Russia Invades Ukraine XVIII

[selmaborntidefan]

It is all about OSHA
In US you can't open a window on 17th floor

There was a movie I saw years ago - I can't for the life of me remember the name of it (seriously!)

I forget the basic plot, I thought it was a Tom Cruise movie. But basically the walls were closing in on these guys from the law or Tom Cruise or whomever, and two of them were high up in an office building. One guy said showed the other his TYPED suicide note and made one for the other guy who signed it - and then the first guy opened the window and pushed him out, now in full possession of a signed suicide note that his trip out the window was suicide rather than the murder it was. Pretty bizarre.

 

[Bamaro]

I won't post the photos she did with a soft porn photographer. Of course, I remember Pat Robertson coming to her defense. "Oh, that was just ART!!".

Role model, my ass. Well, either one of them.

Has ANY other 1st lady had photos that wouldn't be allowed on TF? I doubt it.

 

[81usaf92]

Who really cares about Trump's marriage anyway?

Trumpers have consistently propped her up to be some second coming of Jackie Kennedy, Trump as a man of god and the nuclear family, and have constantly said everything positive about Melania and everything misogynistic and racist about Michelle. So why prop up one to dunk on another. But then again Trumper logic is “Trump was chosen by god” but when you point out if God was choosing presidents then he chose Obama and Biden they lose their minds.

My point is why does anyone care what a gold digger in a loveless marriage thinks about Vladimir Putin ? Apparently USA Today and anyone that wants to follow everything Trump says.

 

[81usaf92]

Has ANY other 1st lady had photos that wouldn't be allowed on TF? I doubt it.

Im trying to remember the last First Lady that wasn’t a natural born American. She is the first one of Slavic origin

 

[81usaf92]

I can't speak for others but I couldn't care less about their love life. She appears to be very supportive - but refreshingly has her own voice on matters as well.

And together with her husband, has done a very good job raising their son and extended family.

We talk about having role models for our youth. Well there it is.......

Role models don’t pay pornstars hush money to hide weird fetishes from your pregnant wife. Role models don’t make fun of people’s disabilities. Role model’s don’t criticize POWs statuses of War heroes and call them suckers for joining after you dodged the draft.

You like him; I don’t. That’s fine. We can disagree with politics and policies and argue with facts that are subjective on them. But stop acting like Trump is the model parent or is the model of morality when there is so much going against either being true.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Has ANY other 1st lady had photos that wouldn't be allowed on TF? I doubt it.

Maybe Mrs. Clinton. I keed.

Nope. Trump has brought nothing but vulgar into the mainstream. We can't get thru the next 3 1/2 years fast enough.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Who really cares about Trump's marriage anyway?

I'm old enough to remember when the party of family values would, but I digress.

I'm pretty sure Hillary and Bill never slept in the same bed after they conceived Chelsea and Michelle always had that look that she wanted to stab Barack whenever they were photographed together. I would guess that a lot of political marriages are just performative.

So.....since the party of "they have no family values" does something......it's okay for the party of the family values to do it.....I'm trying to follow this generally (not just in line with your post).

Look, I'm old enough (and I believe based on your poster name so are you) to remember when Republicans lost their collective minds over Bill Clinton committing perjury and obstruction of justice. I was told - and I was young and believed it like a fool - that this wasn't about sex, it was about "the principle." OK, fair enough. It's about right and wrong.

But....watching the level of "Trump is like King David" nonsense from people who would have never tolerated this deviation if it was in the "other" political party makes my head spin at the situational ethics and hypocrisy involved.

For ME, it REALLY was about the dishonor Clinton brought both to the White House AND his perjury.
FOR ME it was. And despite all the "you're trying to overturn the results of the election," AL GORE would have been President, not BOB DOLE. So it's not like the opposing party was really going to benefit other than the satisfaction of getting even with the destruction of Nixon.

Then the religious right saddles up and rides in a 17-candidate race with the guy who had been divorced twice and cheated on both those wives - and they found out about more before he won. But no, it doesn't matter - because it was never REALLY about any of that, it was about not liking Clinton. Hey, I loathed Clinton with the intensity of a thousand burning Sahara deserts, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.

 

[AWRTR]

I'm old enough to remember when the party of family values would, but I digress.



