Yellowtail

Trump has never been charged with insurrection, much less convicted.

Really? Did you notice the date? Los Angeles Protestors Burn Donald Trump’s Head in Effigy (hollywoodreporter.com)

It was not a white supremacy flag until the Obama Administration stirred up all the racial animosity the country is suffering now.

Oh look, more insurrectionists:

What might those other concerns be? It was only 30 of ~130 hostages for 400 prisoners yet you make excuses for Hamas' refusing the ceasefire. Why?

Well, Israel accepted the US & Quatar brokered ceasefire, but Hamas has refused.

Wasn't it Jack Smith that prosecuted Governer Bob McDonnell on a phony charge? Yeah, that's him. He got a conviction and cost McDonnell the election, buy was later overturned by unanimous decision by the SCOTUS? He's a partisan hack dusted off and brought in by the administration to get Trump.

What about all the police officers shot and killed in the Capital? What about when they drug Mike Pense out and tried to hang him?

Do you think the US and Quatar brokered ceasefire was unreasonable? If so why?

Well, Israel accepted the US & Quatar brokered ceasefire, but Hamas has refused.

You crack me up.

Then why has he not been charged with insurrection?

I saw "The Dark Mother" today. Cambodian horror dubbed in Thai. I enjoyed it, though I would much rather see it with the original soundtrack and English sup-titles. The Dark Mother (2024) - IMDb

You said that before, and I understood it before, yet now you just regurgitate it. Is that a yes or a no? How has Trump thrown this into doubt? I never said they needed to make a big move on NATO, you just used that to deflect. Twice. So now because you are unwilling or unable to answer my questions or support you claim you call me names. Typical. I see the country blundering into disaster fast under Biden, how is Trump going to make it worse? What do you think Biden's plan it to end the Ukraine conflict, and what do you think it should be?

From your mouth to God's ear. The methodology is generally objective, what's subjective, and generally biased (intentionally) or otherwise, are the definitions and questions. If I'm doing a study to determine if there is racism, how is that not going be largely subjective? When you ask a minority person if racism is increasing, they may say yes or no, solely based on what they read or hear in the media. Assuming you want to find the truth, this type of study is useless. Of course, if you are a media company that is in the business of promoting racial animosity, it is quite valuable. You can check your effectiveness, and even site the results to show that racism actually is on the rise and use that to further increase racial animosity. This is the most common type of study one would see in the media. A study designed to drive a narrative. If you ask the same person if they experience racism regularly in their own life, again, they may say yes or no depending on what they consider racism, and while one person might be constantly offended, another with the same experiences might be unbothered. This type of study is a little better, but it is still purely subjective. This is the type of study one would do if they wanted to know how people felt personally, and without much concern about what is true. If you ask the same person to provide a lot of personal information and have them complete a survey with a long list of very specific, well defined racist interactions and events, and have them rate each one with severity and frequency, then you start to get somewhat truthful results. Almost no one does this. Studies are not free. People fund them, and if the public is going to see the results, the study has to show what the people paying for the study want the public to see. If a company does a study to determine exactly what their customer base does and does not like about their product/candidate, it will be a well-designed study that is only looking for the truth, and the study will not be made public. If the same company does a study that they plan to use to show how much better their product/candidate is than their competitor’s, they have no real interest in the truth, they only want to show that their product/better is better, and this study will be made public. A bit perhaps, but most have hated Israel all along. The wealthy will always have an advantage over the poor. Tall men and attractive women earn more on average than do short men and unattractive women. If your father is a director and your mother is a movie star, the odds of having a shot at stardom are exponentially greater than if your father left when your drug addict mother got pregnant. In the US if you go to decent K-12 schools, have involved parents, and work hard, you have a good chance of getting into a good university. If you go to a sub-standard school, and your parent/parents are not involved and you don’t work very hard, you have little chance of getting into a good university. One problem in the US now is that universities lower standards to get kids enrolled that are coming out of sub-standard schools, and that are often not up to the academic standards that are required to pass, much less excel in the discipline of their choice, so they end up changing majors or dropping out. A bigger problem is that the curriculum gets watered down, and grades are inflated. Many of the people being "helped", graduate with large debt, and an often-useless degree. A black kid that graduates an inner-city high school with a 4.0 gets admitted into engineering at MIT flunks out after two semesters, and ends up taking ethnic studies. The same kid could have gone to most any state school and gotten (got?) the engineering degree the wanted with a fraction of the debt. It’s ridiculous. If you want more blacks studying engineering at MIT, the focus should be on improving the sub-standard schools, not on lowering the standards of great universities. How about rule-of-law, property-rights and equality under the law to start with? It was a joke. I used to work a week in India one week, every other month. The guys would play cricket at lunch. Once there was a special match and we actually had to shut down production to let them watch. Going to a sports bar in India when a big match is on is a hoot. I'm a liberal, it's the hard left I hate.

No, but given your inability/unwillingness to comprehend what I wrote and respond to it appropriately I see no point in putting any more effort into a discussion when you are just going to ignore what I say and regurgitate the same thing over and over.

Just another money grab....

That's what I thought, thanks.

Yet I seen to recall Reagan, and then Bush, and then Trump all being Hitler. It was not as absolute, because the left did not have the stranglehold on the media, academia, finance and the institutions it has now.

I think so, if you don't hate that kind of thing. I saw both, and two is a pretty spectacular production, at least in the theater. It's not like there's some complex plot to follow. Evil old fat white capitalist guy attempting to take over the world and attractive young egalitarians saving it. That said, I do think it's worth watching one first, they're both good, but I thought two was better.

Thanks, I assumed it did not, otherwise insurance companies would not promote them.

What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you? If you want an honest discussion, why not answer my questions? I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue. Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy? I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy." I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit? Why do we hear so little about the threat Iran poses? Do you not think it significant? It seems like the Obama and Biden both love them some Iran. And I see I see both America and the world being much richer and significantly safer with a second Trump Presidency than it is now. And that's what I see as the Trump's "America First" policy being. Again, "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy."

It's a long way to November and the left has not even started.

So, you post links to articles from organizations that want to flood the United States with illegals. You likely have not read and almost certainly do not understand the articles, because if they supported your position and understood them, you would be able to take a few minutes to explain is how mass illegal immigration will benefit poor and working-class Americans. But you can't do that, can you?

So, as expected, you're doubling down. No, those are your words misrepresenting what I said. I never said it only benefits the rich, I said I understand how it benefits the rich. You are claiming it benefits the poor, and I have asked you to explain how. So again, would you please explain how with a labor force participation rate of about 60%, low wages, and with rents at or just off of all-time highs, how millions of people that do not share the language and culture, are often illiterate in their native language and will immediately be put on public assistance, given free medical care and education with benefit working class Americans? Again, I've seen your links and I understand how it will benefit the rich and why the left loves it. What I'd like you to explain is how it will benefit poor and working-class Americans. You can't, because it won't, it only hurts them.