Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

The Obama pic is taken from a greater height but it is still very much like you are in the room with them as it is from a height between tha eyes of the people standing and those of the people sitting,

Jon,

Maybe if you (as viewer) are standing on a stairwell or something.

The times when nobody was allowed to stand taller than the king sure inverted with Obama in that pic. He's slumped down and the viewer is taller than anyone. Maybe that's because he was killing a Muslim and that irritated him.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

Maybe if you (as viewer) are standing on a stairwell or something.

The times when nobody was allowed to stand taller than the king sure inverted with Obama in that pic. He's slumped down and the viewer is taller than anyone. Maybe that's because he was killing a Muslim and that irritated him.

Michael

 

 

The viewer is below the people standing.

 

image.png.677f114e9a2e1476985e090a603508

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

The viewer is below the people standing.

Jon,

Now that I look more, the viewer is above some of the people standing (like the dudes straight back, and even then, the angle looks a bit weird if I focus only on them where they look level with the viewer, then focus on them together with the table where they look below) but is definitely below other standing people (like the dudes on the right). It looks like some of the people are standing on some kind of elevation and others not. 

For instance, there's an elbow to a cut off person on the right. Look at the distance between that elbow and the head of the white haired guy. To be justified by standing, the elbow person would have to be really tall, maybe close to seven feet tall, if he was standing on the same level as the chair is on.

See the guy at straight back the end in the blue shirt with his arms crossed behind the military dude? That's about the right position for elbows in relation to the head of a person sitting.

Or even John Brennan. Look at the distance between his head and Hillary Clinton's head. Brennan is about 5 feet 6 inches tall. The distance between the heads is not justified by Brennan standing if his feet are on the same level as the bottom of the chair legs. Either that, or this is the tallest 5'6" I have ever seen. :) 

Also, look at the blurred back of the head in the left bottom. This is probably a person standing. 

The general direction of the motion leading to Obama from right to him and from left to him is clear, at least to me. It goes from way on top to way below. A two people distance at the table is not enough for this to be perspective alone. There has to be a hidden elevation for some of the people standing, including the photographer. Also, Obama seems to be squatting on a low stool or something in relation to the other people sitting on chairs.

I'm not an expert in photography, but I don't believe there is a lens that could pull off this effect. Photoshopping would, but this is an official White House picture and I doubt they would do something like this. (But I don't put it past Obama's people, either.)

So, technically, I think we are both right.

:)

Now that I see the different levels, I also believe this picture was posed to be like that to get the levels right, not a live "as it happened" shot of people watching the kill.

Knowing Obama's propaganda people and the artsy-fartsyness of the intellectualoids around him, it was probably meant to convey his gracious reliance on his collective team or something to that effect. It's a horrible pose to convey a strong leader, though. The lowest guy in the room, with his shoulders hunched at that? Come on...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From West Wing Reads. History Will Not Be Kind to Nancy Pelosi. “One way or another, Nancy Pelosi will go down in history. Let’s hope she doesn’t take America with her,” Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Post. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to go all in on impeachment “is a historic mistake, one that could tear America apart. Based on the evidence the House has made public, impeaching Trump is a meritless, reckless assault on democracy.” Goodwin explains that “[Pelosi’s] real problem is that she doesn’t have the goods to justify impeachment under any process. And she won’t, no matter how many witnesses emerge from the bureaucracy to say they were unhappy with the Ukraine call or didn’t agree with Trump’s choices. Policy disagreements and murky arguments won’t lead to a public consensus for removing an elected president.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peter said:

History Will Not Be Kind to Nancy Pelosi

History will not be kind to Nancy Pelosi
By Michael Goodwin

October 29, 2019 | 9:51pm | Updated

Quote

[...] Anyone who believes our country is now a polarized tinderbox ain’t seen nothing yet. Trying to remove the president on the flimsy charges that he illegally pressured Ukraine for investigative help would quicken the national crack-up that’s been building for years.

Pelosi’s timing is both cynical and bizarre. A full House vote on an impeachment inquiry, which could come Thursday, probably means she is aiming to consider articles of impeachment this year.

