Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 02:41pm PT
|
At the risk of belaboring a point, I offer this:
I've survived long enough to have lived under the terms of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Papa Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama.
I wasn't necessarily proud of some of them, but Trump is the ONLY one that that ever made me feel embarrassed.
So you didn't find it embarrassing to learn that not only was Clinton getting his "Slick Willie" serviced in the Oval Office (or should that be orifice?), along with his premium cigar collection, by a twenty year old intern (or however old she was)?
And he lied his ass off until it surfaced that an infamous "blue dress" revealed his guilt?
Not even a little embarrassing?
Remember Bill and Trump used to be good friends--they seem pretty much cut from the same clothes to me.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 02:51pm PT
|
No, that behavior is not significant to running a country. It is a big issue only to irrational small minded people, hypocrites, birthers, deniers, faux spews, alt-reich, swift-boaters, McCarthyites, and tammyFaye fans.
Bedrooms are meant to be private, not the subject of neverending biased repuklican witchhunts.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 02:51pm PT
|
Madbolter, your financial arguments related to illegal aliens go away if we shift focus away from saying people are fundamentally bad and wrong for being here, and instead say employers are fundamentally bad and wrong for giving illegal wages and not withholding taxes.
Both are the case; it's not either-or. Both are violating the law, and neither should be allowed to benefit from doing so.
And we have a bad and wrong government that doesn't have centralized payment for baseline healthcare, funded in part by withholding from paychecks.
There, we simply disagree. I do not believe that it is government's role to ensure some lowest common denominator for society. Government's constitutional role as arbiter over interstate commerce concerns such things as anti-trust, price-fixing, and abuses on the part of companies that provide basic necessities, such as food, health-care (and its surrounding materials), utilities, travel, and so forth.
In that legitimate role, government has every right to tell health-care-related companies, "You will NOT make obscene profits on supplies, drugs, or procedures. We will closely regulate and cap if necessary your profits, and we will break you up if you are becoming monopolistic." Do THAT alone, while regulating insures, and health-care in this nation will be affordable to anybody who prioritizes it over, say, buying a new TV set.
Beyond that, government has no business in enforcing people to purchase that which they do not care to prioritize. Conversely, the taxpayers have no responsibility to "cover" those that do not prioritize paying for their own basic needs.
There will then be a TINY subset who literally cannot afford their own basic needs. For those, fine, I'll agree to some "safety net," although not administrated as it presently is. At present, some really raw numbers make up the sole "review" of need. Instead, your going onto the federal dole should be as difficult as applying for a mortgage! You will submit your bank statements, income tax returns, copies of receipts for purchases spanning, say, two years. In short, you will PROVE that you are genuinely needy rather than just have poor decision-making priorities.
Then, in THAT sort of context, hey, feel free to throw the borders wide open!
Fix that and it doesn't matter how many illegals we have in America. Heck, all that money that would be spent on a wall can instead help lower the taxes!
AMEN! Although, I've amended your "fix" somewhat.
We should have a meritocracy in the workplace, and if we breed people who are too lazy or too stupid to do the jobs, let people of the world come do them.
Sure, but how do you enforce that? Whenever I talk about enforcing people EARNING their money (you know, a meritocracy of earnings and possessions), people moan about how "coldblooded" and "selfish" I am.
Look, there's a basic principle: You get to enjoy ALL of your own consequences. Let's "enforce" that, which is easy to do because it's passive "enforcement," and suddenly government can get out of most of what it's taken upon itself.
America would become a disaster if we had to rely on our native-born workforce because life here IS too easy, and we as a nation don't have the wisdom to properly invest in our children to ensure our future prosperity.
You'll have to explain this a bit more. I seriously don't get the lack of investment. We've POURED mega-dollars into public education (of course, for decades with an increasingly liberal bent), and we've chastised families who were too "harsh" on their kids.
