Jump to content
tanknet.org

Because Trump 2.0


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

 

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

There was no justification for the Japanese aggressive war against the British Empire, none, and even less for the wholesale murder of British and Commonwealth servicemen on the Burma Railway, or other human rights abuses against our personnel and civilians in that war.

 

.Jason, I respect you, and for the respect I hold the other posters not to derail the thread, ill leave it there.

Maybe so if the Burma road was not used for 3 years prior to the start of the war and if the US hadn't sent lines of credit.

 

Honestly the more i find out, the more i think that that the Second Sino-Japanese War could very well have ended by 1940 with the collapse of the Nationalist Chinese forces and the loss of CKS's control. The US, the UK, and even the SU here and there had CKS on entended life support, prolonging that war.

 

No Burma road or the subsequent air route over the hump, then no reason for Japanese campaign going into Burma, even had war with the US occurred.

 

But again, I'm not wanting to dig myself so deeply in defense since I'm not so deeply seeded agaisnt CKS's efforts. But those historical aspects existed and therefore ought to be recognized for the sake of complete understanding of the chain of events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2009

  • DKTanker

    1550

  • Murph

    1521

  • Paul G.

    1455

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

 

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

There was no justification for the Japanese aggressive war against the British Empire, none, and even less for the wholesale murder of British and Commonwealth servicemen on the Burma Railway, or other human rights abuses against our personnel and civilians in that war.

 

.Jason, I respect you, and for the respect I hold the other posters not to derail the thread, ill leave it there.

Maybe so if the Burma road was not used for 3 years prior to the start of the war and if the US hadn't sent lines of credit.

 

Honestly the more i find out, the more i think that that the Second Sino-Japanese War could very well have ended by 1940 with the collapse of the Nationalist Chinese forces and the loss of CKS's control. The US, the UK, and even the SU here and there had CKS on entended life support, prolonging that war.

 

No Burma road or the subsequent air route over the hump, then no reason for Japanese campaign going into Burma, even had war with the US occurred.

 

But again, I'm not wanting to dig myself so deeply in defense since I'm not so deeply seeded agaisnt CKS's efforts. But those historical aspects existed and therefore ought to be recognized for the sake of complete understanding of the chain of events.

 

To an extent I cannot disagree with your thesis on that. CKS was really the "sick man" of Asia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still an aggressive war, that Britain absolutely did not force upon Japan. Its no more a defence than blaming the cashier in the bank you held up for holding so much tempting money.

 

Do I forgive Japan for that? Sure. Ancient history. But I just dont like seeing history doctored to permit new political stances. It smack's too much of the Ministry of Truth of my liking, and as said, I want no part of it.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Stuart, whenever you bring up something about Japanese imperialism in a "had to be removed" kind of way, and then I make rebuttlas, each and every time, you never elabroate on a counter rebuttal that takes in the points made. If I'm wrong, I would like to have a good reason to it. Japanese Imperialsim was inherently but in general not really worse than British or French imperialism, certainly not worse to the extent of crossing over the line of "must be terminated". Circumstances were different to make direct and straight comparisons invalid really. But ultimate, humans are shit, and the Japanese did some really awful things which means they really don't deserve to be rhetorically defended so much, and so I get tired of it. But if one is not going to be scholoastically honest about it, then the defense is coming. And also, IMHO, it is also about learning history as it is and not about narrating the history in preferable ways. What was the phrase used all so often? "People don't learn from history". I would argue that people have not even learned the history. And why? Because it is unpleasant to pride and is contrary to what has been broadacsated as if its obvious and indisputable.

 

It had to be removed when it moved out of its box. I really dont recall the UK expressing much of an issue with Japanese Imperialism before japan invaded Singapore and declared war on us. Up to that point, we were perfectly willing to let Japan kill the Chinese by the score. That was undoubtedly an aggressive war waged against us, however one may try to reframe it. Ditto France and the Netherlands and Australia for that matter. What did any of them do against Japan? Absolutely nothing. It was Japans choice on that score, and nobody elses.

 

For the US the reasons are undeniably more complex, but, arguably, Japan seemingly wanted a world war, and it got one. It wasn't the outcome it expected , but thems the breaks.