The rush suggests an acceptance of the reality that there will be nothing in those articles that would sway 20 Senate Republicans needed for conviction and removal, so the aim is to please the radicals in her own party and be done with it as soon as possible. Thus, Pelosi is ready to throw America into chaos simply as a political favor to the Democrats’ wing-nuts so they won’t run primaries against her leadership team and committee heads.

Pelosi isn’t leading, she’s following.

[...]

Was America "thrown into chaos" when Nixon faced impeachment?  Was there a "national crack-up"?  

If you think it might be intriguing to read the House Impeachment Resolution ... http://bit.ly/impeachmentResolution

Meanwhile, an 'arrogant and boring' Kamala Harris ... Tulsi Gabbard is well-groomed:  Tulsi Gabbard Drops a Big Hint About Running a Spoiler Campaign for Trump

Spoiler

nyMagGABBARD.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi sounds like a real spoiler. Let's all give her a big hug and a round of applause. Just don't sniff her hair. 

Nixon did not have the base President Trump has. Since the Republican Senators needed for impeachment will  not betray their President, the impeachment talk is harassment if not downright urban gorilla tactics. The Democrats remind me of communist - American Vietnam War protesters, "Cashing in on the Student Rebellion." There. I got an AR article into the thread.     

What the Demoncrats don't understand is that they will galvanize "the good guys" if they continue with this disgusting charade. All of us, will put on our white cowboy hats like the great folks in British Columbia, William. Hang'em high. Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will take this Impeachment crap and run the Democrats into the ground with it next year.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry that he will be offended by it as he was when some of the crowd booed him at a baseball game. Impeachment hearings and testimony may absorb too much of his time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly this is “The full, rough transcript of Trump’s call with Ukraine’s President,” minus sensitive, top secret stuff, but it was such a mish mask I am not sure I trust anything “written by a voice activated computer decipher.” The call was 30 minutes long. Peter

Participants. From Wash. Post. President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The call shows Trump offering no explicit quid pro quo when it comes to Ukraine investigating the Bidens. But it does include Trump emphasizing how good the U.S. government is to Ukraine and suggesting that U.S. support is not being reciprocated. Trump then asks for two specific investigations, including one involving the Bidens. Below is the rough transcript provided by the White House, which is based upon voice-activated software.

The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States, and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big, and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example to our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me, when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many, many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine.

President Trump on Sept. 25 released the rough transcript of a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president. Here are some key takeaways. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right, not only 100%, but actually 1000%, and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel, and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron, and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union, and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important, and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States, and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistant spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently, and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine, and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends, and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good, and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening, and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news, and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First off, I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have on the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of asking sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President, and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough …

The President: Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly, and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better, I predict. You have a lot of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, they’re incredible people.

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted (to) ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House feel free to call. Give us a date, and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. (I) am looking forward to our meeting, and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv, which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye. End of Conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it going President Trump? In my opinion you are doing #@%^* great! You have my vote. Peter

Military Voters Rate Trump Stronger commander in Chief. Friday, November 01, 2019. Veterans are even more convinced these days that President Trump is a stronger military commander in chief than most of his recent predecessors in the White House. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters who are now in the military or have served in the past see Trump as a stronger commander in chief than most recent presidents. That’s up from 53% in June of last year when we first asked this question. Thirty-four percent (34%) of these voters say he’s a weaker commander. Only five percent (5%) rate his performance as about the same as most of those who’ve recently been president. (To see survey question wording, click here.) The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 29-30, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

From Lindsey Graham. Under President Trump, we've confirmed two amazing Supreme Court Justices – over 150 conservative federal judges in total! Under President Trump, our economy is booming, and unemployment is down to record lows. Under President Trump, our military is being rebuilt so the brave men and women in uniform have what they need to keep us safe. Thanks to the conservative policies championed by President Trump, South Carolinians are safer and more prosperous. President Trump and I need your support if we're going to keep our economy strong, secure our border, and stop the threat of socialized medicine, so please vote now! Do you think President Trump has done well? Thanks, Lindsey Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 10:55 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Trump will take this Impeachment crap and run the Democrats into the ground with it next year.

