Great observation and great question.
#19 | Posted by snoofy

Why is it so "great"?
#21 | Posted by boaz

Because it shows you don't think for yourself.

"Christmas."

George Washington crossed the Delaware and attacked the Hessians on Christmas.

It's one of the things that Made America Great, no doubt.

First they came for the legal green card residents who wrote bad checks.

Great observation and great question.

Find me any consumer who has actually asked for this.

Screw Veterans and their phony "Health Care."
--Republicans

The "global south" (led by Russia and China, LOL) have been weaponizing mass migration against "the West" to destabilize it for a while now.
#9 | Posted by sentinel

And that's where you come into the picture.

"In the 2000s, under Hugo Chvez, Venezuela seized oil projects owned by foreign companies, including major U.S. firms such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips."

All investment is inherently risky.

"They went to international arbitration and U.S. courts -- the proper legal venues."

That can't serve as legal rationale, though. Because United States policy is the United States is not bound by international courts.

"ICE plans to hold 70,000 to 80,000 detainees"

I'd like a Republican to explain how America benefits by detaining them, rather than just deporting them.

"and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized"

So it's "weaponized" even when it's the truth.

That is a pretty serious persecution complex, when the truth can be turned into a weapon against you.

"Intelligence confirmed the low-profile vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."

Hey Republicans,
When do we get to see the evidence?

"It's on its 3rd or 4th generation conceptually"

Concepts of a plan.

Kavanaugh Stops is a fitting name and legacy.

Does the Navy still operate garbage-scows...
OCU
#60 | Posted by OCUser

[Briefing room]

(Ten men are lined up. Chekov has a nice bruise on his cheek.)
KIRK: I want to know who started it. I'm waiting. Freeman, who started the fight?
FREEMAN: I don't know, sir.
KIRK: All right. Chekov. I know you. You started it, didn't you?
CHEKOV: No, sir, I didn't.
KIRK: Who did?
CHEKOV: I don't know, sir.
KIRK: I don't know, sir. I want to know who threw the first punch. All right. You're all confined to quarters until I find out who started it. Dismissed. (the men file out) Scotty, not you. You were supposed to prevent trouble, Mister Scott.
SCOTT: Aye, Captain.
KIRK: Who threw the first punch, Scotty?
SCOTT: Um.
KIRK: Mister Scott?
SCOTT: I did, Captain.
KIRK: You did, Mister Scott? What caused it, Scotty?
SCOTT: They insulted us, sir.
KIRK: Must have been some insult.
SCOTT: Aye, it was.
KIRK: You threw the first punch.
SCOTT: Aye. Chekov wanted to, but I held him back.
KIRK: You held? Why did Chekov want to start a fight?
SCOTT: Well, the Klingon, sir. Is this off the record?
KIRK: No, this is not off the record.
SCOTT: Well, Captain, the Klingons called you, uh a tin-plated, overbearing, swaggering dictator with delusions of godhood.
KIRK: Is that all?
SCOTT: No, sir. They also compared you with a Denebian slime devil.
KIRK: I see.
SCOTT: And then they said you
KIRK: I get the picture, Scotty.
SCOTT: Yes, sir.
KIRK: After they said all this, that's when you hit the Klingons?
SCOTT: No, sir.
KIRK: No?
SCOTT: No, I didn't. You told us to avoid trouble.
KIRK: Oh, yes.
SCOTT: And I didn't see that it was worth fighting about. After all, we're big enough to take a few insults. Aren't we?
KIRK: What was it they said that started the fight?
SCOTT: They called the Enterprise a garbage scow, sir.
KIRK: I see. And that's when you hit the Klingons?
SCOTT: Yes, sir.
KIRK: You hit the Klingons because they insulted the Enterprise, not because they
SCOTT: Well, sir, this was a matter of pride.
KIRK: All right, Scotty. Dismissed. Scotty, you're restricted to quarters until further notice.
SCOTT: (big grin) Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. That'll give me a chance to catch up on my technical journals.

