Political Posts

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, ourkid8 said:

I am not going to be pulled into your detached / delusional reality with make-believe numbers. 

 

Kid - no problem. If we can't agree that Iran has killed thousands of their own citizens for protesting, then you are correct - it's pointless.

[Parsad]

7 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Sanjeev, I am no longer going to exchange thoughts in this thread with you or anyone who chooses to ignore history but I would urge you learn more about how we got here.

 

Thank you!  You have made my day!  Cheers!

[vinod1]

This thread is like arguing over the decimals that come up when you divide 4/11 = 0.36363636363636...

 

Left wing says "there is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "that is complete nonsense everyone knows that is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "that is what the MSM wants you to believe, there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "You believe whatever Trump says, there is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "There is no point in arguing with someone who does not think there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "Good. If you cannot see there is a 3 after the decimal I am glad to stop"

 

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

This thread is like arguing over the decimals that come up when you divide 4/11 = 0.36363636363636...

 

Left wing says "there is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "that is complete nonsense everyone knows that is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "that is what the MSM wants you to believe, there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "You believe whatever Trump says, there is a 3 after the decimal"

Right wing says "There is no point in arguing with someone who does not think there is a 6 after the decimal"

Left wing says "Good. If you cannot see there is a 3 after the decimal I am glad to stop"

 

@vinod1 The issue is moral equivalence.  If you believe that, there is nothing to discuss.

[LC]

https://www.upworthy.com/carl-sagan-warning-about-charlatan-leader-ex1/

 

“We’ve arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces,” he told Rose. “I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it?”

 

Back on that benny hill bit! 

 

[vinod1]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

@vinod1 The issue is moral equivalence.  If you believe that, there is nothing to discuss.

 

The point I am trying to make is both sides have valid points on many issues. 

 

If you start with 7 October 2023, there is no moral ambiguity. Israel has every right to defend with every means necessary and do whatever it takes to make sure it does not happen.

 

Israel is also unambiguously in the wrong with settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

 

But most issues at least as relates internally to US, the truth is somewhere between what the left and the right has been arguing. 

[ourkid8]

23 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Yeah, see this where I have a problem with you too Ourkid8.  I just can't see either side talking about moral high ground, when neither really knows what the definition is or why it is important to maintain.  It's just blame game over and over, f u to one, f u to another, they did this to us, but you did this to us...and on and on ad nauseum until generations have died and been jaded by everything going on.  Israel has done horrendous things at times, but the Iranian Regime is certainly not going to see their 72 virgins either.  To defend either side's abhorrent acts is ignorance.  Cheers!

When @73 Reds mentioned losing a family member, I offered my condolences — even though he has directed disgusting comments and personal threats toward me. We are taught in our religion to extend basic human decency. I could have easily lowered myself to his level but I chose not to. 

I also feel genuine remorse for the Jewish lives (I am emphasizing Jewish) affected amid these conflicts, including the destruction of the Rafi’-Nia synagogue in Tehran during the April 2026 Israeli strikes. Places of worship like synagogues should be sacred and protected, not turned into collateral damage to push Israeli supremacy agenda. 

Humanity shouldn’t be selective. We can criticize policies, foreign interference, and escalations on all sides while still showing compassion for individual suffering, regardless of background.

 

Video of what is remaining of a Jewish synagogue: 

 

https://x.com/Bushra1Shaikh/status/2056435938088104013/video/1?s=46

Edited May 22 by ourkid8

[ourkid8]

21 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

Kid - no problem. If we can't agree that Iran has killed thousands of their own citizens for protesting, then you are correct - it's pointless.

 

Based on the below two points, US / Israeli were the foreign actors creating chaos within Iran. Did Iran kill innocent protesters OR kill foreign actors inciting violence in their country by enforcing rule of law?  - remember the protesters were  targeting police officers, security, police stations, fire departments, ambulances, mosques etc.(It stinks of Israeli BS) any country has a right to clamp down on foreign actors breaking the rule of law. 

1.  Trump openly admitted the U.S. armed protesters. He stated multiple times that the U.S. sent “a lot of guns” to Iranian opposition groups and protesters through Kurdish intermediaries. 