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

There was no justification for the Japanese aggressive war against the British Empire, none, and even less for the wholesale murder of British and Commonwealth servicemen on the Burma Railway, or other human rights abuses against our personnel and civilians in that war.

 

.Jason, I respect you, and for the respect I hold the other posters not to derail the thread, ill leave it there.

Maybe so if the Burma road was not used for 3 years prior to the start of the war and if the US hadn't sent lines of credit.

Honestly the more i find out, the more i think that that the Second Sino-Japanese War could very well have ended by 1940 with the collapse of the Nationalist Chinese forces and the loss of CKS's control. The US, the UK, and even the SU here and there had CKS on entended life support, prolonging that war.

No Burma road or the subsequent air route over the hump, then no reason for Japanese campaign going into Burma, even had war with the US occurred.

But again, I'm not wanting to dig myself so deeply in defense since I'm not so deeply seeded agaisnt CKS's efforts. But those historical aspects existed and therefore ought to be recognized for the sake of complete understanding of the chain of events.

To an extent I cannot disagree with your thesis on that. CKS was really the "sick man" of Asia.

I hate to say thanks for that only because I got, and always, the feeling that this topic is going to go through more rounds and likely include bits that you may not feel worthy of extending a degree of agreement. But I don't to leave it without saying anything. So an uncomfortable thanks FWIW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

They are not America and they are not sharing American values. Wealth is one thing, moral superiority is another and America is only great because of the morals that made the country great.

There is nothing that gives the US moral high ground outside of being white.

 

 

Well it saved the world from Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and international Communism. So there is that.

 

The Americans are a great beacon for the future of humanity. They are a multicultural state, and considering the melting pod, what they have produced from that is impressive. Its the protoype of what the future will inevitably be for all of us. Despite the problems surrounding the Trump Presidency, its notable what is not happening.

1 There is no civil war. People are talking about it, but nobody is doing it. In fact, nobody is even preparing for one. The South prepared for years before they kicked off the American civil war. Nobody is now.

2 There are no assassinations. OK, perhaps the secret service can take part of the credit for this, but nobody it seems is even willing to try executing their political leaders.

3 There is stability. America is, despite the political roller coaster right, still making economic progress. Highly partial it seems to me, but hey, the economy is heading in the right direction. I dont believe it has much to do with Trump, which to me suggests the fundamentals of the American economy, not relying on political input, are good ones.

 

Compare and contrast with China, where Hong Kong is ripping itself to shreds, to Russia, where political debate is suppressed, or in its worst moments, murdered, then I would say America has a lot to celebrate. Things still have not reached the nadir they did in the 1970's, when you were militarily weak, politically weak, economically weak. Only one of those would seem to be true. As long as the other two pillars are strong, America will at length sort itself out. If it sorted itself out from the Civil War, and the 1970's, then It will this time too. And if the 70's are any guide, be better for the experience.

 

If there is anything in LD's comments I agree with, id say the US is disenfranchising its voters. I dont think its the political system that is causing this, I think its the 2 party system, and the deliberate attempt to make binary choices on things that defy them, like civil rights, or regional development, or the myriad of other issues. Its not the political system that is the problem here, is the lobbying and the party system that is at fault. Which is remarkably close to the same problems I believe we have, though at least having a third party does go some way to give us alternatives.

 

Stuart, thank you for this post and I'll give my reply regarding your last paragraph. See my replies to Der Zeitgeist regarding our voting system and the European voting system. For further elaboration once said Presidential, Senate and House candidates are in office, their ideas tend to reach a compromise during negotiations between the three previously mentioned groups. Hence the saying "Sausages and laws are made in the same way."

Through the decades the Democratic Party has turned a most horrible shade of red. Some people say this started when the 1968 democratic convention protests occurred. I believe this had alot to do with this and the final straw the Democratic Party voter did against the blue-collar worker -- imo -- was when Dick Gephardt gave up in the 1988 Democratic Primary which was won by Bill Clinton.