--Brant

Yes, it could help him win the Presidency again, but . . . This letter may be a bit redundant, but how many times during Watergate did a talking head say, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up?” I thought it would be wise to look at the left wing angle on this.   

On the one left hand Former NY state congresswoman and Watergate prosecutor, Elizabeth Holtzman, was on the Fox show Cavuto Live today Saturday, Nov. 2, and her opinion was that, constitutionally, if the President does not cooperate with the impeachment proceedings then that is an impeachable offence. On the other left hand, at Bloomberg’s bottom of the parakeet cage liner shop, Pelosi was pontificating, “What happened in that phone call undermined the separation of powers, coequal branches of government, checks and balances on each other,” the California Democrat said in an interview Friday with Bloomberg reporters and editors.

In essence, it is an impeachable offence if you use the Presidential office to get dirt on a political opponent, even if it is not brazenly stated, and also if you don’t cooperate with those investigating you.

WHAT IF this isn’t just harassment? Even if the Progressives can’t get enough votes to convict in the Senate . . . at this time . . . they WILL have enough Senate votes in the Senate after the President obstructs. Therefore, their only hope is that the President obstructs. On Cavuto they showed a timeline graph from 1973 to 1974. It depicted 17 percent for Nixon’s impeachment in ’73 but after obstruction and the revelations of illegal activities the percent rose into the 70 percent range of voting American’s for impeachment in ‘74. Peter

Notes from Wikipedia. Constitutional provisions   Federal impeachment. The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Article II, Section 2

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article II, Section 4

Impeachable offenses: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself. The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elmer Fudd: Twump, Twump, Twump. Why is everytwing about him? Aaah. Some more about Twump and the military? Peter

From Rasmussen. Friday, November 01, 2019. Veterans are even more convinced these days that President Trump is a stronger military commander in chief than most of his recent predecessors in the White House. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters who are now in the military or have served in the past see Trump as a stronger commander in chief than most recent presidents . . . Wednesday, October 09, 2019. President Trump’s decision to pull back the U.S. military in Syria may be a policy even most Democrats can agree with. In defending his Syria decision on Monday, the president declared, “It is time for us to get out of these ridiculous endless wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. We will fight where it is to our benefit, and only fight to win.” Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Likely U.S. Voters agree with Trump’s statement, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey. Just 20% disagree, while 22% are not sure.

Trump vows 'no more' federal aid to California as devastating wildfires continue to burn The Independent Business. Donald Trump has threatened to cut off emergency funding to California as wildfires rage across the state, telling governor Gavin Newsom to "get his act together". The President tweeted: “The Governor of California, Gavin NEwsom, has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must “clean” his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers. “Every year, as the fire’s rage & California burns, it is the same thing-and then he comes to the Federal Government for $$$ help. No more. Get your act together Governor. You don’t see close to the level of burn in other states... But our teams are working well together in putting these massive, and many, fires out. “Great firefighters! Also, open up the ridiculously closed water lanes coming down from the North. Don’t pour it out into the Pacific Ocean. Should be done immediately. California desperately needs water, and you can have it now!” More follows…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes! Headline: “House Dems line up witnesses!” Fox is saying President Trump will defend himself as the impeachment enquiry continues. HIS team must be in on any depositions from “whistle blowers” etc. He will speak out as any news hits the media. So, is President Trump thwarting the Demon Deacons of the House? Will his actions twist this into being “tampering with the process?” Oh no! More BB gun pellets for Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you checked in on Dr. Comrade Sonia lately?

She has drifted substantially from objectivity and rationality.

If you read enough of her tweets and retweets, certain patterns emerge, and take on psychologically revelatory significance, and I it think lends some perspective to her oddly public behavior over the years.

Who hurt you so badly, Dr. Comrade?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

If you read enough of her tweets and retweets, certain patterns emerge, and take on psychologically revelatory significance...

Jonathan,

For anyone interested, here is Diana Brickell's Twitter link, and here is her Facebook link (which is not very actvie).