2.  Israeli intelligence was actively involved on the ground. Mossad ran a Farsi-language social media campaign openly telling protesters “We are with you… in the field.” Israeli officials discussed plans to spark internal rebellion, and Iranian authorities claimed to have arrested Mossad-linked agents during the unrest. 

Edited May 22 by ourkid8

[Marco Van Basten]

4 hours ago, vinod1 said:

 

The point I am trying to make is both sides have valid points on many issues. 

 

If you start with 7 October 2023, there is no moral ambiguity. Israel has every right to defend with every means necessary and do whatever it takes to make sure it does not happen.

 

Israel is also unambiguously in the wrong with settlement expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

 

But most issues at least as relates internally to US, the truth is somewhere between what the left and the right has been arguing. 

Why isn't Israel allowed to expand on land that it won in war?  If you think that way, then are you advocating for:

a) Turks to leave Turkey and hand over the land to Armenians and Greeks that lived there before Turks invaded and massacred them?

b) Arabs to leave Egypt and leave it to the indigenous population of Egyptians and move back to Saudi Arabia?

c) Arabs to leave Syria and leave Syria to the Syrians, Assyrians, and others who have lived there before the Arab conquest?

d) Arabs to leave Lebanon to the indigenous people of the land and go back to Arabia?

e) Arabs to leave all territories under Israel's control today and go back to the area where they came from - Arabia/Jordan?

f) All Canadians to pack up and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to First Nations?

g) All Americans to leave the USA and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to the American Indians?

h) Same as in f/g for Australia?

i) French to give up Alsace and Lorraine?

j) Albanians to leave Kosovo and give it back to indigenous Serbs?

k) Azeris to leave Karabakh and leave it to Armenians who have lived there for 3000 years?

l) Czechs to leave Sudetenland and give it back to the Germans?

l) Poles to give up parts of Germany that they received

 

If yes, o'k, I understand  where you come from.  If not, then why are the Israelis the only ones who are not allowed to benefit from winning a war?

[Marco Van Basten]

1 hour ago, ourkid8 said:

When @73 Reds mentioned losing a family member, I offered my condolences — even though he has directed disgusting comments and personal threats toward me. We are taught in our religion to extend basic human decency. I could have easily lowered myself to his level but I chose not to. 

I also feel genuine remorse for the Jewish lives (I am emphasizing Jewish) affected amid these conflicts, including the destruction of the Rafi’-Nia synagogue in Tehran during the April 2026 Israeli strikes. Places of worship like synagogues should be sacred and protected, not turned into collateral damage to push Israeli supremacy agenda. 

Humanity shouldn’t be selective. We can criticize policies, foreign interference, and escalations on all sides while still showing compassion for individual suffering, regardless of background.

 

Video of what is remaining of a Jewish synagogue: 

 

https://x.com/Bushra1Shaikh/status/2056435938088104013/video/1?s=46

You feel so sorry for a destroyed synagogue, you conveniently omit the fact that Jewish were massacred by Muslims for more than a thousand years, including Hebron riots of 1929, including convert or die policies of Muslim conquerors of the Holy Land.  Your religion, which I presume is Islam, calls for murdering Jews - The Text: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'" (found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

[adesigar]

14 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said:

You feel so sorry for a destroyed synagogue, you conveniently omit the fact that Jewish were massacred by Muslims for more than a thousand years, including Hebron riots of 1929, including convert or die policies of Muslim conquerors of the Holy Land.  Your religion, which I presume is Islam, calls for murdering Jews - The Text: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'" (found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

 

 

From Deuteronomy 20:16 isn’t this what the Jewish people are commanded to do?

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 20%3A16-18&version=NIV

 

However, in the cities of the nations the Lordyour God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy^[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.¹⁸ Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

 

Edit: There’s a bunch of really horrible stuff in most of the religious books. That doesn’t mean the people following that religion do it.

