- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
Impeachment
- Thread starter Mikkel
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
- Messages
- 995
- Reaction score
- 1,296
Here are some inconvenient facts regarding Trumps economic policy decisions. In the trade wars US farmers got crushed and likely will take years to recover. Farm foreclosures and bankruptcy rates are highest levels since the Great Recession. China has gone elsewhere for its soy and corn and this places a burden on US farmers to get back into that market. The recent phase 1 deal signed with China has no teeth and China has made similar promises in the past without following through. US consumers are paying for Trump’s tariffs as the cost is being passed on to the “common man”. The US manufacturing index hit its lowest point in a decade last week, a result of the trade war and signaling a significant downturn may be coming. But hey, you keep telling yourself there is so much “winning“ you are getting tired of the endless “winning.”
Amid Trump Tariffs, Farm Bankruptcies And Suicides Rise
Farmers have seen their incomes slashed due to factors outside of their control. However, tariffs imposed by Trump and China’s retaliation are making their situation even direr. This has led to a rise in farm bankruptcies and multiple people warning about the increased stress leading to suicides.www.google.com
You're just upset at the level of winning, fake news from Libs! MAGA 😀🤣
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
Here are some inconvenient facts regarding Trumps economic policy decisions. In the trade wars US farmers got crushed and likely will take years to recover. Farm foreclosures and bankruptcy rates are highest levels since the Great Recession. China has gone elsewhere for its soy and corn and this places a burden on US farmers to get back into that market. The recent phase 1 deal signed with China has no teeth and China has made similar promises in the past without following through. US consumers are paying for Trump’s tariffs as the cost is being passed on to the “common man”. The US manufacturing index hit its lowest point in a decade last week, a result of the trade war and signaling a significant downturn may be coming. But hey, you keep telling yourself there is so much “winning“ you are getting tired of the endless “winning.”
Amid Trump Tariffs, Farm Bankruptcies And Suicides Rise
Farmers have seen their incomes slashed due to factors outside of their control. However, tariffs imposed by Trump and China’s retaliation are making their situation even direr. This has led to a rise in farm bankruptcies and multiple people warning about the increased stress leading to suicides.
these liberal news outlets can spin anything thing the way they want but people are going to vote based on how they are doing individually. You can’t twist unemployment facts, wage increases, and money people see in their 401ks.
I have had some deep discussions with Trump voting family members and others without mocking them. But after pointing out the countless ways in which Trump really isn’t making sound policy decisions based on facts and analysis, what are you left with when someone just starts raging on you?
I don’t call the pro life folks or the gun voters *****s. They have deeply held beliefs, some of which are based in reality and some of which are not. The folks I think are *****s are the ones on Medicare or Medicaid in rural areas who perhaps work/worked in agricultural or extractive industries and somehow think a narcissist billionaire is going to change global market forces to improve their lives. Those are the seriously deluded ones.
Global market forces? You mean the intentional transfer of American wealth into overseas corporations and other countries for the enrichment of the rich elite at the expense of American manufacturing workers?
You're saying you want MORE overseas outsourcing of manufacturing jobs?
The “common man” doesn’t have a 401k and doesn’t give a **** about the market. Just 35% of eligible Americans are invested in a 401K.
Again you need to do your homework. Wages have been rising since the late 1990s and have risen at a slower rate under Trump than Obama. Wages, when accounting for inflation are really stagnant and wage purchasing power peaked in the 1970s. Facts are inconvenient and many Trump claims are lies. Are Wages Rising or Flat?
Again I think you need to do some homework. You seem to have such a poor grasp of basic economics it’s really astounding. How is Trump or anyone going to stop a multinational corporation from moving jobs to a country where employment costs are lower? There are only a few ways to get corporations to choose the US over a cheaper country, drive US worker wages down or place protective tariffs on those products, both of which are not sustainable and bad for our overall economy. Another possible way to attract business is to lower regulatory pressure but again that doesn’t benefit the workers when their safety and health are then at risk. Many of those regulations were put in place to protect workers after decades of dangerous conditions, think mining or the textile trade back in the early 1900s. So are you saying “it’s ok to remove safety regulations so John can have a job, doesn’t matter John may die at that job?”
Let’s look at an area Trump has attempted to sway the economic forces, coal. It is one of the costliest extractive energy sources and Trump is attempting to tip the scale but coal’s downturn is largely the result improved drilling techniques resulting in the glut in natural gas. Gas fired power plants are easier to maintain, more efficient and cleaner. Those are market forces that are the result of innovation and you can’t simply will those jobs back in to existence.