So.....since the party of "they have no family values" does something......it's okay for the party of the family values to do it.....I'm trying to follow this generally (not just in line with your post).

Look, I'm old enough (and I believe based on your poster name so are you) to remember when Republicans lost their collective minds over Bill Clinton committing perjury and obstruction of justice. I was told - and I was young and believed it like a fool - that this wasn't about sex, it was about "the principle." OK, fair enough. It's about right and wrong.

But....watching the level of "Trump is like King David" nonsense from people who would have never tolerated this deviation if it was in the "other" political party makes my head spin at the situational ethics and hypocrisy involved.

For ME, it REALLY was about the dishonor Clinton brought both to the White House AND his perjury.
FOR ME it was. And despite all the "you're trying to overturn the results of the election," AL GORE would have been President, not BOB DOLE. So it's not like the opposing party was really going to benefit other than the satisfaction of getting even with the destruction of Nixon.

Then the religious right saddles up and rides in a 17-candidate race with the guy who had been divorced twice and cheated on both those wives - and they found out about more before he won. But no, it doesn't matter - because it was never REALLY about any of that, it was about not liking Clinton. Hey, I loathed Clinton with the intensity of a thousand burning Sahara deserts, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I was in college when the Clinton stuff was going on, but I never bought that it was about anything but cheap political theater to get your enemy. The Republican leadership was never about family values. That's just a tag line to get votes from your base. Just like Dems leadership bashing the rich. They are the rich and are funded by the rich. The rich are their best friends at this point. It's just a talking point to try to get votes.

Trump is an interesting case. He's foul person in his personal life. I think he's a Christian like I think my dog is a Christian. He will deal with God about that because I'm not the one that determines that He is, but it was the outsider nature of his candidacy that drew the base to him. He was brash, outspoken, and went after people in a way you couldn't believe. People wanted to believe he wasn't a normal politician and maybe he could change things. They overlooked or blinded themselves to all his personal issues because the country has lost faith in the political class, and they said screw it let's vote for the guy that's not like the others. It's not excusing any of it it's just the explanation I have come up with. The Republican Party desperately wanted to stop him in 2016 and they would have loved to have a different candidate in 2024, but he was a freight train.

Bernie Sanders is the opposite side of the coin for the Dems. He's the outsider with radical ideas that was speaking a different way than the average Democrat. He doesn't have the personal issues of Donald Trump, but is an outright socialist and professional useless person. The Dems were able to fend Sanders off twice, through what in my opinion were some shady means, but they did it. Trump wasn't stopped by the establishment in 2016 even though they really wanted to stop him. 2028 is going to be tough for the Democrat establishment. The base seem to have shifted further left than it was in 2020 and 2016. Holding off a Sanders like candidate or one even further left may be impossible. The Dems are going to get their Trump a little bit later, and by that I mean the person that rocks the party and takes it over in an almost hostile fashion.

 

[75thru79]

So.....since the party of "they have no family values" does something......it's okay for the party of the family values to do it.....I'm trying to follow this generally (not just in line with your post).

I don't vote based on where a candidate lies on the morality scale, especially when it comes to adult sexual relationships. No doubt Trump barely registers a blip on the "family values" scale. I vote for conservative policies like personal and fiscal responsibility, freedoms, lower taxes, etc. In order to get the policies I believe to be best for our nation I have to hold my nose sometimes when pulling the lever.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I don't vote based on where a candidate lies on the morality scale, especially when it comes to adult sexual relationships. No doubt Trump barely registers a blip on the "family values" scale. I vote for conservative policies like personal and fiscal responsibility, freedoms, lower taxes, etc. In order to get the policies I believe to be best for our nation I have to hold my nose sometimes when pulling the lever.

I felt that; God knows it feels that way when I vote and I've been a third-party voter for 2 decades now.

 

[81usaf92]

I don't vote based on where a candidate lies on the morality scale, especially when it comes to adult sexual relationships. No doubt Trump barely registers a blip on the "family values" scale. I vote for conservative policies like personal and fiscal responsibility, freedoms, lower taxes, etc. In order to get the policies I believe to be best for our nation I have to hold my nose sometimes when pulling the lever.

