🌎 Lot of eyes on Tuscaloosa tonight for the GOP debate…

[ElephantStomp]

Statute of Limitations. DOJ. Felony tax charges that could have been ... but weren't.

The irony of now his daughter hasn't been paying "her fair share."

Again….for some reason this has been hard for some to read, if anybody is proven to be guilty of a crime they should be held accountable, I don‘t care if they have a R or a D next to their name, they should be held accountable.

 

[ElephantStomp]

Magnanimous of you!! Thinking that “all of them” need the microscope shoved up their rear end. Few could survive. Why do you think MSM has largely ignored this? And Hunter? Really interested in the view from the other side.

I don’t know MSM you’ve been watching, but the ones I watch (CNBC, CNN) have covered Hunter and his legal goings on.

I do agree with you, every damn one of the should get a microscope shoved up their asses.

 

[64Tide]

I don’t know MSM you’ve been watching, but the ones I watch (CNBC, CNN) have covered Hunter and his legal goings on.

I do agree with you, every damn one of the should get a microscope shoved up their asses.

So let’s say that one of Trump’s sons had done the same as Hunter. Do you think that MSM would have treated the situation the same?

 

[ElephantStomp]

So let’s say that one of Trump’s sons had done the same as Hunter. Do you think that MSM would have treated the situation the same?

Again the media I watch has covered Hunter’s legal goings on pretty heavy, so I‘m not sure what else you think they should do?

But, you saying “if this was Trump’s kids would the msm treated it the same?” You could say the same thing about Fox, did they or have they covered Trump’s legal goings on the same as Hunter’s? Of course not because their viewer base would throw a fit and stop watching

 

[64Tide]

Just answer the question. Not comparing fox to cnn. We both know the coverage would have been different. Why does msm protect one side and castigate the other side? Is it because they’re both drawing water from the same well? So an outsider with nothing to lose cannot know the ways of dc because it may affect dc’s well being? Do you think the msm, fox are truthful? Or just saying what viewers want to hear?

 

[footballer]

It is against the law for a senator or vp to have in their possession ANY classified government documents. Biden

It is also against the law to have classified government documents on any server outside of the government server. Like the un secured, personal internet server in Hillary's closet at her home.

 

[ElephantStomp]

Just answer the question. Not comparing fox to cnn. We both know the coverage would have been different. Why does msm protect one side and castigate the other side? Is it because they’re both drawing water from the same well? So an outsider with nothing to lose cannot know the ways of dc because it may affect dc’s well being? Do you think the msm, fox are truthful? Or just saying what viewers want to hear?

I think you need to reread what I wrote because I answered the question. Also, if you ask me a question then give your answer to the question it rather defeats the reason to ask me doesn‘t it? Because you’re giving me the answer you want.

The media (both left and right) slant things to their specific viewers- MSNBC is going to coddle to the left and Fox is going to coddle to the right. As for do I think the media is truthful? For the most part yes I believe they’re honest and I think they slant their coverage to fit their viewers, but let’s not forget there’s been only one media company that has had to pay almost a billion dollars for lying

 

[TerryP]

Again….for some reason this has been hard for some to read, if anybody is proven to be guilty of a crime they should be held accountable, I don‘t care if they have a R or a D next to their name, they should be held accountable.

That's not ALL of what you have said.

Anybody that broke the law in the Biden family has been charged

That's not true.

 

[TerryP]

I don’t know MSM you’ve been watching, but the ones I watch (CNBC, CNN) have covered Hunter and his legal goings on.

This is "fake breaking news." Most of us already knew this just by your postings.

 

[ElephantStomp]

That's not ALL of what you have said.



That's not true.

That is exactly what I’ve said, I’ve said it several times.

That is damn true. If there’s actual proof of them breaking the law they’ve been charged, I mean actual proof not The Five on Fox bullshit, but actual proof

 

[ElephantStomp]

This is "fake breaking news." Most of us already knew this just by your postings.

I’ve not hid my beliefs, so I’d venture a guess people knew that, but at least I’m not one of the ones that say “I don’t watch” that channel or this channel, but I somehow parrot their same talking points

 

[TerryP]

That is exactly what I’ve said, I’ve said it several times.

That is damn true. If there’s actual proof of them breaking the law they’ve been charged, I mean actual proof not The Five on Fox bullshit, but actual proof

I have no clue what The Five on Fox have said. I only watch one show on Fox News, Gutfeld! I started reading Greg when I read my mother's Prevention magazines in the early 90's. I love his wit.