Let’s look at another shining example of a Trump con on the economy. Foxconn was supposed to open a massive plant in Wisconsin, create 14,000 jobs and invest in several “innovation centers” in exchange for tax breaks. Well, those jobs haven’t materialized, the plant remains partially built, the “innovation centers” are nothing mote than a few offices housing Foxconn management and the company meanwhile still enjoys the tax breaks.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
36,692 viewsJul 10, 2019, 05:16pm
In Trump's First 30 Months, Manufacturing Up By 314,000 Jobs Over Obama; Which States Are Hot? From Forbes.
the bottom line is Trump is killing it over Obama. The stock market goes up for a reason. It’s all good news every time a corporation reports their numbers. Like I said The numbers don’t lie despite what the mainstream media feed you. Look at the numbers and don’t be biased.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
My state funded pension grew by 20% this year. That has never happened before. Every state employee is going to see that and I bet it will influence who they vote for in my swing state this coming election.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,890
- Reaction score
- 24,429
Not to mention 401k balances are pathetically low. The vast majority of those who have 401k’s are not materially affected by stock market gains.
For a 60yo, the median 401k balance is $62k and the average balance is $195k.
The Average 401(k) Balance by Age
How much money people have put away for retirement naturally varies by age. See how your savings stack up.
Last edited:
I’ll break it down so even the dumbest mother****er still breathing can understand:
The GOP hates Trump, but with him in power they are able to stack and stack and keep stacking the courts with conservative judges. They pretend to support him and defend him because they can keep stacking the courts.
That’s all it is.
If having a conservative in the White House didn’t confer this power trump would have been epstein’d By now
The GOP hates Trump, but with him in power they are able to stack and stack and keep stacking the courts with conservative judges. They pretend to support him and defend him because they can keep stacking the courts.
That’s all it is.
If having a conservative in the White House didn’t confer this power trump would have been epstein’d By now
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
I wonder what percent of people who have 401ks vote in an election versus those who don’t. Irregardless when you have a strong economy and people are working that all but guarantees a re-election for the president. So I would get used to Trump being in office.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
So you don’t think it was the massive tax break that Trump gave corporations, deregulation, the list goes on and on, but it’s not just conservative judges although I will admit that is a good thing.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
Trump vs Sanders. Pure Capitalism vs extreme Socialism. Regardless of which side you are on there has never been a more polarizing election than Trump vs Sanders.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
D
deleted126335
D
deleted162650
D
deleted162650
I must have this bumper sticker.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 360
I think pure capitalism would actually be Rand Paul v Sanders, but nobody voted for the logical sensible quiet guy. I still think Trump is dramatically less damaging than the socialists.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 509
Is it integrity to vote for a nice person who’s policies you disagree with, and think are hurtful to America as a whole? Just so you can avoid electing a person you don’t agree with on a personal level?
If im anti-abortion, and pro-free speech and pro-any number of other policies that I think are way better for myself, my family, and the rest of the country, do I lose my integrity by voting for someone who is a bad personally on a moral level? I feel I’d be losing my integrity voting for someone just cause I like them individually, all the while feeling that their policies would be hurtful for the country.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
Exhibit B.
It's interesting to me that people keep perseverating on economic issues and stock market gains as (supposedly) the primary reason people voted for Trump. They even acknowledge that Trump has probably been a net harm to the typical working class flyover red state voter, and that these people don't have much money in the market in the first place.
A huge percentage of Trump's support is on the back of his stance on abortion (ie judge appointments), religious "freedom", immigration, guns (judges again), LGBTQ issues (more judges), and foreign policy. While I think a lot of his 2016 voters were overly hopeful that he'd revive the coal industry, their misplaced hope wasn't just that.
But go on, spit on their integrity if it makes you feel superior. They hear your contempt and it just convinces them they're on the right side.
Exhibit B.
While I agree with some of what you wrote I have a really hard time wrapping my head around evangelical support for a womanizing corrupt political flip-flopper who literally was caught on tape bragging about trying to sexually assault women. Anyone with a daughter, mother, sister or any female presence in their lives should be appalled by this behavior. A politician whose administration has literally separated families and lost children in a flawed immigration system of their own design. Say what you want about illegal immigration but I think the Bible is pretty clear on how to treat your fellow man, regardless of country of origin. Integrity is standing for what you believe in during tough times. I have no respect for the evangelicals who hold their nose, suspend their integrity and vote for someone because it’s politically in their favor.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 634
- Reaction score
- 1,853
I’m sorry but if you make a deal with the devil then you have no integrity. There are many other conservative candidates they could have chosen from to fulfill their agenda. His most fervent supporters and GOP politicians choose to turn a blind eye to his misdeeds and will wash their hands of him once he’s out of office. That’s not integrity.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 509
You guys just don’t get it. Most of us were not responsible for him getting the nomination in 2015. But once he was the choice against Hilary, and now against whatever leftist gets picked, the choice is clear. I’d be left with much less integrity voting for someone like Warren or Bernie than I would be holding my nose and sticking with Trump, despite all his flaws.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
As Chris Rock once said, I'm not saying it's right but I understand. They want Roe v Wade overturned and Hillary Clinton wasn't going to appoint Justices to do it. Neither will Sanders or Warren or Biden.