Edited May 22 by adesigar

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Why isn't Israel allowed to expand on land that it won in war?  If you think that way, then are you advocating for:

a) Turks to leave Turkey and hand over the land to Armenians and Greeks that lived there before Turks invaded and massacred them?

b) Arabs to leave Egypt and leave it to the indigenous population of Egyptians and move back to Saudi Arabia?

c) Arabs to leave Syria and leave Syria to the Syrians, Assyrians, and others who have lived there before the Arab conquest?

d) Arabs to leave Lebanon to the indigenous people of the land and go back to Arabia?

e) Arabs to leave all territories under Israel's control today and go back to the area where they came from - Arabia/Jordan?

f) All Canadians to pack up and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to First Nations?

g) All Americans to leave the USA and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to the American Indians?

h) Same as in f/g for Australia?

i) French to give up Alsace and Lorraine?

j) Albanians to leave Kosovo and give it back to indigenous Serbs?

k) Azeris to leave Karabakh and leave it to Armenians who have lived there for 3000 years?

l) Czechs to leave Sudetenland and give it back to the Germans?

l) Poles to give up parts of Germany that they received

 

If yes, o'k, I understand  where you come from.  If not, then why are the Israelis the only ones who are not allowed to benefit from winning a war?

 

Hey Marco - it's real simple and we all know the truth.  If you are a tiny Jewish nation - you are entitled to nothing - you are not even allowed to defend yourself.  

 

But if you are anyone else - you get a free pass all day long.  

 

The growth of anti-semitism around the world is stunning - but particularly disgraceful in the US universities and Europe.  The Western world should know better.

[ourkid8]

9 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

You feel so sorry for a destroyed synagogue, you conveniently omit the fact that Jewish were massacred by Muslims for more than a thousand years, including Hebron riots of 1929, including convert or die policies of Muslim conquerors of the Holy Land.  Your religion, which I presume is Islam, calls for murdering Jews - The Text: "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'" (found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

I don’t subscribe to Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as authoritative references. We can both pull passages from our respective religious texts, but I won’t lower myself to that level of selective quoting to attack an entire faith. Presuming someone’s religion and broadly claiming it “calls for murdering Jews” is inflammatory and doesn’t advance understanding. 

I can condemn violence against Jews throughout history whereas you are unable to condemn the war crimes/genocide currently happening in Palestine right in front of your eyes. True moral consistency means mourning innocent deaths on all sides!  Let’s aim for decency even in disagreement.

[Lazarus]

When it comes to religious violence, it's certainly not all Muslims. But it's almost always a Muslim. If someone rams a car into a crowd or explodes a suicide bomb in a crowded area, do you ever think "Damn Mormons are at it again?"

 

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

When it comes to religious violence, it's certainly not all Muslims. But it's almost always a Muslim. If someone rams a car into a crowd or explodes a suicide bomb in a crowded area, do you ever think "Damn Mormons are at it again?"

 

 

That's pretty much the point. Certainly don't have a problem with Muslims, but hosting radical Islam and Sharia Law are another issue.  Just as I wouldn't have any tolerance for the KKK or BLM.

[coc]

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

certainly not all Muslims. But it's almost always a Muslim. If someone rams a car into a crowd or explodes a suicide bomb in

Religious Jews have slaughtering Pals by the hundreds in the West Bank. Conservative Christians have fully supported the genocide in Gaza on religious grounds. Your argument is false. You just think those are OK and don’t count, and Muslim violence is what terrorism means to you. 

[vinod1]

11 hours ago, Marco Van Basten said:

Why isn't Israel allowed to expand on land that it won in war?  If you think that way, then are you advocating for:

a) Turks to leave Turkey and hand over the land to Armenians and Greeks that lived there before Turks invaded and massacred them?

b) Arabs to leave Egypt and leave it to the indigenous population of Egyptians and move back to Saudi Arabia?

c) Arabs to leave Syria and leave Syria to the Syrians, Assyrians, and others who have lived there before the Arab conquest?

d) Arabs to leave Lebanon to the indigenous people of the land and go back to Arabia?

e) Arabs to leave all territories under Israel's control today and go back to the area where they came from - Arabia/Jordan?

f) All Canadians to pack up and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to First Nations?

g) All Americans to leave the USA and go back to where their ancestors came from and leave the land to the American Indians?

h) Same as in f/g for Australia?

i) French to give up Alsace and Lorraine?

j) Albanians to leave Kosovo and give it back to indigenous Serbs?

k) Azeris to leave Karabakh and leave it to Armenians who have lived there for 3000 years?

l) Czechs to leave Sudetenland and give it back to the Germans?

l) Poles to give up parts of Germany that they received

 

If yes, o'k, I understand  where you come from.  If not, then why are the Israelis the only ones who are not allowed to benefit from winning a war?

