Posted on 10/04/2019 10:07:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well, there is talk of an aide for Romney being involved with Ukraine corruption. Not much seen on that story as of yet. But there is a light on and room for hope.
THAT’s a whole new pail of worms.
All this is taking me back to Kim Clement’s prophecy of 2014 on you tube and posted here. Impeach Impeach Impeach: and he survives. But the democrats will be sorely embarrassed and the republicans will not be exempt from HIS fury. HE is dissatisfied with BOTH parties.
Garrison _nails_ it!
Thanks for posting.
I want most of the people who think they run this country to be destroyed.
JoMa
p
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3783773/posts?page=1#1
did you see this?
it needs some eyes... I think you’re Army, but I don’t know..
Older southerners remembered reconstruction for I think about four generations
Goldwater was the first Deep cleave into that Dixiecrat stranglehold
Although about half the south supported Eisenhower
Because Trump is doing the job he was hired to do. The louder the swamp yells and screams the more we know he is doing his job.
Perhaps that’s not why you voted for him (assuming you did).
Eisenhower had the war hero thing going for him. Without that he never would have been President.
My guess is that you are 100% CORRECT.
Yours, TMN78247
Generic Presidential Vote
43. If the election for president were held today with Donald Trump as the Republican running against a Democratic Party candidate, who would you vote for?
Otober 1, 2019 | Black % | Hispanic % | Other % |
---|---|---|---|
The Democratic Party candidate | 63 | 39 | 36 |
Donald Trump | 16 | 34 | 28 |
It Depends | 8 | 11 | 18 |
Won't vote | 13 | 15 | 18 |
September 24, 2019 | Black % | Hispanic % | Other % |
---|---|---|---|
The Democratic Party candidate | 61 | 47 | 43 |
Donald Trump | 11 | 26 | 29 |
It Depends | 12 | 17 | 17 |
Won't vote | 17 | 10 | 11 |
-PJ
No idea what your sentence means ... I was talking about Mitt and Bush’s being the problem, not Trump. I was for Trump from the start. Maybe that’s what you meant. I was responding to Jeb’s ‘how do I tell my grandson’ purity signaling.
Yes, I was a soldier.
OddLane ~ "In short, Trump was elected to be the ultimate disruptor and to play that disruptive role as much as possible.
tinyowl ~ Simply not true.
I replied ~ Perhaps thats not why you voted for him...
It's why I voted for him. We desperately need Washington to be disrupted. I suspect many FReepers and other loyal Americans voted for him for that exact reason.
I contend that your "Simply not true." is incorrect, that this disruption of the Tyranny Trajectory, driven by BOTH parties, is precisely why he's in office right now, instead of goddess-queen Hillary.
OK ... let's see then.
Well it may be two sides of the same coin. I knew a little of Trump (not Apprentice and the public persona ... but had seem him testify in front of congress, knew about his brother and what it taught him, heard him talk about his period of business failure and what THAT taught him, and also happened to date a women once who live in Trump Tower in NYC and was on the board of trustees for that building. So I pretty much knew what we'd be getting.
For me it was who he was as a man, the fact that his favorite author and thinker (when it comes to political philosophy, philosophy of man acting in 'the world', and ... freedom in general ... and abject disdain for collectivist thinkers and philosophies - Ayn Rand.
Now to me, I didn't and don't care specifically if he disrupts. But if he were to pursue what matters to him, which is what he would do, then yeah, he would disrupt, but 'disruption in general' is ... well ... too general. Lots of people could disrupt, and not do anything GOOD. Bernie Sanders was a disrupter.
So maybe you just wanted a nuke to go off. I disagree with that. We needed the power of nuke but not energy blowing out in all directions. We needed specific direction. I think MOST people who voted for Trump wanted a specific type of power and action ... and ... yeah ... were the man to fulfill that ... then yes ... in effect it would be disruptive. But 'Disruptive' alone is not the point, and I don't think most just wanted plain old disruptive.
So I objected to the characterization that that's what he was elected to do because it's not what he not elected 'to disrupt', and conservatives who supported him weren't just looking to blow up the system. (That's the job of Antifa and Occupy ... i.e. nihilists.)
Sometimes correcting something is disruptive, and sometimes stopping a force of evil is disruptive. But really he was elected, to STOP the disruption to our lives that is the left and restore ORDER and rationality rather than to cause chaos or blow up the system.
To say 'he was elected to disrupt is to underestimate many and I think probably most who voted for him. But perhaps we are arguing semantics. I would say 'well of course what he would do would WIND UP being disruptive, but mere disruption is not the point, and mere disruption would accomplish none of the things we want restored, i.e. sanity, order, and respect for the principles that made the US great in the first place.
Good. We’re on the same page.
In my industry (semiconductors) a disruptive technology is the grail every engineer and investor seeks.
Like so?
https://www.wired.com/story/urgent-11-ipnet-vulnerable-devices/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Yeah. That’s bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.