It wasn't that long ago that kids did CHORES! Many worked on the farm as hard as adults, and they did that alongside getting an education. Most worked from dawn to dusk and then did their homework. And those generations raised work-ethic kids into adults that turned America into a production and economic powerhouse that because a world power.
Now we coddle kids, and the idea of a "trip to the woodshed" raises howls of horror among the soft-hearted liberals who somehow came to believe that a spanking ruined a kid.
Well, you libs, you wanted a "soft-hearted" society in which "everybody's a winner," and you GOT the lowest-common-denominator thinking that pervades everything now! And the money you pour in cannot overcome the CULTURE you've produced!
We don't have the wisdom to invest in and enforce universal high standards, we don't consistently address the obstacles that distract our youth from focusing on education, and we don't consistently address the obstacles that distract our children from learning self-reliance and will power and perseverance to overcome adversity.
Again, you'll have to explain (don't be afraid to produce a WOT; embrace it!).
The "lack of wisdom" results from liberal thinking and relentless politics to influence every cultural perspective into one of LOW standards, nobody's feelings getting hurt, "tolerance" (falsely so-called), and this pure BS of "everybody's a winner."
This nation was founded on the exact opposite realization about human nature! This nation was founded by people who understood that some people ARE just stupid, some are lazy, some simply cannot succeed, some are just losers by choice and upbringing, and yet the opportunity for all must be equal. The liberal mindset has transformed equal opportunity into a continual effort to achieve equal results, even if that meant that the "results" had to be lowered to some lowest-common-denominator.
Throw as much money as you want at that mindset, and you'll still get only failure.
Furthermore, your phrase, "learning self-reliance and will power and perseverance to overcome adversity," comes entirely apart from the liberal agenda! HOW is a kid supposed to learn what you say in a household that for generations has lived on the federal teat? Where is "self-reliance" and "overcoming adversity" when every basic need is met with NO effort? I refer again to the fat family I recently observed at Walmart. Where is ANY "struggle" when I'm buying either their food or their TV set? Where is there any "adversity" in their grotesque obesity (that is something else that I'm paying for).
Where is any "enforcement" of "high standards" when I'm bad and wrong to even call attention to their obesity (that I'm paying for)? I'm "fat shaming" to say, "Look, chose ANY lifestyle you want, but don't then expect me to pay for it"!
Liberals literally do not WANT high standards, as everything they pay for and strive toward DEMANDS lowest-common-denominator thinking!
For example, HOW are you going to enforce high standards in schools in the face of entrenched teachers' unions (that liberals are committed to supporting)?
So, yes, please explain!
These are all family-specific things, but the consequences of not having a societal safety-net like the public education system to learn these things, is that all of society suffers when families fail in these goals.
And there it is, the core liberal inconsistency.
You don't want there to be any such thing as a "family." There are NO morals, no standards, no "better" and "worse" comparisons. At present, "families" are ENCOURAGED to be single-mother, with multiple fathers who are not living with the mother. At present, the idea of a father IN the home is not only NOT prioritized; liberals are COMMITTED to the idea that a "father" can be ANYTHING or nothing at all.
You have "masterminded" the utter disintegration of the traditional, nuclear family, and now we are all reaping the whirlwind. And in THAT context you turn to the public school system for salvation!
But YOU have owned that system for decades. Liberals have ensured that teachers' unions RULE over schools and school boards. Liberals have fought every standards-based metrics, seeing these as attacks on liberality in education. And you have systematically taught this "everybody's a winner" BS for decades, alongside TEACHING kids that the traditional, nuclear family is just "one approach among many." Now you spend more time frothing at the mouth about gender-specific restrooms, in your attempt to nullify BIOLOGY itself, than actually ENFORCE standards.
Are you prepared to tell John (who is a MALE) that HE is not going to advance to the next grade because he is not makin' it? Are you prepared to closely assess his teacher's performance? Are you prepared to take THUGS out of school and throw them into Juvy for disrupting the learning environment?
