr. Putin and the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko were “standing up for traditional values against Western cultural elites.” He considered the Belarusian Ministry of Internal Affairs to have told a “moral truth” in asserting that same-sex relationships were “fake.”

A reminder that (just four days ago!) Laura Ingraham referred to Zelensky’s passionate plea for peace to the Russian people as a “pathetic display” from a “defeated man” while on the phone with Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia’s the last bastion of everything white and traditional values. And conservatives love them for their intolerance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

where do you get this lunacy from? which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

it was obama, not a republican, who mocked mitt romney for saying russia was a concern.

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup, Jim, your sarcasm is spot on. "Liberals" (not classical liberals) are the repressive tolerant ones. Critical Theorists (namely Marcuse) came up with this notion of "repressive tolerance." According to the Critical Theory that evolved from Neo-Marxist Post Modern philosophers, the policies, thoughts, and expressions from the "left" always lead to "liberation." Whereas those things from the "right" always lead to oppression, to tyranny.

So, according to this Critical Theory, only in a society that has been completely liberated, can all thoughts and expressions be tolerated and debated. And no such society has as yet been established. So, until it is, thoughts and expressions from the "right" must not be tolerated. Not allowed. Totally ignored, dismissed, suppressed, eradicated. Otherwise, if "non-liberal" thoughts are allowed any access to the society, it will eventually fall into despotism.

So, you see, Post Modern "libralism" is liberating--by definition. And "conservatism" is tyrannical.

Critical Theories began to catch hold in the colleges and universities in the 1960's and gradually grew in influence on campus culture through the 80's and 90's, and radicalized the Democrat Party through its transformation by the academically left leaning graduates of our academe. And, as well, this transformation has been achieved by such graduates who have gradually filtered into and dominated our various cultural, corporate, and media organizations. It is even beginning to create the same transformation in our various religious sects, especially Christian.

This transformation is on the cusp of fruition, possibly even becoming an irreversible status, or very difficult one to overcome.

You can see its fruits in our cancel culture, and in the suppression of "right wing" thoughts in social platforms and major internet outlets such as YouTube, and in the suppression of "right wing" speech on college campuses, and in the approval of leftist riots while cracking down and reproaching riots and demonstrations from the "right." And from concocted or imposed negative labels such as racist or white supremacist--especially in their repeated rather indiscriminate, even inaccurate, use in newscasts and various media.

Pete F is an obvious example of this Critical Theory repressive tolerance. He has no tolerance for ideas from the "right." If he can't successfully discredit them, he will ignore them, not actually respond to them, treat them as if they didn't exist by just irrelevantly responding with piling on more, or repetitions, of some anti-Trump or anti-Republican, or anti-"right" rhetoric.

wdmso often will also not respond to a question, but move on to some anti-"right" or anti-Republican, or anti-Trump remark. I doubt that he is consciously practicing Critical Theory. I think he is just doing what is expedient. I think Pete F is conscious of using an actual tactic, maybe even a Critical Theory tactic. I think he once tried to bring the theory into a discussion. And he certainly backs Critical Race Theory which is an offshoot branch of Critical Theory. And he expressed the conservatism always leads to oppression nonsense.

The tactic, whether conscious or not, is conveniently used by leftists on this forum. It certainly enables them to evade getting into serious discussion which could expose their radicalism, while they're painting "conservatives" as being the radicals. They refuse to answer the simplest of questions. They can't even say whether the U.S. states are necessary or not. That would be a good discussion as we are progressively heading into the states' critical loss of power to the Federal Government--which is the kind of power concentration the leftists like and want.

which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

They only want the white parts of Russia and a strongman leader and the no tolerance parts ! gays transgender , protesters , and minority’s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.

And the taking point parrot speaks lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who wants that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At the G20 Summit in Argentina in 2018, USA cancelled an official meeting with Putin as Vlad had just attacked Ukraine warships, but then Trump had surprise meeting w Putin with no WH aide or interpreter present. Just Donald and Melania and a 15 min chat. Wonder what they said??
from the Hill: ‘Trump was joined by his wife Melania Trump, but there was no note-taker or translator from the U.S. at the meeting. Putin was reportedly accompanied by a translator, with all four at a table.’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump probably insisted the Pooty was acting weak and wasting time and should hurry up and invade Ukraine.

Hey, remember when Obama expelled 35 Russian spies and took away two spy compounds because of 2016 election tampering, and then incoming Nat Sec Adviser Mike Flynn secretly called Russians to stay calm because they would fix it later, and then Trump got in and wanted to return the compounds?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton: “Trump Made It That Much Easier for Putin to Invade Ukraine.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember that Flynn was diplomatically and legally trying to calm a situation that Obama caused and how he was nefariously tricked into into a confession in order to remove him from the Trump administration because he knew too much.

Sour grapes Bolton tried to get back his lost mojo. Is he still relevant?

Why is that always the excuse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nefariously tricked into into a confession

Wow I am amazed how you have convinced yourself that’s what happened to a grown man and former General.

Ps not really amazed .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post!! Keep up the good work.

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton berated his former boss, President Donald Trump, over his lack of knowledge dealing with Russia during his presidency.

Bolton appeared on the far-right Newsmax network's Rob Schmitt Tonight disagreeing with the host's opinion that Trump had been hard on Russia while he was in office, saying Trump was not competent to be president.

When Schmitt said the Trump administration's approach was "pretty tough on Russia, in a lot of ways," Bolton disagreed. Bolton argued that Trump "didn't understand what he was doing" in regards to Russia.

"This is not really a policy argument," Bolton said. "This is really about Trump's lack of any significant historical knowledge, his lack of strategic thinking, and frankly, his lack of thinking about pretty much anything other than what benefitted Donald Trump."

Bolton went on to say the former president only made moves that would benefit himself and his own political purposes, not the country.

"Why was he concerned about Ukraine in the summer of 2019? Because he wanted that DNC server," Bolton added. "Why was he concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Because he was looking for an excuse to cover the reason he was refusing to send $250 million of security assistance to the Ukraine, and only when that finally blew up in his face."

Schmitt interrupted Bolton saying that Trump eventually did send Ukraine assistance and even sold them arms. Bolton became more frank, asserting the assistance was mandated by Congress and that Trump "made up the reasons" that he did it to apply pressure for his own motives.

"But in almost every case, the sanctions were imposed with Trump complaining about it and saying we were being too hard," Bolton said. "The fact is that he barely knew where Ukraine was. He once asked John Kelly, his second chief of staff, if Finland were a part of Russia. It's just not accurate to say that Trump's behavior somehow deterred the Russians."

Schmitt insisted that it was unfair to say that Trump made no intelligent moves against Russia during his presidency. In a speech Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Trump claimed the Ukraine invasion wouldn't have happened had he not lost the 2020 election, continuing to falsely say it was stolen from him.

Bolton continued to back up his thoughts on Trump, telling Schmitt he should have never been president to begin with.

"Trump was not fit to be president," Bolton said. "He was not competent to be president."

Newsweek reached out to Bolton for further comment.

What are we supposed to conclude from someone expressing personal opinions about someone else's competence and motivations? I don't see a competent, unbiased, critical analysis of Trump in this Bolton sketch of Trump. And resorting to what looks more like a smear rather than an analytical observation, raises, for me, a question about Bolton's motivation.

he seems a little bitter....remember when pete told us his book was going to bring down trump?