A Trump Presidency

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-07 18:23:45

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom:
Your rantings have become insanely bizarre, or maybe bizarrely insane.
As a matter of fact, in 1969 I left college and joined the Navy, intending to become a fighter pilot, and go to Vietnam.
Don't you EVER question my patriotism again!
GW

Well North Vietnam started the Vietnam War by attacking the South. Before there were two separate countries North Vietnam and South Vietnam, and the North attacked the South, started this war where 58,000 of our servicemen and women got killed, and then took South Vietnam for all the damage and destruction they wrought, does that seem just, right and fair to you? We let them win because of action taken by Congress, and because of that millions of Vietnam Citizens in South Vietnam lost their freedom and representative Government. Now the regime of North Vietnam may be Soft Communism rather than the Hard Communism of North Korea, but it still isn't a representative democracy, the South Vietnamese citizens don't enjoy the constitutional protections they did when South Vietnam was a free and independent state. Why do you think there are so many South Vietnamese refugees still living in the United States? Now I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm just appealing to your reason. Maybe someday, the South in Vietnam will rise again! What do you think about that? If the Northerners like their Communism, they can keep it!

GW Johnson · 2016-06-08 10:22:52

Tom:

Vietnam was one country (just not a free one) until the mid 1950's when the French left. Then it was partitioned between a communist north and non-communist south.

Under French rule, independence movements were ruthlessly quashed, very similar to what the Brits did in Ireland for about 300 years. Then the Japanese invaded and threw the French out. Japanese domination was far worse. But, unlike some other neighboring lands, the Vietnamese threw the Japanese out without significant help from the allies.

For a moment in time, they were independent. Then we helped the French walk back in and re-dominate them. Ho Chi Minh (who became a Soviet-style communist between the world wars) came to the US first to ask that we support their independence, but we chose to side with the French. Then he went to the Russians. All of this is well-documented history that you cannot deny.

After partition, there was a repressive communist government in the north, and an equally repressive de-facto dictatorship in the south (elections notwithstanding) that we supported as opposition to the spread of communism. You can make a pretty good argument that the series of puppet dictators supported by "outside powers" (us and the Russians) was more visible in the south. You cannot argue with the fact that these puppets in the south were corrupt and despicable people, because they were. This, too, is documented history that you simply cannot argue with.

Evil dictators like that always spur violent opposition. That was the Viet Cong. Their "natural" allies were their communist brethren in the north, nothing surprising about that. Most of the common folk in the north and the south just wanted to reunite their country without any foreign powers controlling it. Folks in that part of the world cared far less than we do whether something was "communist" or not. That, too, is a demonstrated historical fact. You cannot argue with it. You don’t have to like it. It simply “is”.

In the mid 1960's, when LBJ vastly escalated our war effort there, we essentially dominated the south and everything in it militarily, also documented historical fact. From the point of view of the civil population in the south (quite different from ours), the US was a foreign occupying power, no different from the French or the Japanese. The Russian presence in the north was far less dominating. So, it was no surprise that our troops could not tell friend from foe. Basically, most of the local folk all wanted us gone. That's why that war so difficult, and why conventional battle approaches seemed so ineffective, in spite of our overwhelming military superiority. Good leadership, bad, made no difference.

Once you understand that, then you can understand why we lost. It didn't really matter who said what or who voted which way in DC, how do you win a thing like that, when the entire civil population is fundamentally your foe? They're your foe, because what they want and what you want, are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot win, you can only exterminate them. Which got done on a small scale in some places like My Lai, unfortunately. Extermination is against all American values. But it did happen. And it made things even worse.

Assigning blame to the Democrats for losing the war is somewhere between pointless and wrong, and has almost nothing to do with what actually happened. You really need to take off your political glasses when you read history. It leads you to incorrect assessments. Have you not noticed how many correspondents (not just me) on these forums take you to task for it? There's a pattern there.

Vietnam has been unified and independent for about 4 decades now. From what I read and see on TV, while still communist in name, and still an authoritarian state, they converted to a capitalist market economy long ago. As far as I can tell, the only such communist state that hasn't yet gone capitalist is Cuba, and their days as a non-capitalist economy are numbered, now that the cold war embargo is ending.

It has taken decades on both sides to emotionally recover, but I notice in recent years that there have been reunions of vets from both sides in Vietnam. I'm just glad it's long over. We could use more friends in the region to hold back the ambitions of the Chinese.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-06-08 10:25:41)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-08 11:58:22

GW Johnson wrote:

Tom:
Vietnam was one country (just not a free one) until the mid 1950's when the French left. Then it was partitioned between a communist north and non-communist south.

