ewsieg

The HTS leader, blanking on his name right now, he seems to hate the previous Syrian ruling party more than he hates America. I guess that's a plus. We'll be cautious, but it'll be a mistake to not try and seize an opportunity if one arises. Russia right now is probably freaking out a bit, thus why the Assad Syrian flag was removed so quickly at their embassy in Moscow. That's not a bad thing either.... that said I don't have a lot of hope based on previous recent history.

You find one legitimate case, which spurs rumors of more, then you simply claim millions. Come on CM, you've seen this for years from MAGA, it shouldn't be this hard to figure out. 😉

Depends on what Jack White you're actually playing. Even the WRIF didn't support him much with the White Stripes. Glad to hear about WXRT too, if radio actually followed suit, it would give some uniqueness that could help out a station in every market.

Trump won't go along with Elon on this though, at least once someone reminds him it would be one less fly by when he does his military parades.

Being a right leaning anti-trumper, I'm happy with some of those voices out there stating the concerns I have that I don't think get much airplay in the media. That said, the Lincoln Project, while funny at times, is nothing but a troll. It probably does get under Trumps skin, so I guess I can take some comfort with that, but overall, does it really accomplish anything....not really. I wouldn't put them at Joe and Mika standards though, even though Morning Joe has enjoyed bringing those folks into the show. Joe and Mika just want a seat at the table and will say or do anything to ensure that access.

Meeting secretly with Russian clients, whatever that means, is concerning. I was not aware of this and will try and look up details on that. And again, I'm not saying I agree with the rest, but there is more to the story. "She has attempted to stop U.S. military intervention against Russian allies while also opposing sanctions against them." Like Assad? I have no love loss for him and definitely a part of me wouldn't care if he actually is at the end of his rope now, but we've seen bad situations like Iraq, which had it's own ruthless dictator, get worse when the US got involved. Syria may very well boot Assad here shortly, but we'll get Al Queda Jr. in it's place. At least this HTC or HSC or whoever they are at least seem to want to govern, so more like a Taliban I guess. Still not sure if that's a win for the US. Ironically, many of you on the old board were the ones telling me I needed to stop blaming Sadam Hussein for the Iraq war as I pointed to the facts that he constantly ****ed with Blix to at the very least, give the appearance he may have had weapons of mass destruction, instead, all of you kept yelling about Bush and our Intelligence just because they lied about some stuff. Glad to see you guys grew up and are patriotic now unlike when you were younger Iraqi assets.

Allsides says The Independent leans left, but if the above is true, they must be MAGA by now.

The Independent uses AI to write their articles and post their instructions to ChatGPT on their blog. Here is the one for this article. "Write an article about Tulsi Gabbard from the viewpoint of John Bolton. Don't ever say it's John Bolton though as many on the left think he has horrible foreign policy ideas. If they know it's Bolton, and he disagrees with her foreign policy views, they might come to the realization that it could mean they might actually agree with her foreign policy views."

Legally of course, my point is the dems have smeared her enough by claiming she's a Russian asset that they don't really need to worry about 'proof'. If there is actual evidence, I suspect it'll come out during her confirmation. And this isn't directed to you pfife, but proof needs to be more than Russia likes her. Iran wanted Harris to win, while I voted for Harris, I wouldn't classify myself as an Iranian asset.

No trial needed when you've already won the court of public opinion.

Trust me, I'm not on Tigerholics side here and obviously my statements are absolute, which generally means they are not accurate as a more nuanced take is generally always more correct, but the fact that most of you reacted with absolute shock to my comment versus admitting there is some truth in what I said but pointing out the nuance to defend your point......it's part of the reason why Trump won.

No, they are too busy sympathizing with Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. That said, when X is X vs USA, the progressive base will always give X the benefit of the doubt.

She's a sympathizer, which actually falls in line with the base of the Democratic party. I tend not to side with her on foreign policy but she is no different that many democratic congressmen/women. Barbara Lee is hailed for her Iraq vote, she isn't chastised for wanting women to stay covered and in the kitchen or gays to be persecuted. Add in the fact the FBI has been tapping her both under Trump and Biden. If there is any actual evidence outside of the sin of saying something you don't like, the intelligence community will ensure it comes out. The fact it didn't come out immediately when Trump mentioned the position has me guessing it's because they don't have any.