Again, just my opinion, but I believe the Republican Party became more conservative (not near enough though) when Reagan was elected in 1981 as a reaction to the Democratic Party's wretched turn to the left. The Democratic Party continues to turn more left while the Republican Party continue to just idle in more-or-less conservative neutral. The conservative voters however, began to make themselves heard when the Obama began his gross socialist trend. Beginning with the glorious TEA Party, these truly great American people turned the House, then the Senate Republican. Unfortunately the 2016 Republican President candidates, except one, would not get in the trenches and fight against the evil power the left was accumulating and which the growing conservative base wanted. Trump was fairly elected President, something the whores of liberalism cannot except, hence the charade of this "inquiry into the impeachment" of Trump.

Stuart, there you have it. A completely unbiased ;), and accurate and brief synopsis of the two U.S. political parties since the 1960's :)

Edited by Rick
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Donzn't mattr. Waz agresive war! Nuff said!

 

Give me a braek.

What I still have a hard time understanding is the rise of the ultra-nationalist societies in the inter war period, as well as the open an blatant mutiny by segments of the Japanese military which included the assassination of various politicians by said ultra-nationalists. I read Toland's The Rising Sun which addresses this, but I still have a hard time understanding how this came about in Japanese society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Donzn't mattr. Waz agresive war! Nuff said!

Give me a braek.

 

What I still have a hard time understanding is the rise of the ultra-nationalist societies in the inter war period, as well as the open an blatant mutiny by segments of the Japanese military which included the assassination of various politicians by said ultra-nationalists. I read Toland's The Rising Sun which addresses this, but I still have a hard time understanding how this came about in Japanese society.

I'm not so specifically detailed on these things either. But no one else is. But I have become more specific on many other factors about Imperial Japan and various controversial points. Nature of colonial Korea and Taiwan, the comfort women, the degree of total blame for the Pacific War-1937 Second Sino Japanese-1931 Manchuria invasion on "Japanese Aggression", justice for unconditional surrender.. on all these points information has been heavily biased agaisnt Japan in mainstream media, both general and high end education, political speeches, and so on.

 

Now if anyone has read my posts carefully, I havd stated many times about Japanese related problems. So yeah, assassinations are in there. But all things considered, I do not see enough for "justice in terminating".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Crickets from our resident lefties?

If you want a discussion, you need to tone down the craziness.

No craziness just a question.
From the sideline, I did not understand it was a real question, and not just an outburst.

 

Are there records, charges, convictions that support your claim/question? Ie, the "all" part?

 

 

It's interesting to see a loaded question with presupposed assumptions like this from a person claiming to be a police officer.

Simply stating "just a question" on that is quite remarkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the U.S., why is this so?

 

Because 25-30% of the population will find arguments of something being "anti-god", irrational and a sign of religious fundamentalism. If you want to promote understanding for your position, that might not be a good foundation to have a discussion on.

There is no higher authority than God and no higher law than the bible. America can only prosper if returns to be a Christian society in unity with God.

And yet somehow Asian nations prosper.

They are not America and they are not sharing American values. Wealth is one thing, moral superiority is another and America is only great because of the morals that made the country great.

There is nothing that gives the US moral high ground outside of being white.

 

 

Well it saved the world from Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, and international Communism. So there is that.

 

The Americans are a great beacon for the future of humanity. They are a multicultural state, and considering the melting pod, what they have produced from that is impressive. Its the protoype of what the future will inevitably be for all of us. Despite the problems surrounding the Trump Presidency, its notable what is not happening.

1 There is no civil war. People are talking about it, but nobody is doing it. In fact, nobody is even preparing for one. The South prepared for years before they kicked off the American civil war. Nobody is now.

2 There are no assassinations. OK, perhaps the secret service can take part of the credit for this, but nobody it seems is even willing to try executing their political leaders.

3 There is stability. America is, despite the political roller coaster right, still making economic progress. Highly partial it seems to me, but hey, the economy is heading in the right direction. I dont believe it has much to do with Trump, which to me suggests the fundamentals of the American economy, not relying on political input, are good ones.

 

Compare and contrast with China, where Hong Kong is ripping itself to shreds, to Russia, where political debate is suppressed, or in its worst moments, murdered, then I would say America has a lot to celebrate. Things still have not reached the nadir they did in the 1970's, when you were militarily weak, politically weak, economically weak. Only one of those would seem to be true. As long as the other two pillars are strong, America will at length sort itself out. If it sorted itself out from the Civil War, and the 1970's, then It will this time too. And if the 70's are any guide, be better for the experience.