Much like the United States was during the Civil War.

Under French rule, independence movements were ruthlessly quashed, very similar to what the Brits did in Ireland for about 300 years. Then the Japanese invaded and threw the French out. Japanese domination was far worse. But, unlike some other neighboring lands, the Vietnamese threw the Japanese out without significant help from the allies.

If they had Communism in mind, what good is independence? Lets say you ran a business in South Vietnam, it was very profitable, and some independence movement where Ho Chi Minh gets to take power and run everything, wants to nationalize your business without paying for it, its all your hard work down the drain. Now your business did well under the French, and under the Americans, and suddenly the political winds change in Washington, the the Communist troops are closing in in Saigon, where your business is located, people are fleeing, trying to get into America. The Northern troops come in and nationalize your business, you were counting on that business to support you in your retirement and the Communists stole it! Kind of like that scene in Gone With the Wind when Northern Troops burnt down the plantation house under orders from General Sherman. So you are evicted, and you find yourself on a boat in the Pacific, evicted from your home, your business and your country left with nothing! Would you say if you were in that position that independence has done you a lot of good? I think you might prefer the French or the Americans, or the Republic of South Vietnam over what Ho Chi Minh had in mind for your life saving, all stolen by a bunch of Communist troops that invaded from the North.

For a moment in time, they were independent. Then we helped the French walk back in and re-dominate them. Ho Chi Minh (who became a Soviet-style communist between the world wars) came to the US first to ask that we support their independence, but we chose to side with the French. Then he went to the Russians. All of this is well-documented history that you cannot deny.

Russia started the War on the side of the Germans, when they invaded Poland, the Soviet Union back then was the only Communist nation, and someone who was also a Communist asked for our help? Why would we want to advance the cause of Communism, it is no better than Fascism? the French however were an established Democratic Republic under occupation by the Germans, so we figure if we helped the French regain their freedom, those under the French would also be free. Now the Communists wanted independence for Vietnam, because they would have a country to rule, rather than something that was a part of the French Empire ruled by a democratic government.

After partition, there was a repressive communist government in the north, and an equally repressive de-facto dictatorship in the south (elections notwithstanding) that we supported as opposition to the spread of communism. You can make a pretty good argument that the series of puppet dictators supported by "outside powers" (us and the Russians) was more visible in the south. You cannot argue with the fact that these puppets in the south were corrupt and despicable people, because they were. This, too, is documented history that you simply cannot argue with.

So they weren't perfect, I'd say the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton were corrupt also, does that justify a totalitarian state taking over and nationalizing private property and businesses, all of which they didn't build? They also got to rename the City Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City, that egomaniac didn't build that city, Saigon was its traditional name, why did he get to rename it? Does that sound fair to you? Communism is itself corrupt. If corrupt officials abused their power in South Vietnam, Communism introduced systematic corruption in the government structure itself, no fair elections, a political monopoly for one party, the Vietnamese population doesn't get a say in who rules them! I would say the two are not equal, and South Vietnam was a more fair and just political system that what the Communist North offered.

Evil dictators like that always spur violent opposition. That was the Viet Cong. Their "natural" allies were their communist brethren in the north, nothing surprising about that. Most of the common folk in the north and the south just wanted to reunite their country without any foreign powers controlling it. Folks in that part of the world cared far less than we do whether something was "communist" or not. That, too, is a demonstrated historical fact. You cannot argue with it. You don’t have to like it. It simply “is”.

Why were there so many boat people coming out of occupied South Vietnam then, if they liked the Communists so much? If they liked getting their property appropriated by the Communist Government, and if they liked being threatened with death if they complained about it?
So North Vietnam starts a war with South Vietnam, and we reward them by giving them the land they started the war to get, how does that encourage peace in the future? for North Vietnam is was simply: Start a war, and get what you want, you double the size of your country at your neighbor's expense. What does the South get out of this, an unrepresentative dictator that looks like them, instead of a round-eyes French Administration, that is an ally of the United States and thus subject to its pressure on human rights, North Vietnam is not going to listen to us on that score. I don't see the advantage in being dominated by the Communist North instead of by France or the United States, unless "slanted eyes vs. round eyes" is the most important thing for you.

In the mid 1960's, when LBJ vastly escalated our war effort there, we essentially dominated the south and everything in it militarily, also documented historical fact.