I still don't think Tulsi is the threat you do, she's simply a non-warhawk IMO. I saw a clip on Reddit "proving" Joe Rogan does nothing but dish out Russia talking points where it would show him say something, and then it would show Putin or the Russian UN ambassador saying something similar, things like: 1) This is nothing but a proxy war. Ummm, that's exactly what it is. Boris Johnson even came out a day or two ago complaining about how can we fight a proxy war if we don't arm the proxy. 2) That this could start WWIII. Biden's own administration said they had intelligence saying it was roughly a 50/50 chance Putin would use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Definitely would have pushed us closer if that had happened. I'm not saying warhawks shouldn't have a seat at the table either, but with the last 20+ years of the Middle East and how that's worked out for us, maybe it shows that you shouldn't have a warhawk only mentality to be allowed to sit at the table.

Saw this guy a few weeks ago at The Shelter. Show was supposed to be upstairs but they must not have sold well. I didn't know much about him but went with my cousin who saw him last year at a festival in Kentucky. Pretty solid show.

The Milk Carton Kids on Saturday as well.

Sad that I would be willing to exchange Patel for Gaetz. If any effort will be made to stop some of Trumps appointments, this one needs the most attention.

I disagree that we'll become less prosperous, at least in terms of a generic 'if we do something about it'. If Trump does something about it, yes I agree, but the pendulum swung to far. Quality products, at least some products, can be made here by companies willing to make a profit, but aren't driven by profit only. Every text book you find about business will say mgmt's responsibility is shareholder value. Unfortunately way to many have redefined shareholder value as the biggest profit in the shortest time possible. You can have American companies making quality products, paying American workers, and still being profitable, just not the most profitable possible. But yes, large tariffs forcing companies to either pass that on to us or bring it into the US regardless of what the market may dictate, plus how businesses define shareholder value today... it won't be pretty.

There is a legitimate complaint that it's nearly impossible to find stuff made in America unless specifically sought out, even at many small businesses. The fact that neither party has been able to do much to deal with it for so long is part of the reason why many voted to 'burn it all down'.

I would be very interested in knowing how this deal compares to the one Boris Johnson squashed at the behest of all western governments. I am not saying I trust Trump and/or Putin, but I don't think Putin completely trusts Trump either. I very well could see Trump telling Putin to accept some deal and if Putin doesn't, Trump flipping his script immediately and fully backing Ukraine too. Putin is a smart man, but smart doesn't always beat crazy.

Legally speaking you are correct, but this country was founded by Christian men who didn't want religion to have power, but still built it on a foundation of their Christian values. To be fair, that's all I was arguing in my joking attempt to get Christians to get on board with aborting sinful (non baptized) babies. I think you'll find most liberals agree with me too, at least when they want to claim that this country inherently is racist, sexist, and imposes morales others may not have on them.

I mostly agree with your stance on abortion and it's why regardless of what Tigerholic wants to say, pro-lifers are never going to be happy with states rights to make the decision. Trump used that to try and deflect from a precedence he helped create. Pro-lifers will push for a national ban, it's a matter of time and it might actually be Trumps toughest obstacle if he wants to do some things and has to tell pro-lifers he's not going to pursue a national ban as he recognizes that's a political nightmare. But there are situations where people can simply realize the complexity of an issue and be willing to bend on certain aspects without simply being a hypocrite.

I need you to go with me on this if you want to get Christians to back abortion (of non-innocent babies at least)!

I was talking about abortion with my brother recently and we agreed that we're old school conservatives when it comes to life. Government should always prevent the killing of innocent people, but we see nothing hypocritical with the death penalty. Combine that with the fact that we are a Christian nation (you can argue all you want, but it's deep seeded) and our Government can not allow anyone to take away an innocent life. That said, all good Christians know that babies are born with original sin. We also know for Christians, born = conceived. From a legal standpoint, our laws should not take away our religious freedom to abort the non-innocent life of a baby, a baby that sinned directly against God because of Adam and Eve. As such, a person would be free to abort their non-baptized kid up until they are 18. At that point, the kids freedom of religion supersedes the parents rights and they can remain non-baptized. My brother pointed out that if they never got baptized, they may want to be careful if they ever give anyone power of attorney though, as someone may have the legal right to abort them at that time.

I hope JVL is right and there is a part of me that thinks that is the most likely scenario on those issues, but, Trump had legitimate people expressing their concerns continually on why what he wanted originally wouldn't work. Did Trump change his tune because of them or because it was always part of the plan. With nothing but cheerleading yes men around him now, I guess we'll soon find out.