I didn't read enough on Twitter to see any patterns, other than a TDS establishment Republican pattern (although she said later she was not a Republican). Once I saw she was aligned with crony warmongering anti-Trump Republicans, the kind who make a living off of endless unwinnable wars for profit, I stopped. She was all in for Bill Krystol and Mitt Romney, fer God's sake, while constantly stating weird negative things about President Trump like he destroyed (her word--and the following is an exact quote): "rule of law, separation of powers, basic decency & honesty, voting rights, election security, etc."

Just think about that. She sees the same events we do, but she concludes President Trump destroyed rule of law in America.

And that other stuff.

Where in America?

Colorado?

I live next to Chicago (Evanston) in a rather peaceful neighborhood, even though it is disgustingly progressive, and President Trump didn't do that here. Not even on the South Side of Chicago where gang-bangers are shooting up everything.

:)

I just looked a little further at her tweets and retweets (through October). That's enough. If I keep looking, I will probably see the hurt you mentioned. But I got bored. (I don't mean that as a put-down. I got bored for real :) ). All I saw was unmerited conceit that looked an awful lot like the elitism that progressives display, and TDS-level hatred for President Trump.

She's a human being, though.

She's always bitched about what she can't control, that comes with the territory with her, but from what I can see, she doesn't kill people or take their stuff. So I wish her well on her journey through life... May she, one day, find meaning in life she doesn't feel compelled to drill into others...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Today Show this morning got 9 people who "confessed" to voting for Trump in 2016 to talk about "their disappointment." Unfortunately for the amazed Today staff, all nine said they would enthusiastically vote for Trump in 2020. CNN did the same thing recently and all of their group also said "Hell yes. I am voting for Trump!"   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 4, 2019 at 2:56 PM, Jonathan said:

If you read enough of [Diana's] tweets and retweets, certain patterns emerge, and take on psychologically revelatory significance, and I it think lends some perspective to her oddly public behavior over the years.

 

On November 4, 2019 at 3:45 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I didn't  read enough on Twitter to see any patterns, other than a TDS establishment Republican pattern (although she said later she was not a Republican). Once I saw she was aligned with crony warmongering anti-Trump Republicans, the kind who make a living off of endless unwinnable wars for profit, I stopped. She was all in for Bill Krystol and Mitt Romney, fer God's sake, while constantly stating weird negative things about President Trump like he destroyed (her word--and the following is an exact quote): "rule of law, separation of powers, basic decency & honesty, voting rights, election security, etc."

I lack sufficient curiosity about Diana's doings to look at the Twitter account, and I haven't a guess what patterns Jonathan thinks emerge.

Just going from Michael's description and from patterns in Diana's history, I wonder if she's making another attempt at courting ARI standing.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Just going from Michael's description and from patterns in Diana's history, I wonder if she's making another attempt at courting ARI standing.

Ellen

 I don't think so. I think that she's drifted away from Objectivism, and from wanting to be Ayn Junior. Her thought process has often become quite opposed to "objectivity" and "rationality." She's an interesting study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I got this from somewhere out there on the interwebs.

image.png

Right on.

:)

Michael

Exactly.

They thought that they had the road cleared, permanent dominion on the horizon.

And then Trump was elected.

Ellen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump Jr. is on Rush at 1:26. He has been on for about a half an hour and I am impressed with the ten minutes I have heard. He is very sharp and tuned in. He has a new book out. Rush just said he went to the restaurant Jr. mentioned and Rush said they would not let him in. Peter 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Trump. Oops. I mean Rush. Joke. The whistle blower’s lawyer in 2017: “The coup has begun.” The whistle blower himself is shown in dozens of photos with his demon-crat buddies. He is a Democratic operator who was kept in the White House by the CIA’S Brennan.

Finally. Things may be getting truth-ier. The bugle is sounding and now is the time to come to the aid of your party. The right has some real ammo to foil the left wing press. And as Barbra Streisand sang, "Soon it's going to rain."

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly hope the hoi polloi look up those two things JR mentioned. Whoopie defending a child rapist and Joy in (dark not black face.) She was impersonating a black woman she said. "Swanee, how I love ya, how I love ya, my dear old Swanee."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...