And the Communist North did not? Did we appropriate as much private Property in South Vietnam as did the government of North Vietnam? How many people were left poor and destitute because of us as compared to what the Communists did?

From the point of view of the civil population in the south (quite different from ours), the US was a foreign occupying power, no different from the French or the Japanese.

And North Vietnam was not? The Japanese at least looked more like them, they shouldn't mind the Japanese occupation as much by that logic. The Japanese were brutal, but then so where the North Vietnamese, both had slanted eyes, both were Asians.

The Russian presence in the north was far less dominating.

Well they had "round eyes" too, looking much like Americans as far as they were concerned, why should they like their "round eyes" better than our "round eyes?"

So, it was no surprise that our troops could not tell friend from foe. Basically, most of the local folk all wanted us gone. That's why that war so difficult, and why conventional battle approaches seemed so ineffective, in spite of our overwhelming military superiority. Good leadership, bad, made no difference.

Then why did so many Vietnamese come to America after the War, if they wanted us gone?

Once you understand that, then you can understand why we lost. It didn't really matter who said what or who voted which way in DC, how do you win a thing like that, when the entire civil population is fundamentally your foe? They're your foe, because what they want and what you want, are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot win, you can only exterminate them. Which got done on a small scale in some places like My Lai, unfortunately. Extermination is against all American values. But it did happen. And it made things even worse.

Extermination is not against Communist values if you look at Cambodia, So you are saying they wanted us gone because they didn't like the way we look? There is another word for that and it begins with the letter 'R'
.

Assigning blame to the Democrats for losing the war is somewhere between pointless and wrong, and has almost nothing to do with what actually happened. You really need to take off your political glasses when you read history. It leads you to incorrect assessments. Have you not noticed how many correspondents (not just me) on these forums take you to task for it? There's a pattern there.

When you get your country into a war, and you draft young men, who had other careers in mind, into that war to fight for your country, or so you tell them, you have a responsibility to win the war for their sake and for the sake of the sacrifices you are asking them to make. You should go down to the Vietnam War memorial in Washington DC and look at those 58,000 names there. Those names are the names of the victims of Democratic Party politics where they decided to go to war to whip up patriotic fervor, and then the political winds shifted and they decided to go against the war, and thus undermine the cause we send those young people out to fight for in the first place, and they said to those widows, and parents, and children who lost loved ones in the Vietnam War that they were a bunch of suckers to listening to the Democrats in the first place, tough luck about losing a family member to shifting political winds, had we not gone in their in the first place, many of those people would still be alive, it was because mostly of Kennedy and Johnson that they are not, and what did they make that sacrifice for? Because of the Democrats shifting political calculations, they made that sacrifice for nothing!

Vietnam has been unified and independent for about 4 decades now. From what I read and see on TV, while still communist in name, and still an authoritarian state, they converted to a capitalist market economy long ago.

Just as corrupt as you say the South Vietnamese government was, but at least back then they had elections that meant something. The North Koreans weren't so lucky. Its not Capitalism that matters so much as Democracy, Capitalism is nice, but without Democracy, property rights aren't safe, they are subject to the whims of a dictator, and could be taken away just as fast, and there are no elections that can stop them. Independence, and by the way, South Vietnam lost its independence, is meaningless unless it comes with freedom, otherwise it is just an employment opportunity for a dictator.

As far as I can tell, the only such communist state that hasn't yet gone capitalist is Cuba, and their days as a non-capitalist economy are numbered, now that the cold war embargo is ending.

And I ask you what good has Cuban Independence done the Cubans, are they happier there now? Why are so many Cubans fleeing their homeland? Cuban independence was a failure if it resulted in Communism, they would have been better off as a US Territory or State. As part of the United States, they would not have been under Fidel Castro, the only thing you could say in his favor is he spoke Spanish!

It has taken decades on both sides to emotionally recover, but I notice in recent years that there have been reunions of vets from both sides in Vietnam. I'm just glad it's long over. We could use more friends in the region to hold back the ambitions of the Chinese.
GW

In the American Civil War, when the South Lost, there was Freedom, can you say the same thing about when the South lost in Vietnam? The North in that country freed no slaves.

GW Johnson · 2016-06-08 12:28:49

Arguing with you and your politics is a colossal waste of time. You are unable to objectively read. I'm done with this thread.

