Cameroni

Because Joe Biden insisted on Kamala as his condition to accept the defenestration. Both Pelosi and Obama wanted an open election, but Biden, out of revenge and spite made Kamala Harris his condition of departure. I suspect anyway.

I think you are leaving out the key fact, that this was AFTER the British had initiated area bombing of Germany.

No, I saw it, but I was aware of the history of the bombing of civilians and of course Guernica. Very regrettable.

This level of misrepresentation is starting to look deliberate now, very clearly the article states that 435 people died from the RAF bombing Wilhelmshaven, and the only reason the death toll was so low was because of the extensive bunkers which provided protection. Otherwise the death toll would have been considerably higher. But again, obviously this is a deflection. In reality, as I stated repeatedly, the British area bombing started around May 1940. Silesia was of course not the only territory the Poles annexed from Germany after 1918. Poland also annexed the following: Most of the Prussian province of Posen (This territory, btw, had already been taken over by local Polish insurgents during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918–1919, ie before it was ceded by Versailles) 70% of West Prussia (Polish Pomerania) along with a 10% German minority, creating the so-called Polish corridor. The east part of Upper Silesia was awarded to Poland after a plebiscite. Sixty percent of residents voted for German citizenship, and 40 percent for Poland; as a result the area was divided - you can see how mendacious this is, the majority wanted to be part of Germany, but rather than accept the plebiscite the territory was still divided. To provide a Polish railway line connecting Danzig and Warsaw, the area of Soldau in East Prussia was annexed by Poland . From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia in the provinces of Ermland and Masurien, this area was annexed too by Poland. It is also important to realise that all of these lands were historically German and inhabited by Germans. These were not historically Polish lands. So the territorial piracy of Poland was shameless, extensive and on a grand scale. Of course negotiation and compromise would have been better, this was seriously attempted by Germany. But with the British whispering in the Polish ear, concede nothing, of course the Poles refused to take negotiations seriously. So what other option did Germany have? Of course a war to reconstitute territorial integrity is legitimate. Completely false, Poland itself has been attacking its neighbours repeatedly, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, they all know about Polish agression, even Russia! It's all in here, just google Lithania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

It's always so funny when they emphasize "a THIRTY-FOUR times convicted felon"...until you realise the 34 counts related to 34 payslips paid to a lawyer. You can't make it up.

I like Missouri's abortion laws. Ohio and Kansas seem moderate.

Yes, the Democrats elegantly took the voters out of the process. But obviously Trump is the threat to democracy, lol.

I really can't for history to come out with the full truth of the Democrats' coup to oust Biden. Also the role the Obamas played would be interesting to know.

No, absolutely not, the British did bomb Wilhelmshaven. 435 people died. The evidence for British area bombing is massive, and has already been referred to here, the area bombing directive, strategic bombing directive, Dehousing Paper. not to mention evidence of the actual bombings of civilians the RAF undertook.' German actions in Poland were obviously not a systematic attemtpt to implement carpet bombing, those were military operations to conquer Poland which occasionally led to civilian deaths in Poland. It is rather different to a political leader deciding to target all his Air Force resources on dehousing civilians with carpet bombing, as the British did. Utter and complete lies, or just plain shocking ignorance. Whilst Poland was handed large swathes of German land in the Versailles treaty, and German officials signed under duress, a bit like a putting a gun to man's head and forcing him to sign, in actual fact the Versailles Treaty also stipulated a plebiscite should decide the fate of Upper Silesia. So what happened? The plebiscite was held. In the plebiscite, 707,605 votes were cast for Germany, and 479,359 for Poland. However, the Poles refused to accept the result, and by violence and intimidation forced massive civil unrest, so that the question was referred to the League of Nations, who, surprise surprise, gave the largest part to Poland DESPITE the provision in the Versailles treaty providing the plebiscite should decide Upper Silesia and DESPITE the fact that the overwhelming majority of Upper Silesia had voted to be part of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland In fact Poland was for hundreds of years, and most of the 20th century a predatory and awful neighbour, who annexed not just German lands, but Ukrainian, Czech, Romanian, Lithuanian and many other nations' land. Very obviously Germany had a right to reconstitute its territory which the Poles stole after 1918, this was a legitimate war in 1939. Only when Hitler invaded Russia did his war become a colonial and unjust war.

Yah, it's basically different now because Trump has such a good relationship with Putin and Russia, obviously the Democrats are suddenly the anti-Russia party, Clinton started this nonsense.

