Republicans, at some point, you are going to wake up.....

"Considering that the political Left is notorious in this nation for doing everything they can to destroy Christianity"

Even if that were true, which it clearly is not, your reply doesn't address the substance of the OP..........because you can't.

 

We have an ongoing pandemic of a highly contagious virus and idiots are protesting for some phony liberal cause.......and Republicans need to wake up? lolz indeed!

 

Investment funds do go bankrupt, companies fold, pension funds raided, etc. I thank providence social security is not privatized, because if were, you can scratch the word 'secure' and any semblance thereof, from the moniker.

Social Security isn't meant to be an 'investment fund', it's meant just to have something for the vast majority of folks who know nothing about such things, at least they will have something. Social security is a good thing for many millions of people who are not sophisticated enough about the finance and investment world, beyond just buying a house, which is the best thing for most common folks.

I'm 69, and kids ask me all the time, what advice to have for them, and I can say it, unequivocally, in three words:

Buy a house.

Then keep it, live in it, rent it out, whatever, and when you are ready to retire, your equity will save your butt like no pension fund ever could.

If you are well endowed about finance, then do better, buy more houses, start businessess, etc., parlay stocks, etc., and more power to ya if you can do it.

Not everyone can, and is why we have social security.

 

You haven't read the entirety of my response. You question is thoroughly answered, beyond the reference to the 16th amendment.

You can find the answer at the section that reads as follows:

this time, read all of it, please.

 

OP directed at Trump supporters, assuming most are republicans.

If you are not a republican, but you are a trump supporter, then replace 'Republican' with 'Trump supporter'.

 

I don't replace things you say. I take them literally. I'm not a Trump supporter either. I simply defend him from the lies told about him.

 

Yes, and that is why I asked you to, with specific instructions, so you won't have to guess what I mean.

Okay, then I will expect you to take Trump literally, every time he utters something incoherent, imprecise, and foggy which is every day of the week.

Deal?

You didn't defend him, all you said was that you are not partisan, which tells me that the OP did not apply to you.

But, if you want to defend trump against what you believe are lies about Trump, then defend him.

And, how 'literal' are you? When I write "I said" or 'you said' does this mean I have make sure I write "I expressed" or "you expressed" when we are discussing the our typed comments? Are you saying you have zero interpretive range, zero flexiblity? What, we gotta walk on veritable grammar eggshells in your presence? Let me know so I can properly calibrate my comments to maximum articulated focus when there is a possibility you might reply.

 

In the future I will remember that the words you use aren't necessarily what you mean.

I have never taken Trump literally. I consider him a terrible communicator. I simply thought you were better than him. Now I know I should view your communication like I view his. No deal.

I do that all the time. You can find my posts all over this forum.

 

Actually, I don't mind when someone is holding my writing to a higher standard, that's one thing. But, that works both ways.

However, when you say that you take me literally, which tells me you are unwilling to query my meaning when normally one would do that, which therefore demands of me to be very precise in my meaning to articulate my thoughts with razor precision (given that you've essentially stated you have no interpretive range one might use in normal speech where politeness dictates a query for clarifation if a communication is unintentionally not as precise as it could be, so, by telling me this, then your responsibility to comprehend precisely what is being communicated is heightened commensurately. As I stated previously, life is a two way street. So, If you demand my communication to be razor focused, then your grasping what I write must also be precise, there is no room for mischaracterization.

But, that is precisely what you did, you mischaracterized, or rather, misunderstood when you drew an incorrect inference.

Your reply was to this:

I wasn't saying you will have to guess, from here on out, what I mean, it was singular task request, a one shot deal.

If there were a modicum of interpretive range coming from you to me, you could have easily understood that, or asked for clarification.

But no, you had to come back with a snarky "In the future I will remember that the words you use aren't necessarily what you mean".

Now, it must be said, I can handle snark, but note snark rarely characterizes with precision because there's emotion in the words, and emotion is a filter. Now you are demanding of me communication on a level where you do not have to do anything but take what I say literally, yet your response clearly demonstrates you are incapable of doing just that. Not a fair exchange, I would say.

See, fmw, it's one thing to express oneself with clear, precise, language, but to demand it of someone while being unable to return the favor commensurately, is not a fair playground to play in. (That's a metaphor, since you stated you are taking me literally, do I have to indicate metaphors in advance to you? See, I wonder if you thought your comment through).

It's, the issue here is whether or not one wants to be a schmuck or not, see what I mean? Allow me to clarify that.

If someone says something which I think needs clarification, I find it more courteous to ask for clarification, rather than to nitpick unnecessarily. But, there are times when nitpicking is the right approach, of course. I should think it's better to be able make these distinctions. Sounds to me like that's your modus operandi all the time. That's what I'm getting from you.

Same answer.

I meant on this thread.

 

I’m directing the question to you. Not the drafters.

 

You are obviously not reading my reply. there is no point in continuing this conversation. Later.

 

Yet we're not on the side of the looters who've been burning cars over the last week, fancy that.

 

Yet, it's the LEFT that wants to defund the Police nationwide, kill off capitalism and also ignore the Constitution.
It's totally the LEFT that deprives free speech at universities.
But....why not just spew out anything that makes you feel good, true or not?

The hypocrisy is sensational and unbelievable...but so true to form

 

"To protect power he gained via accepting foreign interference"?

The second page of the "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election," commonly known as the Mueller Report, partisan though it was, conceded that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (1) This was on page 2 of the report. Can the person who wrote that tweet not read, or are they deliberately lying?