 

If there is anything in LD's comments I agree with, id say the US is disenfranchising its voters. I dont think its the political system that is causing this, I think its the 2 party system, and the deliberate attempt to make binary choices on things that defy them, like civil rights, or regional development, or the myriad of other issues. Its not the political system that is the problem here, is the lobbying and the party system that is at fault. Which is remarkably close to the same problems I believe we have, though at least having a third party does go some way to give us alternatives.

 

Stuart, thank you for this post and I'll give my reply regarding your last paragraph. See my replies to Der Zeitgeist regarding our voting system and the European voting system. For further elaboration once said Presidential, Senate and House candidates are in office, their ideas tend to reach a compromise during negotiations between the three previously mentioned groups. Hence the saying "Sausages and laws are made in the same way."

Through the decades the Democratic Party has turned a most horrible shade of red. Some people say this started when the 1968 democratic convention protests occurred. I believe this had alot to do with this and the final straw the Democratic Party voter did against the blue-collar worker -- imo -- was when Dick Gephardt gave up in the 1988 Democratic Primary which was won by Bill Clinton.

Again, just my opinion, but I believe the Republican Party became more conservative (not near enough though) when Reagan was elected in 1981 as a reaction to the Democratic Party's wretched turn to the left. The Democratic Party continues to turn more left while the Republican Party continue to just idle in more-or-less conservative neutral. The conservative voters however, began to make themselves heard when the Obama began his gross socialist trend. Beginning with the glorious TEA Party, these truly great American people turned the House, then the Senate Republican. Unfortunately the 2016 Republican President candidates, except one, would not get in the trenches and fight against the evil power the left was accumulating and which the growing conservative base wanted. Trump was fairly elected President, something the whores of liberalism cannot except, hence the charade of this "inquiry into the impeachment" of Trump.

Stuart, there you have it. A completely unbiased ;), and accurate and brief synopsis of the two U.S. political parties since the 1960's :)

 

 

No problem Rick.

 

Up until Trump, it did, I dont disagree. The Republicans didnt move on foreign policy from Reagan through to Obama. Not one jot. Since Trump we have had,

1 Questioning of NATO's relevance in a world self evidently going down the toilet.

2 Questioning the value of allies, after said allies expended immeasurable lives and treasure at US request in the war on terror.

3 Questioning of whether we as democracies have the right to stand by fellow democracies, and treating tyranical regimes as if they are just fellow partners to be dealt with.

4 Praising the Chinese Communist party, and considering the participation in the Russian May day parade.

5 Actually doubting the world of a British PM that Russia was behind the attack on Salisbury, and not even being very private about his concerns.

 

Now, I know Trump gets a lot of flak, and perhaps I go too far. But whatever the flaws in Reagan, he would be absolutely appalled to see 30 years down the line a Republican president doing one of thse. All 5? Completely contrary to where the Republicans were, and to a very large extent have been ever since Eisenhower. This is a complete sea change, to the point when im seeing Republicans beginning to wonder what party they are in.

 

I can be honest and say, as far as foreign policy is concerned, I was appalled by Obama's boneheadedness. Ill be no apologist for his mistakes, which were many To my mind, with the Obama example in mind, Trump is far more a Democrat President than Republican one. This is the Obama doctrine doubled down on.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Der Zeitgeist--your latest post. Those ideas you mentioned are sorted out in the U.S. Primary voting system.

 

No, they aren't. If that were the case, you wouldn't have a President Donald J. Trump in office and a Republican party torn apart along the Trumper / Never Trump divide.

 

Yes they are. As a U.S. primary and general election voter for decades, I have a fair understanding on the differences of the general and primary elections. This may look "confused" to European eyes, but for the U.S. it works just as your system works for you. Just different ways of doing things, none "better" than the other.