I don't think the evangelicals are looking any further than abortion and they really believe it's either "Democrat and more dead babies" vs "Trump and fewer dead babies" ...
They voted for him and put up with him and will vote for him again to tilt the Supreme Court. They made a deal with the devil and the devil doesn't cheat, he gives you exactly what you bargained for. They already got the first installment of their due with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The deal hasn't changed. They're getting the courts stacked and it may very well literally cost the GOP its soul for a generation+ to come.
Anyway. My point is simply that the Democrats and Trump are fighting over the same thin slice of undecided voters, and insulting them is a curious recruitment strategy. It's bold. I'm just not sure if it's going to work out, Cotton.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
I don't disagree. Not entirely, anyway.
Could any of the other conservative candidates beaten Clinton? Probably not.
And despite the technically true fact that the GOP could nominate someone other than Trump this year, obviously that won't happen. So again. They're left with choosing Trump or a Democrat.
If Trump wins another term, SCOTUS goes 6-3 conservative. (It might go 6-3 even if he doesn't, given RBG's health.) It might even go 7-2 if Breyer retires or dies. Thomas or Alito or both might retire and be replaced. If Trump wins another term, SCOTUS will be profoundly conservative for at least a decade, probably two. Not to mention all of the other federal judges he's appointed. The 9th Circuit used to be so heavily liberal that any case it heard was essentially a foregone conclusion. It's evenly split now. If Trump wins another term, even the 9th Circuit would be conservative. That's what's at stake here.
You can talk about integrity while the GOP talks about winning, and you can both be correct.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 634
- Reaction score
- 1,853
Clinton was such a flawed candidate, I think other conservatives could have beat her and maybe even taken the popular vote. I know a lot of Republicans who simply sat out the election because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump.
But you are entirely correct on the rest. As much as I disagree with some of the conservative viewpoints when it comes to social issues, I need to give them credit for knowing what’s important to them and knowing how keep some sort of power. They will continue to have a strong voice for many years in a country where their values are quickly becoming the minority.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
I'd probably vote Democrat 80% of the time if not for the party's contempt for the 2nd Amendment. I could overlook or compromise on most other issues with them, but I have a hard line right there. Libertarians and Democrats are natural allies in the social dimension. The events in Virginia right now have more or less sealed it, I can't ever vote for a Democrat again. I just have to trust that the other issues will work themselves out.
As a CA resident the fact that the state is safely Democratic affords me the luxury of voting 3rd party. I don't have to make any hard choices. If I was still a Virginia voter I don't know if I could be so philosophical and detached from judgment.
What part of the events in Virginia have “sealed it” for you? The laws being proposed in Virginia are not that outrageous. Is it expanded background checks? The one handgun per month law? The red flag law? I am always astounded by gun voters who want literally no regulations but are perfectly fine regulating other aspects of other people’s lives.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
The SCOTUS remain the best chance we have of maintaining our rights under the U.S. Constitution. Once a Democrat Socialist is elected President along with a Socialist Congress who will protect us from big government intrusion into all aspects of our lives? The only thing standing in the way from a socialist/communist USA as envisioned by Sanders/OAC is the U.S. Constitution. The only branch upholding that piece of paper is a conservative Court.
For example, imagine the second amendment under a liberal SCOTUS and a Socialist govt. What about healthcare? Would you even have the "right" to buy private insurance? What about taxes and confiscation of wealth? Who would protect the wealthy? Certainly not a liberal court. I could go on and on but the truth is that third branch of govt. remains a vital force against socialism. The type of govt. over-reach the founders never wanted for the coalition of states known as the USA.
Democrats see the govt. as the solution to our problems when in fact government is the main source of the problems. Sanders/AOC would wreck the economy and ruin the lives of millions for their view of how the world should be. A libertarian should want less govt. intrusion into our lives. Let the citizens figure things out for themselves. We have local government and state governments for that very reason. The Federal govt. should be kept small as the founders intended with a minimal footprint on our daily lives. Sanders/AOC is the epitome of a boot over our faces snuffing out all our oxygen.
