Patong2021

Perhaps poppers are involved. Many homosexual males use a class of drugs called "poppers". It a product typically containing amyl nitrite and sometimes butyl nitrite, isobutyl nitrite, isopropyl nitrite, and cyclohexyl nitrite, The user sniffs the nitrite vapors to obtain a fast feeling of euphoria and a relaxation of the anus sphincter muscles to allow for easy penetration by objects. Amyl nitrite is a vasodilator that lowers blood pressure and raises the heart rate. When used inappropriately with sildenafil it can result in a cardiac crisis.

I expect that you , like me do not believe he is up to it. In a situation like this, it will probably require a special envoy, or point person, side stepping the Foreign Secretary, who is more comfortable uttering platitudes to Islamic lobbyists. Unfortunately, aside from Nigel Farage, I don't think there is anyone in the UK that Trump has any use for. If Farage goes to the USA and gets a rousing hug of hospitality, that will be a big, and blatant message to the UK. The UK is not in a position to alienate the USA as it doesn't have any helpful friends in Europe (aside from Poland, the Netherlands and Denmark). The EU is still pursuing a petty vendetta against the UK for its withdrawal from the EU. Maybe the UK will reverse course on its self destructive hostile approach to Canada. The UK had been trying to bully Canada in the negotiations of a free trade agreement. It had demanded easy access to Canadian markets but refused to reduce market access barriers for Canada’s agriculture industry. The UK walked away from the trade talks in January 2024 assuming Canada would cave. it did not. If Trump imposes his tariffs, the UK is going to regret not having a trade deal with Canada. This trade negotiation fiasco highlights the culture of arrogance that permeates the Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Trade Offices. A tough time with the Trump administration might be the enema the British civil servants require to reduce their bloated sense of self importance.

For sure. The loss is a significant repudiation of the Democrat election strategy and the way the Democrats presented themselves. If the Democrats do not learn from this shellacking, then they will not be a factor in 2 years. However, this election is going to initiate a purge that has been a long time coming.

The event you describe did not occur. If you wish to be taken seriously, don't lie and don't present your imagined unsubstantiated claim as fact. You are quick to accuse imaginary leftists as liars, but here you are posting absolute lies. The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States grew to 11.0 million in 2022, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on the 2022 American Community Survey, the most recent year available. The increase from 10.5 million in 2021 reversed a long-term downward trend from 2007 to 2019. This is the first sustained increase in the unauthorized immigrant population since the period from 2005 to 2007. However, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2022 was still below the peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Please tell us how 10 million people came into the USA in the past 4 years when the population is still approx. 11 million Please tell us how they all went on some sort of public assistance when the reality is that for other than legal refugees, noncitizens living in the United States face significant restrictions on access to public benefits funded by the federal government, including programs such as Medicaid, food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and cash assistance programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). This is particularly the case for unauthorized immigrants, who except in very limited circumstances are barred from all federally funded public benefits. Immigrants on temporary visas, such as international students or seasonal workers, are likewise barred. Even most legal permanent residents (aka green-card holders) face a five-year waiting period before they can qualify for federal benefits. These restrictions are longstanding, in many cases dating back to a 1996 federal welfare reform law.

Yes, that happened too. It is not a basis to dismiss or to ignore the 64.5 million. A President is President for all, not just those who vote for him.

Trump's final position will be a statement to current US allies and whether or not they should rely on any US undertakings; -Taiwan defense against China -South Korea and Japan defense against North Korea -Japan defense against Russia and China - EU defense against Russia - Gulf states defense against Iran and others - Australia defense against China If the US chooses to reduce its presence, as is its perogative, then it cannot expect to demand control or to retain a leadership position in international affairs.

I am not so sure. Israel cannot rely solely on the USA, and the support for Israel within the Republican Congress is not guaranteed. Israel needs access to EU markets too and needs to have security with its arab neighbors.

It is not just about voting for the President, but of voting for other offices too. State governments are important. US Congressional delegations are important. When Clinton was at his worst, it was reflected in the mid term elections. When the USA soured on Trump in his first term it was reflected in the mid term elections. The trend now is to vote against something, and not for something. People voted for Reagan because they bought into his platform, the same as when people voted for Roosevelt and his New Deal.

What is a "household"? Why not be more accurate; Among working-age individuals (ages 15 to 64), the most common type of retirement accounts in 2020 were 401(k)-style accounts (34.6%). About 18% of working-age individuals had an IRA or Keogh account, and 13.5% had a defined-benefit or cash balance plan. As you can see, the Median Value in those retirement funds is not very much. Even if there are large increases in the returns, the reality is that there will be chump change to play with. The have nots will remain have nots. people like me who are financially well off, will do much better.

I have no idea. How many of the people who voted for Trump thought he would make a great President? I am of the view that the US electorate were voting against the status quo and wanted to see change. There is a seething anger in the population and it is not specific to hating on Democrats. You can see it in the daily violence at schools and on the road.