Well here is the thing… how do Trump’s most loyal supporters portray him and how does Trump portray himself? They tend to paint him as a Christian tough guy with a great family that is standing up for American values that they feel have gone to the wayside under Obama. Yet Trump has said “I have never had to ask forgiveness because I have never thought I did anything wrong” and has done every immoral act involving sex that you could possibly imagine. It is a cult of personality.

I don’t have a problem with anyone voting for trump by saying “i like his ideas better” or “i feel the economy does better under Trump”. Or something along those lines. But too often we see his supporters deifying him into this near perfect being and never acknowledges anything he does wrong. Granted the left does this too, but mental gymnastics that the Trumpers do for Trump is next level.

I honestly had no intention of diverting a whole page designed on the Ukrainian War to talking about Trump’s lack of morals or his wife, but I still don’t see why her opinion on the issue is so news worthy.

 

[Tidewater]

This is interesting
Video appears to show Putin's bodyguards armed with a handheld anti-drone interceptor
Putin is evil, but not stupid.

 

[Tidewater]

This is an example of how helping Ukraine helps NATO.
The smart way Ukraine is keeping its F-16s safe from Russia could be key to airpower survival in modern war
Dispersion and mobility.
That does not mean aid to Ukraine is cost-free, but there are returns on investment. NATO member states learn how to fight smarter.
The approach probably explains why the US recently refurbished World War II era bases on Tinian so that, in the event of a war with China, the USAF can disperse aircraft.

Satellite Images Show World War II Airfield Revived on US Pacific Island

 

[Tidewater]

Ukrainian Special Ops "causing mischief" behind Russian lines.
Ukraine's special ops soldiers are getting into more 'mischief' behind Russian lines
My first thought is "good." The Soviet partisans gave the Wehrmacht fits in 1943-44.
I do not understand how these guys are getting through Russian lines to operate behind Russian lines. There are hundred of miles of trenches and mines, etc. I have my thoughts, but I'm going to keep them to myself. Anyway, good hunting, lads!

 

[dtgreg]

I'm old enough to remember when the party of family values would, but I digress.



So.....since the party of "they have no family values" does something......it's okay for the party of the family values to do it.....I'm trying to follow this generally (not just in line with your post).

Look, I'm old enough (and I believe based on your poster name so are you) to remember when Republicans lost their collective minds over Bill Clinton committing perjury and obstruction of justice. I was told - and I was young and believed it like a fool - that this wasn't about sex, it was about "the principle." OK, fair enough. It's about right and wrong.

But....watching the level of "Trump is like King David" nonsense from people who would have never tolerated this deviation if it was in the "other" political party makes my head spin at the situational ethics and hypocrisy involved.

For ME, it REALLY was about the dishonor Clinton brought both to the White House AND his perjury.
FOR ME it was. And despite all the "you're trying to overturn the results of the election," AL GORE would have been President, not BOB DOLE. So it's not like the opposing party was really going to benefit other than the satisfaction of getting even with the destruction of Nixon.

Then the religious right saddles up and rides in a 17-candidate race with the guy who had been divorced twice and cheated on both those wives - and they found out about more before he won. But no, it doesn't matter - because it was never REALLY about any of that, it was about not liking Clinton. Hey, I loathed Clinton with the intensity of a thousand burning Sahara deserts, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.

I'm old enough to remember slimy Spiro having to resign BEFORE Nixon. What I didn't understand at the time was although he was corrupt and the cops had the receipts, the only reason he didn't try to dare Congress to impeach him was that he was cheating on his wife and all the expensive gifts he was receiving from foreign countries (unlawfully, of course) he was GIVING TO HIS MISTRESS!.

Had his wife found out she would have divorced him and, back then, that was the kiss of death to the "I'm the Pure, White, Protestant, All-American Candidate" type. He knew his career would be over if divorced. So he did the deal: he resigned so the knowledge wouldn't come out. He thought he could revive his career but his fans asked one simple question: If you were innocent, why didn't you fight?" He could never give a satisfactory explanation (because he was, in fact, guilty).

It appears that now, no one cares about your crimes as long as you are on the right "team". Even if that team is anti-American.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I was in college when the Clinton stuff was going on, but I never bought that it was about anything but cheap political theater to get your enemy. The Republican leadership was never about family values. That's just a tag line to get votes from your base. Just like Dems leadership bashing the rich. They are the rich and are funded by the rich. The rich are their best friends at this point. It's just a talking point to try to get votes.

