theblether

Bill Barr - not known as a Trump fan - testified that Trump was not involved in the Epstein files. Taking flights from 93 - 97? Come on, so what. As far as,I'm concerned there are two Eras of Epstein. Pre and post conviction. The Yeti Brigade of Internet Scum girning about 32 year old flights are perverted weirdos. A criminal trial took place and Epstein was jailed. What I find unforgivable was the "welcome home" party attended by George Stephanopolous and others - who in their right mind attends a welcome home party for a convicted pedophile? And everyone who developed or continued a relationship with Epstein after the conviction has to be looked upon as complicit. Was this not the reason why Bill Gates got divorced. "My pal the convicted pedophile" dear me. Who in their right mind would allow that to be said about them.

I thought the coverage of the summit was disgraceful. Far too many talking heads often talking utter fantastical nonsense. I share some of the distaste of how brown-nosey some of the comments were in front of Trump. On the other hand the format did give the leaders a chance to say - ceasefire now, a policy that Trump bodyswerved - so he didn't get it all his own way. However - I'm stunned at one genius turn by Trump which if it comes off will make all the haters look stupid. The proposed Zelensky and Putin face-to-face summit. If Trump arranges that it will destroy the entire "Putin won in Alaska" narrative. It puts the entire imbroglio exactly where it should be - between the Russian and Ukranian delegation. If it falls to pieces at the summit so be it. Just getting these two into the same room is a diplomatic miracle. We'll see.

I can't be bothered.

First - this is irrelevant to this thread - Second - Churchill made it clear that Hitler could have been a great leader if he had chosen the path of peace. This was after the Rhineland and before Kristallnacht - Churchill was heckled as a warmonger and alarmist in the Commons during 1937 and further when he warned of the danger post-Rhineland. The level of abuse he took was a national disgrace. And here, 90 years later - we have you trying to make out that Churchill was a Hitler lover - utter filth and total disgrace.

Here we go again - yet another member trying to treat me like an idiot - here's the relevant quote from the essay - “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. … But it is not necessary that Hitler should be the sworn foe of mankind. … If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.” lets boil it down again - "If he had been called by Fate to guide the German people through a period of peace, he might have been regarded as a man who had risen to a very great height, and indeed might have taken his place among the greatest figures of history.” The Internet is full of weasels selective quoting, it's a disgrace.

Utter nonsense. You said Churchill could not have known. I posted that he continually warned against doing deals with Hitler. Churchill was not in government when the Brits gave Poland a territorial guarantee.

Factually wrong - Churchill knew and was warning for years about trusting Hitler - Here’s a timeline of Churchill’s key warnings about Hitler before 1940, showing how he repeatedly insisted the Nazi regime could not be trusted: 1933 – Hitler Comes to Power Churchill, though out of government, warns privately and in writing that Hitler’s rise and Nazi ideology must be taken seriously. Quote (Evening Standard, 1935): “Germany is arming furiously and secretly. Herr Hitler declares his peaceful intentions, but behind him marches the Prussian military spirit with its record of violence and treachery.” 1934–1935 – Early Nazi Militarization Churchill uses newspaper articles and speeches to argue that Germany is rearming in violation of Versailles. He warns Britain must not let its guard down, as Hitler’s promises of peace cannot be relied upon. November 12, 1936 – House of Commons Speech Churchill directly challenges the government’s complacency: “Germany is arming fast, and no one is going to stop her. Herr Hitler’s intentions are no longer a mystery… To suppose that the Nazi dictatorship, with its hatreds and ambitions, will remain content within its present boundaries is a dangerous delusion.” March 1938 – Anschluss (Austria) After Hitler annexes Austria, Churchill criticizes the inaction of Britain and France: “The gravity of the events which have occurred cannot be exaggerated. Herr Hitler’s counsels of violence and treachery are moving forward with ever-greater momentum… Do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.” September 1938 – Czechoslovakia Crisis (Pre-Munich) As Chamberlain prepares to negotiate with Hitler, Churchill warns: “Czechoslovakia is to be destroyed. Do not delude yourselves. Do not suppose that this is the end. Hitler will not stop. He cannot stop. He does not mean to stop.” October 5, 1938 – After Munich Agreement Chamberlain returns claiming “peace for our time.” Churchill responds in Parliament: “We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning, the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup…” 1939 – After Hitler Seizes the Rest of Czechoslovakia (March) Churchill seizes on Hitler’s betrayal of the Munich promises: “All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with France and England. … We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude.” September 1939 – War Begins Britain declares war after Hitler invades Poland. Churchill is brought back into government as First Lord of the Admiralty, vindicated after years of warning that Hitler could never be trusted. Summary From 1933 onward, Churchill consistently warned that Hitler’s word was worthless, that Nazi Germany was rearming at breakneck speed, and that appeasement would only embolden aggression. His phrases — “dangerous delusion,” “beginning of the reckoning,” “total and unmitigated defeat” — captured his lonely but accurate stance in the wilderness years.