That goes to overall enforcement! Are you prepared to round up thugs and rioters and throw them in prison for the act of rioting? No, liberals have sympathy for thugs, as long as they are members of some arbitrary "protected class."
Liberals would have to have a brain transplant to be able to engage in the sort of "enforcement" it would take to undo the cultural damage liberalism hath wrought already.
So, yes, please explain this "enforcement" in practical terms. HOW are you going to ensure these "high standards," when you have spent decades lowering the common denominator to ensure that NOBODY can be "shamed," and "everybody's a winner."
You can't hole up in a fortress and pretend it doesn't affect you, that you don't want to invest in it. Well you can, but it isn't effective in dealing with the problem that does affect you and everyone else.
I don't know what you're talking about. Here I am, putting myself and my fairly public reputation "out there" in the face of frequent bashing and dog-piling. I've repeatedly indicated that I'm not "holing up" but am instead engaging in discussion. My posts may be lengthy, but they are thoughtful and seriously attempting to engage.
I've played the "drive-by shooting" game just to be a "mirror" and to show how easy (and useless) it is. But what you see in this post is WHO I am. I'd love to find solutions we can ALL agree upon.
What I fear, though, is that the liberal mindset is so removed from the basic principles I hold dear that there are no common premises. Things I once thought could never be called into question now trivially are! I had once thought, for example, that EARNED private property was indeed OWNED by the earner. But now it is PRESUMED that everything earned is really not owned, except by the grand collective that gets to decide by mere majority how that shall be disposed of.
If we can't agree on the basics of NEGATIVE rights, then I fear that no agreement can be had. The rest amounts to tactics.
I despise both parties, both "sides," because BOTH insist on violating negative rights. Both are determined to control that which should not and cannot be controlled. Both seek power for its own sake and merely trot out "morality" as the cloak within which they hide their utter corruption. Both wish only to TAKE, and they "give back" to their constituents ONLY to purchase votes and thus gain or remain in power. And MOST of what government now "controls" it has NO right to be involved in. Consequently, we spend endless trillions putting out fires of government's own making!
The solution can NEVER be to give government yet more control over everything! Get government OUT of most of what it presently does, let it genuinely DO what it really was constitutionally empowered to do (such as treat with anti-trust enforcement EVERY entity that has ANYTHING to do with health-care), and they you will see the market itself produce winners.
I don't mean a "no-regulation" market, as I hope I've made clear! I'm no "free market" person as most people mean that term. The government was designed TO regulate the market by ensuring against monopoly and unlimited profits, particularly in spheres of basic human needs. In the same way the government rightly breaks air-traffic-controller strikes, government rightly imposes caps on health-care profits and pay!
Back to immigrants. This image of a lazy illegal alien stealing all your resources is a fantasy.
It's not a fantasy. It's certainly not ubiquitous, but neither is it fantasy. But, I believe that you are right to focus attention on the majority of cases rather than the edge cases.
Even if they work in jobs without paying taxes, you benefit by having cheaper food, cheaper housing, cheaper services.
There is literally too much to say here in one post. The cause-effect here is not this straightforward, imo. But we can save that discussion for other posts.
And stupid and lazy is a symptom of living an easy life- that is not the type of people who come to America. Maybe the second generation after learning how to be lazy and stupid from REAL Americans:)
Again, too much to say here. I'm in general agreement with what you say. But I would also say that I have more direct connection with "those people" than virtually anybody here. I won't say more, however, than to say: As former executive director of a denomination that has over 50% Hispanic members (many, many of whom are illegal), I am more in touch with their perspectives and lifestyles across multiple states than the vast majority of those posting here. There are countless nuances here! Too much to say!
That is all the more reason we need to keep the flow of immigration open. Immigrants remind the rest of America what hard work means- whether it is through doing hard manual labor or through more intense focus in academics.
I agree! I favor absolutely open borders!
However, the welfare state has to go if that's what you're really committed to.
So the real problem is not immigrants who improve the makeup of our nation.
Absolutely! We're on the same page.