Last edited:
I think the term “socialism” gets thrown around way to often. You can have government policies that benefit the vast majority of people without turning the country into a communist country. The vast majority want healthcare fixed. The vast majority want protections against rampant capitalism. Hell, even Ray Dalio (hedge fund billionaire) says capitalism is broken and is heading toward a disaster unless there is intervention. Guess who they will confiscate wealth from when they come? Here is a hint, Mr Dalio will be safe but those in the upper middle class will be punished.
May I point out that while the SCOTUS has protected the Second Amendment in recent years in recent years they have eroded the right to class action lawsuits and strengthened corporate power. They have chipped away at due process by their decision on forced arbitration clauses. They have allowed unlimited corporate buying of our political process through decisions like Citizens United and McDonnell. The conservative wing will likely rule against the government when they rule on the Bridgegate Scandal. But hey, you keep telling yourself those conservative justices have the common man in mind.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
The USA has never been more "socialist" than today. In my lifetime I have seen even conservatives gradually give in to the liberals by making deals. I do not see the USA the way you do. There is a limit to how much the govt. should do for its citizens. Anything that discourages work is not the path to success for a nation. Many of the socialist European nations have realized the limits of govt. intervention and see the stagnant growth that comes from it.
We can learn from them rather than repeat their mistakes (see Sweden for example).
The conservative justices preserve the US Constitution as written. The liberal justices make up the rule of law as it suites them. The greatest society ever created on this planet must preserve the document which got us here. Once the Court becomes liberal the US Constitution becomes just a piece of paper written by white racists hundreds of years ago. All laws are then open to interpretation by the Court based on the needs of society. The Court becomes another branch of the legislature; an unelected branch of government deciding on laws based on their own personal views.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,759
I saw this mentioned recently and i got confused. Can the Senate dismiss the impeachment articles without a vote? How does that work?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
Imagine in 10 years a liberal/socialist govt. passes a law that states "All physicians in the USA must accept and treat Medicare/Medicaid patients in order to retain state licensure." President AOC has set your reimbursement rate of $10 per unit. 90% of all patients will now "pay you" about $100 per case. The ASA is now in litigation against the law. Who do you want on the SCOTUS? Does your view of socialism change at that point? Can the govt. force you to provide labor at "slave wages" for the good of the nation?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
No. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to call for a vote for dismissal. if 51 senators agree then the vote is taken and Trump is off the hook.
Graham: Immediate dismissal of impeachment articles ‘dead for practical purposes’
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) conceded Sunday that the House-passed articles of impeachment against President Trump would not be dismissed without a trial in the Senat…
thehill.com
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
It starts with these regulations which won’t work, next it’s assault rifles which won’t work, then it’s semiautomatic hand guns. Won’t work how about semiautomatic rifles then shotguns then all firearms. One candidate already wanted assault rifles taken away. Where I come from if you try to take these guns from people I bet people will die in the process.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
It's the complete ban of and pending confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms that I object to most, along with all legally owned suporessors. See house bills 962 and 16. 962 may end up with grandfathering for current owners, which is unacceptable. I'm not going to agree to trade away my kids' rights just so I can keep my own.
The background check law I'm OK with. It won't do any good but it's not too egregious.
One purchase per month is a minor thing, but it's stupid. A person who has one gun does not become magically more dangerous or a criminal because he can buy another now instead of in 30 days.
Red flag laws represent a major change to an old and critically important concept - due process. I'm not convinced they aren't ripe for abuse.
Completely apart from the above, I see no reason why I should agree to give up any of my rights or those of my descendants based on emotional, fact deficient arguments. None of these laws will have a positive effect on violent crime. Democrats talk about "compromise" but what are we compromising on? What are they conceding? National reciprocity? Repeal of the NFA or Hughes Amendment? Improvement of FOPA so I can legally transport a competition rifle through NY as I drive from Virginia to Vermont for a match? No. You offer me nothing. There's nothing for me to compromise about. All I can do is resist.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 26,366
Despite my sympathy for the liberal Justices' dissents in those decisions, e.g. Citizens United, I really can't find fault with the logic in the conservative majority opinions. And that's a problem. The liberal wing has a habit of ruling based on what they think the law and Constitution should say, rather than what it actually does say.
There's probably no better example of this than Roe v Wade. I'm very strongly pro abortion rights, but Roe v Wade was a bad decision, just an absurdly ridiculous invocation of the 14th Amendment.