If past history is an indication, the reduction in immigrant numbers will be achieved by reducing the number of visas granted. This was the farce that no one wishes to acknowledge and it is why business was opposed to Trump's immigration strategy, he says he will go after the unauthorized, but in reality he blocked the students, green card holders and migrant workers. Good luck on deporting the millions of unauthorized people. The USA will require the cooperation of places like Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, Syria, et al.

If you are replaced by Indians, does it matter?

However, according to you they are spending in red light zones. Someone is making money from them.

The issue raised was the selection of Harris in July. Could have, should have, would have is not the issue. The fact is that the only viable option in July was a pivot to the running mate. The Obama Democrat majority was moderate and hardly "leftists". The Obama administration did pass all of its key legislation in the first 2 years of the mandate. Do you know what legislating from the bench means? It is an expression that gets tossed around alot, and funnily enough, Conservatives are often accused of legislating from the bench too. The Lewis and Clark Law Review describes Legislating from the bench appears as a kind of catchall term, containing many threads of objections to judicial behavior. Judicial critics do not clearly define or consistently use the phrase, and in some cases this may be part of a deliberate strategy of muddling, serving the purpose of allowing the speaker to project different definitions and emphases depending upon the audience addressed. Conservative justices can and do legislate from the bench. The SCOTUS took on two cases where there were no injured parties and where the arguments were in large part motivated by hypothetical scenarios. These cases were the student loan management program and the affirmative action suit. For example, U.S. Rep. Eric Sorensen was concerned about the impact of several recent Supreme Court decisions, saying the sitting justices are “legislating from the bench.” “That’s not the role of the Supreme Court,” the Democrat from Moline told WCBU . “The Supreme Court should be interpreting laws; the legislative branch of the United States government, we’re the ones to make the laws.” The court handed down a string of controversial decisions just ahead of the long July 4 weekend. Two addressed the world of higher education: ending the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program and declaring affirmative action policies at major American universities unconstitutional. Ok, and yet you are the first to complain about the state of California. It is not healthy when there is no opposition or system of checks and balances.Many of California's problems are a reflection of the failure to have alternative views considered. And the reality is that an individual state has neither the same responsibility, nor scope of power that the federal government has. Trump has a mandate to govern. Whether or not he governs responsibly is to be seen. he is a man who needs to have parameters set.

The UK voters put Labour into office. They were warned and ignored the warnings. perhaps voters were too focused on retribution and/or the Conservatives too repugnant, but the UK picked Labour and will enjoy Labour government for 4 years. It is foolish to whinge now.

It is a foolish person who dismisses the views of 66.5 million people. The US voter is fickle and emotional. Never underestimate the desire for them to give retribution at the ballot box.

I don't think the Democrats had an alternative to Harris. It was a last minute change and allowed the money raised for Biden to be transferred to the Harris campaign. There really were not any viable candidates available to step in at the last minute. Had Biden run, Trump would have steamrollered him.

The Supreme Court is now controlled by Trump appointees or Trump supporters. A Republican controlled House which approves a Trump budget and a republican controlled Senate which approves the Judicial appointments, Cabinet Secretaries and other government officials will not challenge Trump. It is a system that will no longer have checks and balances.

They were not incompetent. The US trend is one of anger and resentment. Even though the US economy is improving, inflation tamed and interest rates are decreasing, there was a negative perception. The Democrats did not speak with a unified voice and there were multiple competing agendas. What Trump did was to ensure that there was only one message. His message and only his. No dissent was allowed and those who opposed were purged. Much of the Democrat loss was self inflicted and , frankly well deserved. The Hamas/Hezbollah supporters who vilified the administration now have the rewrd of seeing how far they get with Trump. The urban activists who always had some trendy cause to shove on people, succeeded in alienating otherwise moderate people. What the electorate giveth, it will taketh away. Wait until the madness of RK Jr. is unleashed at the health department. Once the pain of the abortion bans is seen and the impact of tariffs felt, attitudes will change.

Beware the peril of hubris. 66.5+/- million Americans did not vote for Trump. Their concerns and views should not be ignored

The majority of Americans do not invest in the Stock market and will not share in the profits. They don't even benefit from the increased returns pension and retirement funds receive since many are living paycheck to paycheck. What matters to them is the cost of rent, of housing or medical care, of food, of transportation etc.

Ok so Trump won the election. He has the Senate and will probably get control of the House too. He controls the Supreme Court. There are no longer any checks and balances. Is that a good thing, for any political party to have an absolute control? The USA has lurched to a one party rule without any need to compromise. Just as some groups protested and filed multiple lawsuits during the Democrat administrations, it can be expected that some groups will do similar with the Trump administration. Beware the peril of hubris. There are decisive elections in 2 years that will determine the control of the House and the Senate. A disruptive nasty 2 years could result in a swing the other way and then Trump has a lame duck presidency.

The reality is that inflation had been tamed, the economy was stronger and getting stronger and interest rates were decreasing. If Americans are expecting an economic miracle, they are in for a rude awakening.

Nor is the practice allowed in Israel. It does occur in Gaza.

Sure. However, you and I both know what your intent was. Why not just be honest?