The problem is businesses and employers who take advantage of our stupid immigration policies, make life more difficult for the immigrants, deprive them of their future social security retirement supplement while defrauding the American people of present income to the social security system and income tax system....
I see where you're headed, and I'm in general agreement. But you still have built in as a premise that the welfare state is hunky-dory, if we could just "fix" this other thing that you call "the problem."
On that I vehemently disagree. THE problem that infects everything (as noted above) is that you cannot build a culture of self-reliance and excellence as long as you simultaneously encourage reliance on a "safety net." You EXCEL when you KNOW that there's no net! And then you encourage charity BY encouraging communities (not the federal government) to recognize the worthy poor (trust by verify!) and on a very, very limited basis provide very, very temporary help to get over a devastating hump.
And after all of that, Christ was absolutely right to say, "The poor you will always have with you." Frankly, you can't fix stupid, and you can't "cover" every bad choice, even when it turns out to be devastating.
But this is all because companies are trying to increase profits. So we taxpayers subsidize companies that want to pay as little to employees as possible while making as much profit as possible.
"This" is a bit vague and sweeping. I have no problem with profits, within the scope of government regulation regarding anti-trust and the public welfare, which is to say regulations against gouging "captive audiences."
"Too big to fail" is absurd! I HATE "the right" for their insistence that corporations are sacrosanct, while they encourage corporations to grow and grow by accretion, ever seeking monopoly, so that they can finally control the market and start gouging. And then, by definition, these corporations have grown "too big to fail," so they must be bailed out when they blow it.
They should never be allowed to BECOME too big to fail! That is one of government's primary roles, and it is one at which it has most dismally failed.
But within the legitimate scope I'm describing, corporations are RIGHT to seek profit!
Where is your indignation for this Madbolter?
I hope I'm answering that question. I'm JUST as indignant as the libs regarding sacrosanct corporations and the utter failure of government to do its JOB regarding regulation! But I'm also just as pissed at libs for insisting the government get itself involved in all sorts of things it has NO business in, which dilutes government's capacity to do its ACTUAL job.
Get government back to doing what it legitimately can and should be doing, and you'll see a freer market, greater striving for excellence, and genuine regulation at the level of anti-trust and reigning in obscene profits (and executive pay) in industries that service basic human needs.
If you want to be in such a business, you enjoy a HUGE benefit: You have a captive audience with guaranteed sales. The trade-off you get is that you cannot then gouge that market, and you cannot become monopolistic.
What about the philosophical indignation of a government and business environment that systematically creates a category of society that is underprivileged and abused so that other segments of that same society can have cheaper goods and services?
I'm as indignant about it as you are. The difference between us is that you blame the republicans, while the republicans blame the democrats. I see that both are bent on control over that which they cannot control, while abdicating those roles over which government legitimately CAN and SHOULD exercise control. I'm indignant about these very threads in which left browbeats right and vice-versa, while neither "side" wants to admit its complicity in CREATING the very problems it now decries.
NONE of you genuinely believe in individual freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. So, you wish to manipulate things over which you cannot actually have control, while failing to simply hold people responsible for the consequences of their OWN decisions.
Sure, there will be minimal edge-cases, but you CANNOT produce a homogeneous, classless society that has no poor and no obscenely wealthy. NO amount of manipulation can produce this result, so "equal results" is impossible. Yet, by trying to achieve that, both sides have punted on genuine equal opportunity. And, thus, both sides have their own versions of lowest-common-denominator, which is the enemy of excellence and high standards.
For those edge cases, let's indeed have a "safety net," but make it HARD to land there and difficult to stay! When the woman in that famous video with 15 kids says, "Somebody has to PAY for all these...," my answer is: "You bet! Find EVERY father and MAKE him pay. Get this woman out there working and meanwhile getting an education. Enforce compliance, and take the kids away until the FAMILY can support them."