And the problem with cheering Constitutionally absurd decisions that happen to have effects I like (Roe v Wade) is that the door is wide open to Constitutionally absurd decisions that harm me. I'd rather have conservative Justices that rule on Constitutional merits (even if the result is Citizens United) than liberal Justices who mold opinions based on their feels.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,313
- Reaction score
- 20,116
Gimme a break, man. Both conservative and liberal courts make logical leaps and spin (sometimes wild) interpretations of a 200+ year old document, as evidenced by the fact that their respective rulings somehow inevitably end up being exactly what you would've expected them to be before the case even began.
I'm not a legal scholar, but in the case of Citizens, a conservative court had to overrule not one but two prior precedents and interpret the association clause of the 1A in a very generous way in which I'm sure our founders would never have envisioned. (multibillion dollar global corporations vis a vis 25 protesters in front of the county courthouse)
D
deleted941485
Not a trump fan in the lease but I honestly can’t see myself pulling for a Democrat. Every time you hear them speak it’s like opening up a copy of The Daily Worker.
Corporate capitalism vs democratic socialism
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 360
Every expansion of registration or restriction of access to arms is an infringement. I'm sure you don't feel that way, but the 2nd ammendment doesn't say "can be reasonably infringed," or is "subject to common sense gun control." It says "shall not be infringed." It's perfectly ok to not like that, but if you want to change it you need an ammendment.
Citizens United was a stretching and interpretation of law that has its basis in the notions that money is equivalent to speech and that corporations have equal rights regardless of the fact they have, in most cases, limitless resources that the individual doesn’t possess. It has allowed for the further corruption and degradation of our political process.
Again, the government finds it acceptable to regulate the sales of explosives, tanks and other ordinance. What is so egregious about other restrictions? By your flawed logic the Constitution doesn’t define arms and I would venture to guess the Framers would probably argue a well regulated militia would include cannons. Why can’t I own mortars or grenades?
You can, subject to NFA regulations.
You can own thermal weapons sights, night vision, and body armor without background checks.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2014
- Messages
- 3,967
- Reaction score
- 7,776
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,664
- Reaction score
- 9,755
WRONG: BLOOMBERG
You can't stop billionaires from spending their own money; The playing field has always been unequal with the rich and well connected (corporate donors) running for higher office.
Mike Bloomberg has spent a staggering $100 million on campaign ads in a month
His massive ad buys show both the power and limitations of his advertising blitz.
www.vox.com
I don't agree that money buys an election but it sure helps. Bloomberg won't be President no matter how much he spends.
D
deleted126335
WRONG: BLOOMBERG
You can't stop billionaires from spending their own money; The playing field has always been unequal with the rich and well connected (corporate donors) running for higher office.
Mike Bloomberg has spent a staggering $100 million on campaign ads in a month
His massive ad buys show both the power and limitations of his advertising blitz.
I don't agree that money buys an election but it sure helps. Bloomberg won't be President no matter how much he spends.
When you try to convert money to political power is the issue.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
- Messages
- 792
- Reaction score
- 1,563
I honestly think you need to reevaluate which cohort is the "small minority" because I believe you are seriously misjudging the 46% that voted for him and the 40% that approve of him. Is it possible that perhaps your circle or other conservatives and/or libertarians you know tend to be more educated, reasoned, and/or affluent than the majority core of Trump's base, and thus you are projecting your perception that the "real" majority of Trump voters don't actually like him that much and are voting for him instead for X, Y, or Z reason?
e:
I would also point out that the left is painfully aware of the things that you state never seem to occur to them. Obama's most famous foot in mouth moment is when he was caught hot mic'ed with that quote about flyover people clinging to guns and religion etc
That wasn't a hot mic moment. It was a portion of an actual speech during a fundraiser back in 2008 when candidate Obama was a Senator. It was actually first reported on by a reporter from HuffPo who was an Obama supporter and sat on it for a while, conflicted on what to do with the story.
You forgot these gems from when Obama was POTUS and had real power:
1) “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” That one, and the fundamental lie behind it, was probably the biggest factor in the 2010 Red Wave. Far more significant than the clinger comment that you reference.
2) Obama telling Medvedev to let Putin know that he will have more flexibility on missile defense after the 2012 election. Now, that one was caught on hot mic.
3) Obama referring to the Islamic State as “JV“ - a year later their flag was flying across much of Iraq and Syria while displacing millions...not to mention the ISIS-inspired attacks in the US and Europe. Not a hot mic, just Obama being incompetent.
4) “I think it’s important for us to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.” Obama lying about Operation Fast and Furious where Eric Holder’s DOJ ran a prospective observational trial of what happens when homicidal sociopaths are allowed to buy illegal guns without government interference.
I could go on...
Last edited:
- Status