 

 

So you think Congress is doing a good job in legislation these days? If you read my original post, my point was that the polarization in the two-party system is one factor that prevents congress from functioning like it should. When you have a legislative branch that is unable to pass bills, that's not "just a different way of doing things", it's dysfunctional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent "Spiegel" article on the change in US politics was headlined "America's Gender Reassignment". That's of course typical "Spiegel" hyperbole - it's not like the US hasn't had isolationist phases before. Still, the image would explain the turn in behavior from manly leader of the free world to non-stop bitching "you don't bring me flowers anymore, why do I have to tell you what you should do when it's obvious what I want, what have you ever done for me anyway, I'm going back to my mother!" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its been isolationist before, but never since WW2. Even in the 1970's, with the appalling memory of Vietnam behind it, the US clearly still aimed to be big on the world stage. If not lead, to be a leading influencer. Nixons Presidency did something in that regard. Even Carter had a butch moment, even if, no fault of his, it all went wrong. Now, well its almost reminiscent of the 1930's, when Americans blamed the Europeans for dragging them into a war not of their making. Now they blame the Europeans for being so game as to help fight their war on terror for them. And we are blamed for it, im not quite sure why. Perhaps we were supposed to talk them out of it or something.

 

I dont know what Trump wants. I think he wants to blame America's decline on everyone else but America. That to me is nowhere near as progressive as Nixon' mindset where America would assist allies where it could, but demand the locals do the heavy lifting. That is a strategy. Trump is not offering a strategy, he is offering a rant for the cheap seats.

 

Trump is coming over in December for the NATO summit, just as our election campaign nears the election. Get the popcorn ready for when he tells Bojo how great Farage would be as PM. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Pacific War was because of the oil embargo which got put in place because the US was not willing to just let the Japanese be. If what you said was true, then the oil embargo would have never been put in place to begin with, or, the US side would have been willing to meet Konoye for talks about resolving the oil embargo with Japan agreeing to leave the axis. The UK and Churchill were desparate for US involvement so they were happy to see Japan strike PH, putting an end to "when/how can we get the US in the war"

 

 

The US was bigly into a unified China and removing Japan from Manchukuo, but I can't help but notice that if Manchukuo still existed today it would probably be a good thing for Japan and the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

Ignore all the rhetoric, and look at behavior. America's Left (and really, all left-wing movements) is about power, not principle.

All politics is about "power" because all power is the ability to influence people, policy and resources. Both Democrats and Republicans have principles that instruct the use of that power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

 

Because the reject the Lord as their saviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1783, the United States has been the exemplar of democracy in action - flawed though it was and flawed(though much less so( it remains. There is good reason why it is the number one destination of immigrants, especially those of colour, and it ain't because of the paleness of most of the people.

 

Well said, thank you. The post above yours read like the Onion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, there were attempted political assasinations in the US. Someone in a Bernie Sanders T-shirt opened fire on a group of Republican legislators. Theres also been continuous harassment of Republican officials in public, such as when out to dinner.

 

These are much different circumstances than I remember 30 years ago, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say political assassinations are not exactly rare in US history. Offhand, I can't think of another major Western nation that lost three heads of state that way within a century, and damn near a fourth within the next quarter one. That's before we get to other Kennedys, civil rights leaders, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember seeing this before and it is a bit dated but .........

 

30 Republican Senators might vote to impeach Trump if the ballot were secret, GOP source says

 

................

Of course, there is no prospect of a secret ballot. That means moderate Republican senators, such as Susan Collins of Maine, face a politically brutal choice as they run for reelection.

https://www.businessinsider.com/30-republicans-senate-impeachment-trump-2019-9

 

How many of them would vote yes is anyone's guess. But it would not require all of them to vote yes in order to put Trump out of the White House.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember seeing this before and it is a bit dated but .........

 

30 Republican Senators might vote to impeach Trump if the ballot were secret, GOP source says

 

................

Of course, there is no prospect of a secret ballot. That means moderate Republican senators, such as Susan Collins of Maine, face a politically brutal choice as they run for reelection.

https://www.businessinsider.com/30-republicans-senate-impeachment-trump-2019-9

 

How many of them would vote yes is anyone's guess. But it would not require all of them to vote yes in order to put Trump out of the White House.

 

There would need to be 20 defections and it would be the death of the party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Answer me this: Why are the leadership of the Democrat Party, and those on the Left ALL connected to Paedophiles, sexual abusers, and abusers of women, and defend said people?

 

Because the reject the Lord as their saviour.

Which Lord? The Christian version of a God?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...