Hawaiian

I agree with your assessment. Anyone making deals with the devil will be greatly disappointed and appeasement only encourages more bad behavior.

And just how will anyone be punished if found guilty?

I would not call over a hundred drones "a few." Next are missiles. Evidently, the launches are timed as so the air defensive systems in place supposedly will be overwhelmed. As just reported, the U.S. is already shooting down UAVs over Iraq and elsewhere. The U.S. and other allies have publicly announced they will stand behind Israel, whatever that means.

History shows that a recipe for disaster is mixing religion and politics. Oops. Shouldn't have used the word "history."

Looks like you have allowed YOUR imagination to run wild.

Hmm. I wonder if the Thai constitution has anything to do with this.

No need to apologize for recalling what you have experienced. Unfortunately, most of the world's Muslim population, when given the choice, follow the rules of Islam; rules that discriminate against women, the LGBTQ community and non-believers. Many times violating the rules involves extremely harsh punishment including the death penalty.

More than just sad. The Brits had better do something pretty quick before the religious fanatics take over. I"ll leave to your imagination as what should be done.

China is sending mixed signals to the U.S. and others. On one hand Xi is wooing American businesses and investors and on the other hand exist bans are on an alarming rise. How and when China will use its increasing military power is also an another alarming issue. Doing nothing will only encourage more brazen acts in the South China Sea.

Previously, Duterte was the problem. His kissing up to China didn't work.

Agree. Of course, there are risks involved in sending China a strong message about their aggressive moves in the South China Sea. It is even riskier to sit back and do nothing.

You must have missed my reply to Presto. There is no easy and simple solution to this problem that needs to be addressed by a sorry to say, dysfunctional Congress.

Why are you defending these illegals? Who invited them here to pick berries and break our laws? They broke the law coming here and broke another law by providing a fake SSN.

This is JB's latest label for illegal immigrants. https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-refers-illegal-immigrants-191002125.html?fr=sycrp_catchall Speak for yourself. I don't think using "cheap illegal labor" to keep prices down is the American way. Personally, I think it is very wrong and employers caught knowingly hiring illegals should be dealt with very harshly. Not just fines, but jail time.

What is now taking place is a result of not securing our borders and not enforcing the laws already in place. More legislation will not do much to solve the problem if the rules are not applied.

Tell that to those being laid off and being replaced by Biden's "newcomers."

A similar perspective about the chances of civil war. https://www.aol.com/news/opinion-us-brink-another-civil-war-174055045.html

Those participating in the January 6 event were a diverse group of Americans who were venting their frustration about everything that is wrong about the nation. I believe most were there not to overturn the election, but to voice their concerns about Joe Biden's agenda. Now that Biden has done what they feared he would do his reelection may well trigger anarchy. And yes, Trump may very well be the catalyst.

Trump makes a lot of ridiculous and confusing statements. I have no idea what it means and have no interest in figuring it out.

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much. The likelihood gets slimmer every day.

He needed something to read while doing his business and planned to flush them down when he finished.

A much better question is, it wise to refuse a request from the attorney general, especially one like Merrick Garland? This is the same Merrick Garland that went after parents for questioning what was going on in our educational system. Incidentally, this was also one of complaints voiced in the emails sent to the Ombudsman.

Bloomberg News has just published an article about dissension in the ranks of the FBI, which by their own admission is fairly widespread. This is documented by emails from FBI employees to their own Office of the Ombudsman. Among the complaints are why "the FBI served a Search Warrant on a former president." One email suggests this could have been done more discreetly and this action was most likely politically motivated. It goes on to complain how this has generated threats and security concerns for agents and their families. The article goes on further on how Director Christopher has attempted to do damage control.

Anyone proposing a ridiculous law such as the Online Harms Act is definitely a moron.

You were the one who mentioned unsubstantiated claims of what was on those deleted messages. Go play your silly games with someone else.