And if you got real edge cases like HER that are determined to just keep pumping out babies, you ENFORCE "humanitarianism" regarding the kids BY putting the woman in prison, isolating her from potential breeders, until she has a fundamental attitude adjustment. What you DON'T get to do is leave her alone, support that lifestyle on my dime, and insist that I must keep paying and paying forever for her and everybody like her, while she exhibits exactly zero personal responsibility for her CHOICES!
There are "worthy poor," but those that are genuinely needy are relatively few and far between. And we do nothing like "enforce" personal responsibility anymore. In THAT context, open borders constitutes and ever-increasing disaster.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 02:55pm PT
|
^^^zzzzzzz...
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 02:56pm PT
|
So you didn't find it embarrassing to learn that not only was Clinton getting his "Slick Willie" serviced in the Oval Office (or should that be orifice?), along with his premium cigar collection, by a twenty year old intern (or however old she was)?
And he lied his ass off until it surfaced that an infamous "blue dress" revealed his guilt?
Not even a little embarrassing? That's embarassing yes. Unconstitutional, no. A threat to our system of government, no. Hostile toward those who voted against him (or for him in many case), no. Consorting with our communist enemy, no. I could go on for quite some time. Remember, the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying. How many times has Trump done the same the very short time he's been in office. I know you're smart enough blahblah not to defend his conduct.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 04:26pm PT
|
A threat to our system of government, no.
That's quite the moving target. Please define.
Remember, the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying.
Not quite. They impeached him for lying under oath, which is quite a difference. I'd say that a sitting president perjuring himself is a pretty deep threat to the integrity of the office, which in turn is a pretty deep threat to our system of government! Nixon resigned over less BECAUSE people (then) recognized what a threat his lack of integrity was.
The problem with partisan thinking is that it always maximizes the transgressions of one's opponents, while minimizing the transgressions of one's own party.
Both Clintons were demonstrably pieces of crap who significantly sullied the offices they held in various ways. So were the Bushes. And so is Trump.
We CAN demand (and get) better, but we prefer to stay entirely partisan in our thinking and defend our chosen pieces of crap as the "high ground" in the face of "the opponent."
But, I predict that the debate will continue to be over how many transgressions can dance on the head of a pin.
|
|
chainsaw
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 04:35pm PT
|
I regret that as I oft do, I managed to offend many people. Sometimes I need to bark at the moon to get things off my chest. The things I said were not intended as a personal attack on anyone. But in retrospect, maybe I made it personal when bad things happen to me. I will slaughter an olive tree then offer you a branch..... Im caught up in the chaos. Its my fault too.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 04:42pm PT
|
The problem the right has with governing is they have no experience with it. Their entire deal is obstruction and dismantlement - they don't actually know how to govern.
As I've said in the past, I see the problem with governing the nation isn't the federal government, it's the hodgepodge patchwork of mostly incompetent state governments. Me? I'd say abolish states entirely as an anachronism the nation can ill-afford.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 04:45pm PT
|
Madbolter, I think we are getting closer to a common understanding and compromise... I skimmed for now, look forward to reading and replying in depth with a mix of agreements and disagreements, but I better not commit 'til I finish more work!
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 05:44pm PT
|
I didn't realize until reading the story below, that Flynn was fired as a result of a leak from someone with access to signals intelligence reports of his conversations with the Russian official.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14/the-leakers-who-exposed-gen-flynns-lie-committed-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/
President Trump’s national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, was forced to resign on Monday night as a result of getting caught lying about whether he discussed sanctions in a December telephone call with a Russian diplomat. The only reason the public learned about Flynn’s lie is because someone inside the U.S. government violated the criminal law by leaking the contents of Flynn’s intercepted communications.
|
|
7SacredPools
Trad climber
Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 05:47pm PT
|
The House of Representatives impeached him simply because they could after spending hundreds of millions of dollars hounding him over a BJ while Newt Gingrich (the Speaker of the House that initiated the impeachment vote) himself was engaged with the same exact thing with an aide who later became wife #3.