Trump is an interesting case. He's foul person in his personal life. I think he's a Christian like I think my dog is a Christian. He will deal with God about that because I'm not the one that determines that He is, but it was the outsider nature of his candidacy that drew the base to him. He was brash, outspoken, and went after people in a way you couldn't believe. People wanted to believe he wasn't a normal politician and maybe he could change things. They overlooked or blinded themselves to all his personal issues because the country has lost faith in the political class, and they said screw it let's vote for the guy that's not like the others. It's not excusing any of it it's just the explanation I have come up with. The Republican Party desperately wanted to stop him in 2016 and they would have loved to have a different candidate in 2024, but he was a freight train.

Bernie Sanders is the opposite side of the coin for the Dems. He's the outsider with radical ideas that was speaking a different way than the average Democrat. He doesn't have the personal issues of Donald Trump, but is an outright socialist and professional useless person. The Dems were able to fend Sanders off twice, through what in my opinion were some shady means, but they did it. Trump wasn't stopped by the establishment in 2016 even though they really wanted to stop him. 2028 is going to be tough for the Democrat establishment. The base seem to have shifted further left than it was in 2020 and 2016. Holding off a Sanders like candidate or one even further left may be impossible. The Dems are going to get their Trump a little bit later, and by that I mean the person that rocks the party and takes it over in an almost hostile fashion.

Many GOP insiders finally admitted that the Clinton impeachment was a revenge for Watergate.

I'm a Democrat. Sanders's appeal seemed to be toward those who have no idea of how an economy should work. I talked to many Sanders supporters in 2016 and they were willing to burn down the house rather than vote for Hillary. I didn't like her that much either but I knew what would happen if Trump won.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

It appears that now, no one cares about your crimes as long as you are on the right "team". Even if that team is anti-American.

Pretty much.

Just think.

Five years from now when the GOP House attempts to impeach President AOC for that mass murder of conservatives she ordered on the White House lawn, there will actually be people whose defense of her will be "But what about Trump?" Or that followed by "she's immune, blame Trump if you don't like it."

And I'm not joking when I say that, either.

There used to be a breaking point where almost any candidate would hemorrhage support so badly their career was over. Like when Jerry Brown's numbers plummeted overnight when he - for reasons known only to his drug-addled brain - announced IN THE NY PRIMARY that he wanted Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson as his running mate. His numbers among Jewish voters plunged to damn near zero.

But then remember that Marion Barry got reelected DC Mayor after serving time getting caught on camera smoking crack, and it's not as weird (or new) as we think. Or Ted Kennedy getting repeatedly reelected despite killing a woman in his car (and yes, I know it was an accident...maybe....but what a married senator was doing with a secretary on his deserted road, well, we know what he was doing).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I was in college when the Clinton stuff was going on, but I never bought that it was about anything but cheap political theater to get your enemy. The Republican leadership was never about family values. That's just a tag line to get votes from your base. Just like Dems leadership bashing the rich. They are the rich and are funded by the rich. The rich are their best friends at this point. It's just a talking point to try to get votes.

I don't doubt any of that. On the other hand, nobody held a gun to Clinton's head and made him:
a) fool around with an intern young enough to be his daughter
b) lie about it under oath (amazingly, he ADMITTED the Gennifer Flowers affair he'd denied)

Trump is an interesting case. He's foul person in his personal life. I think he's a Christian like I think my dog is a Christian. He will deal with God about that because I'm not the one that determines that He is, but it was the outsider nature of his candidacy that drew the base to him. He was brash, outspoken, and went after people in a way you couldn't believe. People wanted to believe he wasn't a normal politician and maybe he could change things. They overlooked or blinded themselves to all his personal issues because the country has lost faith in the political class, and they said screw it let's vote for the guy that's not like the others.

I agree with this up to a certain point, but it's not like Donald Trump was REALLY an unknown quantity. He was more famous for cheating on his wife and going bankrupt to folks my age than he was for his carnival barker TV show (which I've never watched one second).

It's not excusing any of it it's just the explanation I have come up with. The Republican Party desperately wanted to stop him in 2016 and they would have loved to have a different candidate in 2024, but he was a freight train.

