Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.
Flashback to 2009
Your worst nightmare. Link. So suppose it's 2024, and Haley is the nominee against Kamala Harris. Do you vote for Harris?
I know that was for Htown, but Gawd no!!!!
I agree, but he might do it. Haley supported taking down the flag. If she had her way, Harris would jail him for liking the flag, but reason isn't driving his vote on this.
I would do what I did in 2016 and write someone I like in. I am okay with “none of the above.” I do not play the “lesser of two evils” game when both choices are evil.
That's rough, Dude. She's a lot better than Trump.
Does anyone sane give a F about where these games are played? Is FIFA about as corrupt as the government of Mexico?
Khrist, there are important things for the government to work on. Besides Kim Kardashian’s whims and stupid effing games
Any politician that removes or supports removing any confederate monument will never get my vote. There is ultimately no difference between them and Adolph Hitler as far as my voting preferences go. I am not in the business of voting for freedom hating nazis who bend to the (often incorrectly) perceived national populist will over their own people whether they are softcore like Nikki Haley or hardcore like actual nazis. My core moral values of Christ and family are not up for compromise for material gain.
The polling of her republican base still had an over 60% majority in favor of keeping the flag, and she bent a knee to the non-South Carolina left and removed it against the wishes of her constituents. She is worthless as a viable candidate to vote for.
Is this World Cup related? Is your concern (or lack thereof) Russia or the 2026 decision for the US/Can/Mex ?
Gallup says "satisfaction with the direction of the US" has reached a 12y high
Total US oil production in 2017, from private and public lands combined, hit highest levels since the 1970s
Does the UN provide any real service to the world? Is this a good time to abolish it?
Probably a 51/49 proposition
I think they can be useful when they mediate disputes between nations. However, when they try to impose rules or set standards on a global basis, they aren't very good. There's just too hypocrisy and too many double standards, which may be inherent to such organizations.
I've wanted us out of the UN for over 20 years. The whole thing is a farce. Just tell them we won't host it anymore and they need to find quarters in another country, and it will die.
I do enjoy the way Nikki Haley sticks it to them, however.
They'd move to Brussels, Geneva, or Luxembourg. They wouldn't die, because the EU would dump money into them, but they'd lose their relevance.
You mean the way they dump money into NATO?
The EU doesn't fund NATO. It is funded by its member states.
You are picking nits - you know what I mean. The members of NATO, many of whom are in the EU, let the US pick up most of the tab. They do the same with the UN. If we would pull out and kick them out of the US, ie, cut off our funding of the UN, it would die IMO.
The WHO would be my exception
But none of the political bodies ever do a thing other than ***** about Israel and drive horribly (with impunity)
Actually, I wasn't meaning to pick nits. I wasn't sure where you heading with that, but I can tell that you're basically analogizing NATO with the UN. Since most European countries under-fund NATO, you assume they'd under-fund the UN. Here's why I don't think that's true.
When countries like Germany, France, etc. put money towards NATO, they are surrendering part of their power and influence to the United States, because we will always be the biggest player in NATO (even if the member countries pitched in what they're supposed to pitch in). They don't like doing that, which is one of the reasons why the big countries in the EU want to build an EU military. It's a way to build their defenses while freezing out the United States, which makes Germany and France the big players instead of the US.
Now shift gears to the UN. Obviously, the US is a big player in the UN, because it has a permanent seat on the Security Council and pumps in money. If we withdrew altogether, it would create a vacuum, which European countries who are now dwarfed by the United States could fill to increase their influence in every nation in which the UN has influence (especially Asia and Africa). My guess is that Germany would seek our seat on the Security Council.
Anybody give a crap? Link. I know. It's just money.
Still care. Still annoyed. Still think it's a ticking time bomb. More and more convinced that people like "trimming the deficit" in principle but hate when you actually name something they have to cut. Absolutely convinced that there are not nearly enough politicians willing to take the heat and actually cut something.
I don't blame the politicians. I blame the public. Nobody will accept his own priorities being cut or even slowed down, and nobody will accept a tax increase. The result is that whenever we make political compromises on the budget, fiscal responsibility is always the loser. Democrats don't want social spending cut. The GOP doesn't want the Pentagon cut or taxes raised. The end result is that they both usually get their way, and the deficit explodes.
What we really need is a balanced budget amendment to take deficit spending off the table as an option to forge compromises. If either side wants to spend money, it should have to fund it with taxes. When people have to pay for the government they demand, they tend to demand less.
Liberal news outlet CBS did a poll on the Wall and the results are that a majority of Americans still "believe that a wall along the United States southern border is a good idea"
This is part of why Kushner has been shuttling to the Middle East so much for
Getting results, it appears
That is just amazing. I guess Allah can't shut the net off.
Too bad the citizens have no weapons.
I wonder if there are enough smart people in the Iranian military to get it done?