 

I will state my bias: very pro-Israel. I have been since I was 14 and that is for 4 decades. One of the dozen or so nations that I admire.

 

US can easily win a war on any European country that it wants and occupy them, I assume you are completely fine with US doing that, because you know the European left wing is.....   and to the victor belongs the spoils. Also it is the ancestral land of many Americans. 

 

That is the argument you are making with the above examples.

 

Yes, these things happened in the past. We do not do these things now. Just as it is wrong to deny Israel the right to exist peacefully, the same rule applies to Israel.

 

 

 

[Marco Van Basten]

52 minutes ago, vinod1 said:

 

I will state my bias: very pro-Israel. I have been since I was 14 and that is for 4 decades. One of the dozen or so nations that I admire.

 

US can easily win a war on any European country that it wants and occupy them, I assume you are completely fine with US doing that, because you know the European left wing is.....   and to the victor belongs the spoils. Also it is the ancestral land of many Americans. 

 

That is the argument you are making with the above examples.

 

Yes, these things happened in the past. We do not do these things now. Just as it is wrong to deny Israel the right to exist peacefully, the same rule applies to Israel.

 

 

 

I am not fine with US attacking a European country or any country that is not a threat to us and occupying it.  

[Lazarus]

1 hour ago, coc said:

Religious Jews have slaughtering Pals by the hundreds in the West Bank. Conservative Christians have fully supported the genocide in Gaza on religious grounds. Your argument is false. You just think those are OK and don’t count, and Muslim violence is what terrorism means to you. 

 

The argument isn't false. The amount of extremist Islamic terrorism dwarfs that of other religions. As mentioned, when someone drives a car into a crowd or explodes a suicide vest in a subway, you don't think that the Jehovah Witness are behind it. We all know who it is, 99% of the time. Even if woke politicians tells us that 'we might never know his real motivation'. 

 

You can add a nuance to say that extremist Muslims aren't the only source of violence, and I'll agree with you. We might even agree that religions in general breed intolerance and are a cancer on human philosophy. Anything that creates or encourages an 'us v. them' mentality is problematic, whether that is an ideology associated with race, religion, gender, whatever. Religion happens to be a particularly strong one, since it involves 'God', an afterlife, morality, and so forth. 

[changegonnacome]

The $1.8bn Trump buddies slush fund attempt is quite something to see.......I like to look on the bright side of things......the escalation from family enrichment schemes to outright blatant looting has occurred on an accelerated timeline....it was always coming....but its arrival not even 18 months in is an acknowledgment from Trump that as he's fumbled the ball on Iran, tariffs, etc etc his power and hold in D.C. is sunsetting on accelerated timeline and so its time to take the looting playbook off the shelf a little earlier than he would have otherwise. I wish him well in his endeavours the more he's focused on ballrooms and looting the less damage he can do in policy. EOM.

Edited May 22 by changegonnacome

[cubsfan]

57 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

The $1.8bn Trump buddies slush fund attempt is quite something to see.......I like to look on the bright side of things......the escalation from family enrichment schemes to outright blatant looting has occurred on an accelerated timeline....it was always coming....but its arrival not even 18 months in is an acknowledgment from Trump that as he's fumbled the ball on Iran, tariffs, etc etc his power and hold in D.C. is sunsetting on accelerated timeline and so its time to take the looting playbook off the shelf a little earlier than he would have otherwise. I wish him well in his endeavours the more he's focused on ballrooms and looting the less damage he can do in policy. EOM.

 

That's really hilarious that all assume this is set up for Trump to steal a fund dedicated to those that were victims of political prosecution. 

 

So sad. 

[changegonnacome]

35 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

That's really hilarious that all assume this is set up for Trump to steal a fund dedicated to those that were victims of political prosecution. 