Newt Gingrich is a serious sinner. Wonder if he worries about going to hell.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 05:53pm PT
|
That's embarassing yes. Unconstitutional, no. A threat to our system of government, no. Hostile toward those who voted against him (or for him in many case), no. Consorting with our communist enemy, no. I could go on for quite some time. Remember, the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying. How many times has Trump done the same the very short time he's been in office. I know you're smart enough blahblah not to defend his conduct.
Not defending Trump, only expressing some surprise at another poster's comment that Trump was the first US president he found to be embarrassing--I think he's got some competition there.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 07:16pm PT
|
Madbolter, I think we are getting closer to a common understanding and compromise... I skimmed for now, look forward to reading and replying in depth with a mix of agreements and disagreements, but I better not commit 'til I finish more work!
Looking forward to it. Any delay in responding on my part will also be work impinging on it.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2017 - 08:22pm PT
|
Madbolter and NutAgain get right down to the core of the rot in our culture.
To sum up, I think we're between frame 3 and frame 4
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 08:25am PT
|
^^^^ Classic, Larry.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 10:02am PT
|
Chris Hedges interviews Matt Taibi on How an ‘Insane Clown President’ Played America’s Political System
How did an indecorous outsider manage to game the system put in place by the elite class and bulldoze his way through the Republican Party and into the White House? Journalist and author Matt Taibbi has a pretty good idea that he lays out in his new book, “Insane Clown President”—and that he discusses with Chris Hedges in this week’s episode of “On Contact.”
Hedges has an idea, too. As the Truthdig columnist and “On Contact” host puts it in the introduction to this show, “An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle as well as manufactured pseudo-drama.” Who better than President Donald Trump to capitalize on those cultural conditions, as well as on the breakdown of American institutions purportedly charged with safeguarding democracy?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 10:50am PT
|
‘Insane Clown President’ Played America’s Political System I believe you mean his backers, especially the kings of false news, Bannon and RT "news"
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 11:05am PT
|
RT is the entertainment arm of the Russian Propaganda apparatus.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 11:09am PT
|
Lots of smoke (Russian) right now, but still no flames. Might happen, might not. With the exception of Sen. McCain & Graham there are few Republicans who want to get to the bottom of this mess, and they control the congressional agenda.
So, lacking specific evidence Trump's standard practice of changing the subject is all he has. I'm betting he knew what his surrogates were up to but proving it might be difficult.
Maybe not.
The information avalanche is taking a life of its own. Yesterday morning and afternoon, the big story was Flynn's resignation and its ramifications. That is a big story, indeed, and in normal times would dominate several news cycle. Then came the Times' explosive story last night about the Trump Campaign/Russian intelligence connections. More stories will follow.
Trump might have made a fatal mistake by pissing off the intelligence community. They do not trust Trump to the point they are withholding intelligence, are now motivated to leak, and likely have a ton more dirt to dish. They also have enforcement authority: how many of the fingered rats would take a hit for Trump? And, the media is only too happy to keep digging: they smell blood, especially with the countless lies and cover ups emerging.
Congress risks owning this mess entirely, and its ensuing political mayhem. At some point soon, they might be forced to lead from behind.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2017 - 02:07pm PT
|
That's quite the moving target. Please define. You clearly haven't been paying attention. Both Trump and Stephen Miller have expressed the opinion that the government should bend to Trump's whim.
Not quite. They impeached him for lying under oath, which is quite a difference. I'd say that a sitting president perjuring himself is a pretty deep threat to the integrity of the office, which in turn is a pretty deep threat to our system of government! So now you're concerned about our system of government? I understand the legal distinction of lying under oath vs. just lying. However, when Trump lies about illegal voting (and just about everything else), that, coming from the sitting president, doesn't undermine the legitimacy of his office and, thus, our system of government? I for one don't believe that Trump would be any less dishonest under oath. I'll trade you Bill's one lie for the untold number of whoppers Trump has uttered.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!