I assume that was referring to the video I posted? Which, if that's the case, you didn't watch.

---

There is proof. It's been introduced in the House, with banking records, but evidently not reported on CNN or CNBC. I've read the reports, cited, and the numbers. I believe it was in The Guardian.

 

[ElephantStomp]

I have no clue what The Five on Fox have said. I only watch one show on Fox News, Gutfeld! I started reading Greg when I read my mother's Prevention magazines in the early 90's. I love his wit.

I assume that was referring to the video I posted? Which, if that's the case, you didn't watch.

---

There is proof. It's been introduced in the House, with banking records, but evidently not reported on CNN or CNBC. I've read the reports, cited, and the numbers. I believe it was in The Guardian.

No, it’s not in reference to the video you posted. It’s in reference to those lying bastards at Fox News, as I said if there’s actual proof.

There is proof you say? Then please explain to me why the hell those Trump blowing mindless fucks haven’t brought the President (who I’m assuming you‘re talking about) up for impeachment until now and why haven’t they given all this so called proof to the authorities?

Here’s what proof there is of anything going on- the hard right (Boebert, MTG, etc) is doing their Daddy’s bidding and want payback for their Daddy getting impeached, that’s why those brainless twits wanted the power they got from that dumbass McCarthy, so that they could do said Daddy’s bidding.

 

[TerryP]

There is proof you say? Then please explain to me why the hell those Trump blowing mindless fucks haven’t brought the President (who I’m assuming you‘re talking about) up for impeachment until now and why haven’t they given all this so called proof to the authorities?

Constitutional procedure. Inquiry comes before anything. And after just watching this happen twice in the last few years this is the question?

Are we, once again, back to discussing Constitutional Law?

Here’s what proof there is of anything going on- the hard right (Boebert, MTG, etc) is doing their Daddy’s bidding and want payback for their Daddy getting impeached, that’s why those brainless twits wanted the power they got from that dumbass McCarthy, so that they could do said Daddy’s bidding.

You don't name the the person leading the inquiry.

I don't think you've seen the evidence because of a few reasons...one, your "news outlets" aren't reporting what's happening and two, you haven't looked.

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ElephantStomp]

Constitutional procedure. Inquiry comes before anything. And after just watching this happen twice in the last few years this is the question?

Are we, once again, back to discussing Constitutional Law?

You don't name the the person leading the inquiry.

I don't think you've seen the evidence because of a few reasons...one, your "news outlets" aren't reporting what's happening and two, you haven't looked.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Constitutional procedure……if a crime was committed you take it to law enforcement plain and simple…..amazingly those Trump blowing mindless twits haven’t done that.

The person leading the impeachment inquiry? Is a right wing, Trump blowing jackoff.

I haven’t seen the evidence because my “news outlets” aren’t reporting….that’s rich as shit even from you. CNBC doesn’t talk much politics you know because they’re a damn business and finance channel. CNN- you should probably watch it then come back shooting off at the hip. I haven’t seen evidence because those jerkoff, right wing, mindless Trump blowing twits don’t have any…..every right wing media outlet likes to scream to high hell that there is, but amazingly Biden isn’t under criminal prosecution or criminal investigation, but there’s all this evidence of it….man gtfo here with that nonsense.

Here’s what this republican led impeachment inquiry is (I’ll repeat myself) the people put into power by that spineless, power hungry dickhead McCarthy are doing their Daddy’s bidding, they’re pitching a fit because Trump was impeached, they want cabinet positions in their Daddy’s administration should he win the Presidency. The person at the front of it is that fake Christian jerkoff Johnson

 

[It Takes Eleven]

@ElephantStomp , here is a real expert view on Social Security, recapping its beginning, how it's been raided for decades, and how changes must occur in the near future. About a five minute read.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social...ax3b43ioiel&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[ElephantStomp]

@ElephantStomp , here is a real expert view on Social Security, recapping its beginning, how it's been raided for decades, and how changes must occur in the near future. About a five minute read.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social...ax3b43ioiel&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

That was a good article even being written by repubs (I say that only because repubs have wanted to cut benefits, not a dig). I’ll only say it’s difficult to have benefits when we’re spending $855b on a damn defense budget.