Have you Rubes gotten it through your heads yet? It is all about glorifying Trump's insatiable narcissism and not about improving America.
#49 | Posted by moder8

No offense, but I'm kinda thinking it's you, that doesn't get it.
I think glorifying Trump is what they like about it.
That's what they identify with.

That's the same "representation" for them, as when a little Black girl sees a Black Disney Princes for the first time.

When I say that, I mean,
They would grab as much ass as Trump does, if they had as much money.
He's living the dream. That's what they respect about him.
He's their Ayn Rand Superman.

When I say that, I mean,
Their friendships operate on a transactional basis,
and they aren't friends with the kinds of people who don't have anything they don't want, because there's nothing in it for them.
But they might try to foster a relationship with somebody who has access to something they want.

Like buying a beauty pageant to ensure a steady supply of underage girls.

They're okay with someone who does that also being President of the United States.
It represents their values.

You think Trump was hanging around Epstein for different reasons than Bill Clinton was hanging around Epstein?

Since you seem to think it's relevant that Bill Clinton is in there:
What's the relevance, and why doesn't it apply to Trump?

Clinton is in there more than anyone else.
#14 | Posted by boaz

Is he?

Seeing as Trump's name was removed countless times, and the FBI has an entire division dedicated to removing Trump's name, you're probably right that Clinton is there more than Trump.

But if the FBI hadn't redacted Trump's name, it would appear literally hundreds of times.

You really just can't accept these facts, and that's a huge embarrassment for you.

More embarrassing than just being okay with these facts -- which you are, so why bother pretending?

I have experience in design
#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds

You're educated?
Wow.

What happened? You're dumb as ---- now.

I think it's time to stop redacting names and faces and have these people come forward and let thing lie where they lie.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

As you are certainly aware, Trump has settled at least twenty-five sexual misconduct lawsuits out of court.
So there's twenty-five people who cannot come forward because of their NDA and those settlements.

Do you support a Judge nullifying those agreements so that they can speak without fear of legal retribution from Trump?
Let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is.

Maybe there's hope for you yet, I really can't tell sometimes. Merry Christmas.

And we need to stop focusing only on Trump.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

How about if we focus on the living person whose name appears most in the Epstein Files, and it turns out that name is Trump.

Is that a bargain you're willing to make, as you navigate the "bargaining" stage of the Kubler-Ross model?

For someone who claims to be a scientist you frequently ignore facts and evidence and don a tinfoil hat.
#9 | Posted by BellRinger

Facts like Nick Fuentes called for Kirk's assassination two weeks before Kirk's assassination.

You remember Nick Fuentes, you commented in the thread here on the DR, when Nick was a speaker; as I recall the keynote speaker at CPAC, about twelve years ago. It was on C-SPAN. It might still be on C-SPAN; hopefully it is since it's essentially a government record and those should remain accessible forever.

Yeah, no. You are not capable of having this conversation. Go watch both videos, the one two weeks before Kirk's death, and the keynote address at CPAC, and we'll talk.

Until then,

Republicans will deny and deny and deny.

And when that doesn't work, which is approximately the "You Are Here" on the map of how this is playing out, Republicans will pivot and coalesce around a the shared understanding that they never really cared in the first place.

It's all going according to plan.

"Not caring when the President is a rapist" is good a practical definition of fascism.

"You liberals love to play with stats..."

You Trumpers love to play with children.

On the Socials, there's a woman talking about her extremely public dating history. You can tell she's a climber.

I suspect she's always been an opportunist, figured she could ride Charlie's coattails, and his murder is truly just a serendipitous event for her.

The way she grabbed onto J.D. Vance, you can tell what her next move is.

J.D. and Erica is going to be a Travis and Taylor for them. J.D. just needs to convince his wife to self-deport. Frankly I'm surprised it's taken her this long.