BBC reporting right now - Trump says that Crimea was seized without a single shot being fired. BBC? "Well, ackshually, two Ukrainians were shot in Crimea." Not exactly the spirit of the Alamo. eh?

I'll tell you what's cute. Ukraine expecting the USA to force the return of Crimea. I've said this numerous times - not a single member of this forum would accept the price to be paid if the USA entered into a war to achieve Ukraine's fantasy wishlist. Not one of you. Not a single one.

He fails on every ceasefire he tries to end? What does that mean?

Anyone who thinks Trump is responsible for what's happened and happening in Ukraine is demented Not one of you is prepared to pay the price required to force Russia back over the border. Not one.

Only MAGA's think what? Spell it out

Aye, you're determined. The Speaker controls the Capital Police Board via the Sergeant at Arms. So yes, while they don't sit on the board they control and direct what happens. Do a victory lap. At the end of the day my basic point stands. What happens within the Congresdional cartilage is the responsibility of the Speaker - not the President.

It's only a question of time before the 65,000 and 800,000 methods are increased. When that happens many law abiding retirees will abandon Thailand. There are legal workarounds for mandatory insurance already.

I will say - I can't be the only person nervous about Zelensky being in a room with Putin. Lost in the story about the White House blow up was the blowback Zelensky received from his own delegation for acting the tough guy fool.

Don't annoy them with facts. In fact, Obama's reaction to Crimea was so poor that Putin was emboldened to attack Ukraine when Biden was in power. The smart-*ss would say that Obama should have given the rest of Ukraine a security guarantee. The realist - and I'm no fan of Obama - knows that the 2010/14 Ukraine political situation was such a hot mess that Obama would have needed to be touched in the head to give a guarantee to that bag of snakes.

What did Putin win? A photo opp? A cuddly toy? Many are reserving judgement. I'm not. I think it was worth the risk. If it results in a Putin-Zelensky meeting, outstanding.

Jan 6 was a disgrace as is your comment little man

Talk to me like an idiot and I'll prove you are an idiot - here you go. The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is a pivotal figure in Congress, with significant control over House operations and specific responsibilities related to security, particularly for the Capitol and its grounds. Below is a clear explanation of why the Speaker holds this authority and the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, grounded in the provided sources and general knowledge of U.S. government structure.Why the Speaker Controls CongressThe Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives, a role established by the U.S. Constitution and further defined by House rules and federal statutes. The Speaker’s control over Congress, specifically the House, stems from their constitutional, institutional, and partisan roles:Constitutional Basis: The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, states: “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” This clause establishes the Speaker as the elected leader of the House, chosen by its members, typically from the majority party, to oversee its operations. While the Constitution does not explicitly detail the Speaker’s powers, it grants the House authority to determine its own rules and proceedings (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”). Through these rules, the Speaker is vested with significant authority to manage House business. Institutional Role: The Speaker is the administrative head of the House, responsible for maintaining order, managing proceedings, and governing its business. This includes controlling the order of business on the House floor, appointing members to committees, and referring legislation to appropriate committees. The Speaker acts as a negotiator between the House, the President, and the Senate, playing a key role in advancing the House’s legislative agenda, including its “power of the purse” (originating revenue bills and appropriating funds, per Article I, Section 7). Partisan Role: As the de facto leader of the majority party in the House, the Speaker shapes the legislative priorities and ensures party discipline. This role enhances their influence over House activities, as they align the chamber’s agenda with the majority party’s goals. Presiding Officer: The Speaker presides over House sessions, though they often delegate this duty to other members. They maintain order, recognize members to speak, and rule on procedural matters, ensuring the House functions smoothly. Take particular note: Security Responsibilities of the SpeakerThe Speaker’s role in Capitol security is derived from House rules, federal statutes, and their oversight of the House Sergeant at Arms, who is directly responsible for maintaining security within the House chamber and Capitol complex. Here’s a detailed breakdown:Oversight of the House Sergeant at Arms: The Speaker appoints and oversees the House Sergeant at Arms, one of the “other Officers” referenced in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5. The Sergeant at Arms is responsible for maintaining order and security in the House chamber, galleries, and Capitol buildings, as well as protecting members, staff, and visitors. The Sergeant at Arms works under the Speaker’s direction to execute security protocols, including coordinating with the U.S. Capitol Police. Posts on X and some sources indicate that the Speaker’s authority extends to approving or denying additional security measures, such as National Guard deployment, though this is typically done in consultation with other congressional leaders. Capitol Police Board: The Speaker is a member of the Capitol Police Board, which oversees the U.S. Capitol Police. The board, established under 2 U.S.C. § 1961, includes the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Speaker’s role on this board gives them significant influence over Capitol security policies and operations. The Capitol Police are tasked with protecting the Capitol complex, including the House and Senate chambers, under the board’s direction. The Speaker’s authority here is not absolute, as decisions are made collectively, but their position as House leader amplifies their influence. Statutory Authority: The Speaker’s security responsibilities are codified in federal law, particularly through the rules governing the Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms. For example, 2 U.S.C. § 1974 authorizes the Capitol Police Board, chaired by a member chosen by the Speaker and Senate leadership, to make security-related decisions. Additionally, House Rule I, Clause 3, assigns the Speaker the duty to “preserve order and decorum” in the House, which extends to security oversight. The Speaker is second in the line of presidential succession after the Vice President, as established by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. § 19). This underscores their critical role in national governance and justifies their involvement in security matters, as the Capitol’s safety directly affects their ability to perform constitutional duties. Relevant Constitutional and Statutory Links U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: Establishes the Speaker’s role as an officer chosen by the House. Constitution Annotated - Article I, Section 2 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Grants the House authority to determine its rules, which define the Speaker’s powers. Constitution Annotated - Article I, Section 5 2 U.S.C. § 1961: Establishes the Capitol Police Board, which includes the Speaker’s appointee, the House Sergeant at Arms, and outlines its security oversight role. U.S. Code - 2 U.S.C. § 1961 2 U.S.C. § 1974: Details the Capitol Police Board’s authority to make security decisions, under which the Speaker operates. U.S. Code - 2 U.S.C. § 1974 House Rule I, Clause 3: Outlines the Speaker’s duty to preserve order and decorum, which includes security responsibilities. House Rules - 119th Congress Critical Considerations Shared Responsibility: While the Speaker has significant influence over House security, decisions about Capitol-wide security involve coordination with the Senate and the Capitol Police Board. Claims on X suggesting the Speaker has unilateral control (e.g., over National Guard deployment) may oversimplify the process, as such decisions often require broader consultation. Historical Context: The Speaker’s security role became a focal point during events like the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, where questions arose about the Speaker’s authority to request additional security. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s statements, as cited in X posts, suggest the Speaker’s role is explicitly written in law, though specific decisions may involve multiple stakeholders. Non-Member Eligibility: Interestingly, the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a House member, though all Speakers have been members to date. This does not directly affect security responsibilities but highlights the flexibility of the Speaker’s role. Conclusion The Speaker of the House controls House operations due to their constitutional designation as the presiding officer (Article I, Section 2), their authority under House rules to manage proceedings, and their role as the majority party leader. Their security responsibilities arise from appointing and overseeing the House Sergeant at Arms, serving on the Capitol Police Board, and ensuring order in the House, as codified in statutes like 2 U.S.C. § 1961 and House Rule I. While the Speaker’s influence over Capitol security is significant, it is not absolute, as it involves coordination with other congressional leaders and entities. The provided constitutional and statutory links ground these responsibilities in law, ensuring clarity on the Speaker’s critical role in Congress and its security.