I will say I don’t really care whether SS benefits are there when I retire or not, I don‘t need them at all, I’m more concerned with other social benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Off subject, but to do with defense spending- this country breeds, raises, and trains canine warriors, but when they retire they get absolutely zero benefits, vet bills? Paid by whoever adopts them, food bill? Same thing, PTSD therapy? Paid by the adopter, that’s a damn travesty by both parties and disgusting, but shouldn’t be surprised because this country doesn’t take care of human vets and most people view dogs as less than

 

[It Takes Eleven]

That was a good article even being written by repubs (I say that only because repubs have wanted to cut benefits, not a dig). I’ll only say it’s difficult to have benefits when we’re spending $855b on a damn defense budget.

I will say I don’t really care whether SS benefits are there when I retire or not, I don‘t need them at all, I’m more concerned with other social benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

Off subject, but to do with defense spending- this country breeds, raises, and trains canine warriors, but when they retire they get absolutely zero benefits, vet bills? Paid by whoever adopts them, food bill? Same thing, PTSD therapy? Paid by the adopter, that’s a damn travesty by both parties and disgusting, but shouldn’t be surprised because this country doesn’t take care of human vets and most people view dogs as less than

I'd counter that most conservatives favor balancing the benefits with receipts, not just cutting. Social Security taxes have gone from two percent to 12.4 percent and, combined with Medicare taxes, now represent about a third of total Federal receipts. Everyone pays it, as opposed to Federal income taxes, which is one of the few reasons why the bottom forty percent of taxpayers (those with incomes of about $60,000 or less) pay anything. Bottom forty pays about five percent of total individual taxes brought in (both payroll - SS & Medicare - and income tax) and their incomes represent about twelve percent of total income.

In terms of defense spending, that's about twelve percent of the total budget, while social programs are already about half the budget, and growing at breakneck speed. It's not sustainable. Our nation will not go broke because of defense spending, it will be due to social programs and, eventually, interest. Since the War on Poverty, we've created generations of dependents unable to care for themselves, and incrementally we've transformed our budget to a socialist model. Able-bodied people should be on government assistance as a temporary measure, but that has gone to the wayside.

Not familiar with the military dogs. I've heard how hard it is for someone to adopt one following its service, but once adopted the new owner should assume responsibility. I don't see why the government should fund an adopted animal's care.

 

[ElephantStomp]

I'd counter that most conservatives favor balancing the benefits with receipts, not just cutting. Social Security taxes have gone from two percent to 12.4 percent and, combined with Medicare taxes, now represent about a third of total Federal receipts. Everyone pays it, as opposed to Federal income taxes, which is one of the few reasons why the bottom forty percent of taxpayers (those with incomes of about $60,000 or less) pay anything. Bottom forty pays about five percent of total individual taxes brought in (both payroll - SS & Medicare - and income tax) and their incomes represent about twelve percent of total income.

In terms of defense spending, that's about twelve percent of the total budget, while social programs are already about half the budget, and growing at breakneck speed. It's not sustainable. Our nation will not go broke because of defense spending, it will be due to social programs and, eventually, interest. Since the War on Poverty, we've created generations of dependents unable to care for themselves, and incrementally we've transformed our budget to a socialist model. Able-bodied people should be on government assistance as a temporary measure, but that has gone to the wayside.

Not familiar with the military dogs. I've heard how hard it is for someone to adopt one following its service, but once adopted the new owner should assume responsibility. I don't see why the government should fund an adopted animal's care.

None of the hard line conservatives (Boebert, MTG, Johnson) favor balancing, at least not that they’ve shown. I’m all for “balancing”, but I believe you and I have a different idea of how to cut and/or where to cut.

12% of our budget, (but is nearly half of discretionary spending) (40% of military spending worldwide) is spent on defense spending, that‘s more than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, UK, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan combined, we don’t need that much ( I know we’re going to disagree). Social programs will be more, that’s math. We’re not near a socialist model. We could put parameters on social programs fine and dandy, but I’m not optimistic the hard right would be able to come up with actual, working parameters.

Dogs- it is difficult to adopt one, but not for the handler, my neighbor has both of his from Afghanistan and Iraq. The government should fund the medical care for said MWD, that MWD is just as much of a vet as any human vet, this country bred, raised, trained, and took into combat said MWDs, the dog didn‘t ask to do it, this country forced it. We all believe human vets should be taken care of, so should the animal vets.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

12% of our budget, (but is nearly half of discretionary spending) (40% of military spending worldwide) is spent on defense spending, that‘s more than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, UK, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan combined, we don’t need that much ( I know we’re going to disagree).

This is an oft-repeated inaccuracy. China's military spending alone approaches (or exceeds, by some estimates) the U.S. amount.