All the Republican Party had to do (Reince Priebus) was say, "No, you're not running in our party, goodbye." But Priebus made a huge show out of "Trump signed the loyalty oath," as if a guy who had cheated on ALL his wives (and the first two were known) would be encumbered by an "oath." Priebus really truly was DUMB ENOUGH to believe that, "Well, if we don't buy this guy off, he's going to spend money and make sure Hillary wins!"

Now - that does not absolve the VOTERS from signing up with the Clown Car, but maybe if Priebus tells him to take a hike, it's over. Because Trump was NEVER going to spend his own money.

Bernie Sanders is the opposite side of the coin for the Dems. He's the outsider with radical ideas that was speaking a different way than the average Democrat. He doesn't have the personal issues of Donald Trump, but is an outright socialist and professional useless person. The Dems were able to fend Sanders off twice, through what in my opinion were some shady means, but they did it.

Sanders should also have been told, "Join the party or get lost." I'll never understand these negotiations from strength that isn't used.

And how much of Bernie's vote was REALLY "anti-Hillary" within the Democratic Party? The most popular incumbents have 1/3 of the electorate against them on a normal day. And I know the whole Debbie Wasserman Schultz mess - and I'd argue primaries are ALMOST always simply affirming what the powers that be in the party want.

But Sanders got 43% of the overall vote.....and he'd have gotten 33% without saying anything beyond "I'm running," but I AGREE with you there's a "burn it all down" mentality to some Sanders voters.

Trump wasn't stopped by the establishment in 2016 even though they really wanted to stop him. 2028 is going to be tough for the Democrat establishment. The base seem to have shifted further left than it was in 2020 and 2016. Holding off a Sanders like candidate or one even further left may be impossible. The Dems are going to get their Trump a little bit later, and by that I mean the person that rocks the party and takes it over in an almost hostile fashion.

Here's what's going to happen: the Democrats are going to take the House in 2026, and given some of the rumblings it's not IMPOSSIBLE they could take the Senate, although I wouldn't bet on it.

And the moment they do, rather than seeing it as voters ticked off at the GOP, we're going to be right back to "see, they want our most left-wing solutions and yippee yippee for abortion!"

And then they'll lose again in 2028 and give their same pile of excuses, starting with "but racism."

Btw - Kamala was on Colbert and went with something about the system being broken. Yeah, that's why she didn't flip a single county from Trump to her, the "system."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Many GOP insiders finally admitted that the Clinton impeachment was a revenge for Watergate.

Well, since he didn't go, there's stilll a removal from office the Blues owe the Reds

I'm a Democrat.

My condolences.

Sanders's appeal seemed to be toward those who have no idea of how an economy should work. I talked to many Sanders supporters in 2016 and they were willing to burn down the house rather than vote for Hillary. I didn't like her that much either but I knew what would happen if Trump won.

And that's why it's estimated that about 1/7 of the Sanders vote went to Trump and made him President.

Btw, you know what never gets mentioned when everyone looks at 2016?
1) Sanders beat Hillary in Michigan (barely, but he did)
2) Sanders beat Hillary in Wisconsin (by 13.5 points)

Had Hillary beaten Trump in those two states - even without PA - she would have beaten him in the Electoral College.

Everyone fixates on the 3 states, but it was 2 she lost in the primaries that had she won, she'd have been President.

 

[dtgreg]

Pretty much.

Just think.

Five years from now when the GOP House attempts to impeach President AOC for that mass murder of conservatives she ordered on the White House lawn, there will actually be people whose defense of her will be "But what about Trump?" Or that followed by "she's immune, blame Trump if you don't like it."

And I'm not joking when I say that, either.

There used to be a breaking point where almost any candidate would hemorrhage support so badly their career was over. Like when Jerry Brown's numbers plummeted overnight when he - for reasons known only to his drug-addled brain - announced IN THE NY PRIMARY that he wanted Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson as his running mate. His numbers among Jewish voters plunged to damn near zero.

But then remember that Marion Barry got reelected DC Mayor after serving time getting caught on camera smoking crack, and it's not as weird (or new) as we think. Or Ted Kennedy getting repeatedly reelected despite killing a woman in his car (and yes, I know it was an accident...maybe....but what a married senator was doing with a secretary on his deserted road, well, we know what he was doing).

If you think the billionaires will approve...