 

So sad. 

 

I guess you dont have a problem with it @cubsfan. Though I'm starting to wonder is there anything you might ever have issue with as regards the actions of Trump? Maybe if he shot somebody on 5th Ave. ?  

 

My view on the issues here are not some strange DNC or TDS rant...senior Senate republicans have called it "stupid on stilts" "immoral" the reaction here is overwhelming from the GOP itself....as I said if he is pushing stuff like this now, that is garnering reactions like this from his own Party....we've moved into the looting phase of T2.....I welcome it....the country getting looted by Trump is preferable to the country getting inextricably damaged by him.

 

Senior Republican Quotes on the DOJ Fund:

 

• "So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – Take your pick." — Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former Senate Republican Leader
• "Under what circumstances would it ever make sense to provide restitution for people who were either pled guilty or were found guilty in a court of law? You want to talk about maybe providing restitution for people who weren't found guilty? Fine, but if you do this, why not for the poor, mostly peaceful prospect protesters in Kenosha, in Portland? I mean, my God, do you see where this would head? These people don't deserve restitution; they, many of them deserve to be in prison. Some of them deserve the pardon because they were over prosecuted, but this is — I mean, this is just stupid on stilts." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "Imagine that, a fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol Police officers and other responding agencies. People that had pled guilty to physical acts against the president may actually be able to get compensated. How absurd does that sound coming out of my mouth?" — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "It will invariably put us in a position where your taxpayers dollars and my taxpayer dollars could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned and now we are going to pay them for that. That's absurd. … When you take money from me to give to a purpose that I vehemently disagree with, that's tyranny, and that's what that account is." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "There's no one positive thing that could be spun out of this between now and November. This is bad policy, it's bad timing, and it's bad politics." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "I think it's unprecedented for someone to be on the both sides of a legal decision, where you make a plea bargain with yourself, essentially." — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
• "I'm not a big fan [of the fund]. … [The White House] needs to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned, honestly, at the timing and the substance. … I think that there are, and will continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer." — Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Senate Majority Leader
• "I do not support the weaponization fund as it has been described. … I do not believe individuals that were convicted of violence against police officers on Jan. 6 should be entitled to reimbursement of their legal fees." — Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
• "The White House dropped a bomb in the middle of a pretty well planned out reconciliation bill to help deliver on one of President Trump's priorities." — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Senator and senior Senate Appropriations Committee member
• "Somebody described it as a galactic blunder, and I think that's probably true." — Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
• "People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide." — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chairman, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
• "Somebody explained it to me this way, an attorney. … It is as if somebody sued themselves and agreed upon a settlement with themselves that's going to be funded by the rest of us. If that's the case: What?" — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chairman, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
• "I don't like the fund at all." — Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), Senator
• "We're going to try to kill it. … I am completely objecting to this." — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Co-Chair, House Problem Solvers Caucus
• "I don't know why anyone is receiving money from this fund." — Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), House Republican Conference member (caucuses with Republicans)

Edited May 22 by changegonnacome

[cubsfan]

42 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I guess you dont have a problem with it @cubsfan. Though I'm starting to wonder is there anything you might ever have issue with as regards the actions of Trump? Maybe if he shot somebody on 5th Ave. ?  

 

My view on the issues here are not some strange DNC or TDS rant...senior Senate republicans have called it "stupid on stilts" "immoral" the reaction here is overwhelming from the GOP itself....as I said if he is pushing stuff like this now, that is garnering reactions like this from his own Party....we've moved into the looting phase of T2.....I welcome it....the country getting looted by Trump is preferable to the country getting inextricably damaged by him.