You just have to look at the poll, 58 % of teamsters support Trump. Why else would the Teamsters refuse to endorse the Democrat candidate, as they usually do? Why is Kamala not getting the support of Teamsters? The Democratic party under Kamala and Biden has lost the support of the working man. Quite a fumble, since they were historically a key demographic for the Democrats.

A huge blow to Kamala Harris announced today. She is the first Democratic candidate not to be endorsed by the Teamsters in 30 years. The reason being that most Teamster members support Trump. This has huge implications in the swing states in particular.

Putin is so smart, it's almost funny, he publicly endorsed Kamala Harris, knowing full well, that would make it more likely Trump would be elected Election intereference right there, lol. It even came up in the debate, Trump was able to claim, truthfully, that Russia's Putin endorsed Kamala Harris. Hilarious.

Very hard not to like Trump, just saw him in a rally saying he had a call from Kamala Harris which was very nice and defending her against the immediate Boos. A very humane man with a big heart clearly.

I am sure we both know that in the US the powers of the president are limited. Even Kamala Harris, if she were to become president would be unable to pass the kind of abortion law she wants to pass. Unless the Democrats would win both Senate and Congress. If the Republicans managed to pull that off they too could pass laws more easily. However, any president would still be constrained by the Supreme Court, so even then making the mailing of abortion pills illegal, like Project 2025 want, would not be possible.

No, in WWII the British were the first to introduce carpet bombing as a systematic and stand alone policy to dehouse cvilians. Actually, no other nation did this. The Poles stoles massive swathes of German territory after 1918 when Germany lay injured and defeated in social turmoil. All German political parties supported reconstituting German territorial integrity. This was a legitimate grievance Germany was entitled to address.

Olympics again?

This is the whole essence of democracy, that you accept and respect the "other". It's not a "moral vaccum", it's a diversity of moral perspectives, especially on abortion.

Even if you would be able to obtain a gun legally in Thailand, you still wouldn't be able to carry it with you while going to the shops or to school , since Thailand doesn't have the liberal gun carry laws the US has. So at most you could keep it in your home, if you were able to get it legally.

I think it's actually a very democratic position to take. If people in Minnesota want to murder and kill babies up to the 8th month, they are free to do so now. If people in Missouri want to make abortion mostly illegal, then they can do so. After all, the cultural climate in the states is very different, seems like a sage and Solomonic decision. Let's say he were to try to push through Missouri style abortion laws all over the US, this would galvanize pro-abortion fanatics all over the country and cause massive civil unrest. It's a very controversial issue. Leaving aside the fact that there are now strong legal frameworks in the US to deal with this anyway.

Obviously not, I had you pegged as the law abiding citizen you obviously are, I was speaking purely hypothetically. There's always ways around every issue.

"Project 2025's proponents maintain that life begins at conception. The Mandate says that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should "return to being known as the Department of Life" In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby leaving it to the states to create their own legislation on the matter, but Project 2025 encourages the next president "to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support".[116] The Project also says, "The Dobbs decision is just the beginning. Conservatives ... should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America." Severino says that the HHS should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 None of this is workable as Trump has done the exact opposite, he has devolved to the states how abortion is handled. States decide how abortions are tracked, if at all. The way the laws work now there is no way in hell any president could do what Project 2025 wants. They also want to criminalise sending abortion pills via mail, which the Supreme Court has already decided against. Trump has always made clear he will hand the decision on abortion to the states, he can't be bothered with it. So he is actually diametrically opposed to what Project 2025 wants, a concerted presidential push to achieve maximal pro-Life policies, criminalising abortion pills in the mail etc.

This is true, for instance many of the legal actions against Trump were funded by the founder of LinkedIN. Peter Thiel advised him stop funding the legal actions against Trump as it just makes him a martyr. The founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, replied that he wished Trump would become an actual martyr. As this was just before the first assassination attempt Hoffman then had to backpedal furiously. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/what-linkedin-co-founder-reid-hoffman-meant-by-actual-martyr-remark-for-donald-trump-6109859 I basically see the US as an oligarchy now. The candidates spend most of their time on the phone calling billionaires to beg for funds. Even Trump, not just Biden or Kamala. If a group of billionaires would go to Pelosi and say "hey, we don't think Biden should be the candidate, if he doesn't resign we will pull all our funding", I think it would not be totally inconceivable that Pelosi would call Biden and....oh wait...

Have you even read the Agenda 2025? Do you seriously think a guy like Donald Trump would outlaw pornography? What is in the Agenda about abortion is diametrically opposed to all that Trump has ever said about his abortion policy, he couldn't even implement that if he wanted to.

You could get a 3D printer and print yourself a Glock. It would not be lawful, but would get around the whole licensing and permit issue.