And while Dems go into another rage spiral about DC not being the most dangerous city in the USA - and I agree - every other city has an overarching governor, never mind a local mayor. DC does not have a governor. Once again - full stop. If you are going to argue, argue from a position of Constitutional truth and don't make fools of yourselves.

Here we have two attempts to undermine what I said and they are both equally stupid. The Speaker controls Congress and Congressional property. Full stop. The President has ultimate control over the Federated land in DC outside of the Congressional curtilage. Full stop. Don't bother arguing - you'll only make mugs of yourselves.

Sometimes you wonder if Democrats have the brains to follow clear precedent. The Speaker is the third most powerful person in the US political system and they alone control the curtilage of Congress. Presidents can only attend Congress at the invitation of the Speaker. The Speaker controls the House of Representatives - not the President - and no one else.

Hilarious that Newsom is referring to anyone as authoritarian after his performance during COVID. Anyway - this special election is designed to bypass the California Citizens Redistricting Commission - a commission introduced by vote in 2008 ( Prop 11 ) and 2010 ( Prop 20 ) designed to stop exactly this type of political interference. These are not ancient votes - California voters made it clear twice - do not do this. The only poll I have seen so far says that 62% are against this move, including 70% of independents. Here is what I expect to happen - some groups will file suit within days to prevent the election, a judge will issue a TRO. It will take at least six weeks to resolve - around the first week in October - that will result in the Nov 4 date failing due to time constraints. Newsom will try again around March 3, and if we assume he is successful his new map will be challenged by groups again - another TRO. Lets say he wins that case by May, that's when primary season begins. Do not underestimate the anger of Democrat incumbents having to absorb Republican areas into their districts, making them less winnable. It's the last thing the incumbents need during election season. This is not a Democrat slam dunk - and what will make it worse is some Red states that would have sat this out will now retaliate. Realistically if Newsom is successful he will pick up between 2 to 5 seats. If Red states retaliate ( and they will ) they will eradicate at least 10 Democrat seats plus the 5 expected from Texas. Newsom is rattling a toxic cage but he doesn't really care as he wants to run for President - he'll learn to care if the California Democrats end up in a civil war over redictricting in an election year - this is a very, very risky move that could easily backfire - especially if the Independents decide to punish the Democrats.

187 murders in DC last year. Adjusted for population the rate in the UK would be 7. Lies, damned lies and statistics. Lowest rate in 30 years = utterly appalling and unacceptable