 

Senior Republican Quotes on the DOJ Fund:

 

• "So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – Take your pick." — Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), former Senate Republican Leader
• "Under what circumstances would it ever make sense to provide restitution for people who were either pled guilty or were found guilty in a court of law? You want to talk about maybe providing restitution for people who weren't found guilty? Fine, but if you do this, why not for the poor, mostly peaceful prospect protesters in Kenosha, in Portland? I mean, my God, do you see where this would head? These people don't deserve restitution; they, many of them deserve to be in prison. Some of them deserve the pardon because they were over prosecuted, but this is — I mean, this is just stupid on stilts." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "Imagine that, a fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol Police officers and other responding agencies. People that had pled guilty to physical acts against the president may actually be able to get compensated. How absurd does that sound coming out of my mouth?" — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "It will invariably put us in a position where your taxpayers dollars and my taxpayer dollars could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned and now we are going to pay them for that. That's absurd. … When you take money from me to give to a purpose that I vehemently disagree with, that's tyranny, and that's what that account is." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "There's no one positive thing that could be spun out of this between now and November. This is bad policy, it's bad timing, and it's bad politics." — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Senate Judiciary Committee member
• "I think it's unprecedented for someone to be on the both sides of a legal decision, where you make a plea bargain with yourself, essentially." — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
• "I'm not a big fan [of the fund]. … [The White House] needs to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned, honestly, at the timing and the substance. … I think that there are, and will continue to be, a lot of questions around that, that the administration is going to have to answer." — Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Senate Majority Leader
• "I do not support the weaponization fund as it has been described. … I do not believe individuals that were convicted of violence against police officers on Jan. 6 should be entitled to reimbursement of their legal fees." — Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
• "The White House dropped a bomb in the middle of a pretty well planned out reconciliation bill to help deliver on one of President Trump's priorities." — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Senator and senior Senate Appropriations Committee member
• "Somebody described it as a galactic blunder, and I think that's probably true." — Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
• "People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide." — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chairman, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
• "Somebody explained it to me this way, an attorney. … It is as if somebody sued themselves and agreed upon a settlement with themselves that's going to be funded by the rest of us. If that's the case: What?" — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chairman, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
• "I don't like the fund at all." — Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), Senator
• "We're going to try to kill it. … I am completely objecting to this." — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Co-Chair, House Problem Solvers Caucus
• "I don't know why anyone is receiving money from this fund." — Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), House Republican Conference member (caucuses with Republicans)

 

You're such a great guy Change - just call me a cynic.   I tend to look at the big picture on these issues:

 

1) You and your buddies are assuming POTUS will loot the fund that has been otherwise designated for those that have been severely wronged.

I don't buy it for 1 second.

 

2) You did a wonderful job of quoting almost every RINO that can't stand Trump. Big deal - old news. There is a war going on in the Republican Party just like the Democratic Party.  RINOs are getting replaced and the country is behind Trump. I would not give RINO's like Cassidy or McConnell one ounce of credibility, when they are looking to pay back Trump politically.   But that is me.

 

3)  My distrust and cynicism is rooted in this basic dichotomy:  All over the country you have thousands of VIOLENT criminals who are repeat offenders freed on cashless bail EVERY day. It's stunning to see - and has been going on for years now. Chicago is absolutely amazing with this. 

 

4) In contrast - you have a clearly political Jan 6th prosecution with a 100% conviction rate that swept up HUNDREDS of NON-VIOLENT offenders for "trespassing" - walking into the Capitol and right out after taking a few selfies and in cases escorted by the Capitol police.  They were DENIED bail and held in pre-detention facilities for up to 2 years!  Trials were severely backed up and they sat in jail while charges like "sedition" were padded for the DC kangaroo court.  

 

There is no way to square the circle other than a political prosecution set up to punish any supporter that protested what they felt was an unfair election process.  And likewise, politically reward your rioters, looters and criminals that caused 25 deaths, billions in damages and thousands injured during the 2020 riots and the current era of dealing with violent crime in democratic strongholds.

 

Biden justice: Support Trump - we will bankrupt or ruin your life any way possible.  Support Democrats - no problem, here's your bail and in many cases, we will just drop the charges.

 

That is the big picture.

[Sloanes Teddy]

Cubs, I would sincerely like to know your information sources. You repeatedly describe things that are not part of my life (i live in usa). I'm sure I live in a bubble, but my bubble can't be that good of a filter, can it?

 

I am not being a smartass. I really want to know.

[Spekulatius]

Trumpistan isn’t exactly run as the founders envisioned America to be. Now that the damn broke, I think we get more of this even when Trump isn’t around any more.