We're not going to accept that we've been had, because we've not been had. And if you're going to post a tweet and flaunt it as a bombshell, perhaps it should not have any lies inside of it.

1: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

Accepting influence doesn't require coordination with that influence, so your question is moot.

Moot point, per above.

Therefore, my OP that you've been had stands unrefuted thus far.

 

Trump, 2020. Democrats for Trump, cheer Biden!

 

Let me get this straight: you admit that he did not coordinate (or collude with the Russians [a minority opinion on your side]), but he just accepted that he was being helped? Since the word "accept" has multiple senses, can you be more clear on how Trump "accepted" Russian influence?

I feel like you're gonna be like Bill Clinton here, arguing what "is" is, simply picking at straws in a desperate attempt to defend your original point, instead of conceding to its shortcomings.

 

trump is definitely less...

 

He welcomed it. Acceptance is the other side of the same coin. He admitted it to in an interview
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-...ten-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304
Moreover, he stated, during a debate with Clinton, "Russia, if your are listening...." which, although the right loves to say it was made in jest, that is not the impression anyone with a reasonable amount of discernment hears when he is saying it, he sounds dead serious, even to the point of suggesting that the media would richly rewarded Russia if they committed cyberespionage --- the argument that he made it in jest is backpedalling in the extreme. In fact, the moment I heard Trump say it, I remarked to my girlfriend, 'hey, Trump just committed a crime". And, in my view, he did. No way in hell I would have harbored such a thought if it were clear he were joking.

Two years later in 2018 Trump signed an EO which threatens nations with sanctions if they meddle in US elections, but, in my view, it amounts only to a handslap, and he did that to ameliorate criticism of his actions that blatantly welcomed it. Thing is, he could have done so much more, which he did not do. In fact, the evidence supports this position.

For me to believe he's sincere about not wanting Russia to interfere, he never should have said the things he said which gives me that conclusion in the first place, and therefore, I hold his actions as suspect, when it comes to Russia, especially in light of his nauseating obsequious behavior he exhibits towards Putin, especially when Putin is near.

When Congress sent Trump the Russian sanctions bill, he didn't sign it, it sat on his desk for about a year before he finally acquiesced to Senate pressure to impose the sanctions. It was mentioned in the transcripts when Flynn spoke with Kislyak, to warn the Russians that they don't need to react harshly to Obama's sanctions, because when Trump takes over, Trump is going to encourage a warmer relationship, noting that Flynn mentioned nothing about Russian interference, didn't raise the issue at all, and it would seem to me that he should have at least done that. Evidence that this happened is that Putin did not retaliate to the sanctions, which was out of character for Putin.

For Russia, sanctions are not enough of an incentive for them to not meddle, because, from their point of view, the benefits of a Trump presidency, which is more on the side of an America in chaos and Putin likes it that way, is worth what sanctions we impose, which, they reason, we would, anyway, after their invasion of Crimea.

Not really. My answer, above, is rather matter-of-fact.

 

I can't believe some folks are still dwelling on "Russian Collusion" when that nonsense fell thru. Even claiming there was any significant interference in our elections by a few Facebook ads is ludicrous.

 

Quote...

==

China plans to build a scientific research station on the moon in "about 10 years," according to the state news agency Xinhua.

The China National Space Administration (CSNA) intends to build the research station in the region of the moon's south pole, Zhang Kejian, head of CSNA, said in a public statement, Xinhua reported. That's a bit of a departure from the six successful NASA Apollo moon landings, which took place closer to the moon's equator between 1969 and 1972.

Details of China's long-term lunar plans are still sketchy, but CSNA has made significant steps toward lunar exploration. Earlier this year, the Chinese successfully landed the uncrewed Chang'e-4 on the far side of the moon, and have also placed astronauts aboard two temporary space stations, Tiangong-1 and Tiangong-2. Their space agency also plans to put a larger, more permanent station into orbit in the coming years. [Photos from the Moon's Far Side! China's Chang'e 4 Lunar Landing]

The first parts of that permanent station will reach orbit aboard the country's new Long March-5B rocket in the first half of 2020, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported; the mission will not be associated with the International Space Station. The ISS is reaching the end of its operational lifetime, plus the United States and China do not cooperate on spaceflight endeavors.

https://www.livescience.com/65312-china-moon-base-10-years.html

I can hear leftists now: "B-b-but they SAID it was RESEARCH! So why are they bombing us?"

 

Getting us off the gold standard and causing creation of fiat money they now cannot even pay the INTEREST on for the debt they incur? Those Democrats? That dangerous road? Or the idea we killed so many future taxpayers just because they were black and Planned Parenthood was specifically created to address that very issue? (Stay poor and we'll support you, just vote for us and stay on the couch.)

Democrats don't care if you worked for what you own. Either fork it over or you're a racist, hardhearted, a monster, or worse. Maybe even Donald Trump, the one single man who has knotted their knickers COMPLETELY. See ya at the show-trials! I'll be front-row center watching the Democrats go down.

 

The left hates religion. Seriously, who is this Robert guy anyway? His prejudice and division is showing.

 

You've been reading too many illuminati pamphlets.

Let's clear up some history. FDR took US off the gold standard, technically, but it was accomplished by Executive Order, which means Eisenhower, a republican, could have reversed it and didn't, noting that The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard.

So, if you were honest, you'd mention that it was a bipartisan deal.

Frankly, I don't even think the monetarists believe that America can go back to the gold standard, it's too inflexible for a nation of America's size and complexity.

And, you, of course, are free to own gold and silver, if the eroding dollar bothers you. Better yet, buy a house.

 

A majority of democrats are Christians. The right hates facts.