GW

RobertDyck · 2016-06-08 13:35:24

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-09 07:38:12

GW Johnson wrote:

Arguing with you and your politics is a colossal waste of time. You are unable to objectively read. I'm done with this thread.
GW

I read every bit of what you wrote, that is why I broke it down and refuted it in detail. I don't agree with you that the Vietnam War was an unworthy cause, I may question the way it was fought, but the cause of liberty and freedom was unimpeachable, and it is too bad we allowed the North to win, because they certainly didn't deserve to, they were the ones that started that war in the first place, South Vietnam didn't start it, they were quite willing to live in peace with the North as a separate country until they attacked! It was a terrible war, and we didn't start it, so its not our fault. Our fault was sending hundreds of thousands of drafted US soldiers there, and then abandoning them because of changes in the political winds of Washington!

GW Johnson · 2016-06-09 17:02:12

Tom, you still cannot read.

"I don't agree with you that the Vietnam War was an unworthy cause" -- I NEVER said that.

"North to win, because they certainly didn't deserve to, they were the ones that started that war in the first place" -- I NEVER said that, and the actual facts of history do NOT support that statement.

"Our fault was sending hundreds of thousands of drafted US soldiers there, and then abandoning them because of changes in the political winds of Washington!" -- no US forces were abandoned at all. Only South Vietnamese allies like the Hmong were abandoned during that evacuation in 1975. Look at the f**ing news reels, for Christ's sake! Your history is extremely faulty. It is far too driven by your extremist politics.

For the last time, please learn how to read!!!! It's a 1st grade skill.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-06-09 17:25:27)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-10 00:30:06

I believe allowing the North to win, only encouraged other enemies to attack us later, say on September 11, 2001. If we let the enemy win once, then other enemies will think they will stand a chance against us and attack! Even if you think our involvement in Vietnam was unjust, it would have been better for us to win that "unjust" war, than to give future enemies the idea that they could beat us if they just drive up the causalities high enough. Which is why we must crush ISIS and other such enemies! Now I'm not interested in restarting the War in Vietnam, if there are people in Vietnam who want their freedom, they can fight for it themselves, but in the future, if we get ourselves into a war, we should win it no matter what! We need to defeat the enemy who ever it happens to be, so we don't have this post-Vietnam effect of enemies attacking us thinking they can beat us. Us pulling out of Vietnam without winning it set a bad precedent and it endangers many American lives. If we get into another such war, we need to win it! Question the war, argue about what we should have done after the war is over with.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-12 12:31:30

Trump's ego might have prevented him from working so closely with Musk without event, however other leaders might have been worse or better for a progressive step to space. The Afghan pull out or withdrawal probably would have also happened but in the same way? we have no idea

Past ideas and adventures come and gone?

Inspiration Mars Foundation was an American nonprofit organization founded by Dennis Tito that in 2013 proposed to launch a crewed mission to flyby Mars in January 2018,or 2021 if they missed the first synodic opportunity in 2018.
Their website became defunct by late 2015. They are no longer operating.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/11/20/ … s-mission/
Feasibility Analysis for a Manned Mars Free-Return Mission
PDF
https://web.archive.org/web/20130319140 … s_IEEE.pdf

In his final days as president Trump ordered a nuclear reactor be put on the moon
https://vozwire.com/in-his-final-days-a … -the-moon/

the website salon which sometimes defends pedophiles in its news articles is now running a manipulative headlines, the wrong choice of word and language almost claiming Trump wanted to Nuke the Moon in his final days

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I believe allowing the North to win, only encouraged other enemies to attack us later

its a pity Tom went so personal attacking others getting himself banned, there were some of his belief I later came to agree with for example Tom never trusted the Russian government or Putin.

However I see Vietnam as a pointless war with no objective, the French were there in Indochina but what was the final and total objective of US journey or French getting themselves killed before that. Why the near endless battles and Vietnam bombing, why the missions without understanding the culture or opponents, was to fight them to stop Communist Socialism from moving from North to South or was it manipulation of some stupid Monk dumb enough to set himself on fire or the tail wagging the dog, political manipulation from the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The War became this thing that seemed endless like Afghanistan, what was the outcome in Vietnam if a battle won or a battle lost, did anything truly change, what America got was broken homes, rising crime, drugs on its streets and a long recession. I think Afghanistan was different because it was in response to 911 and a direct attack on US Soil, they had 97%-99% of Afghan territory under control, the Taliban mostly defeated or hidden in mountain caves, it was only after they found bin Laden fled to Pakistan and was hiding out there, the War was probably lost in 'Nation Building' giving them a 2004 Sharia Law constitution, Americans fighting and bleeding and dying for an alien mohammedan constitution which should have instead been flushed down a toilet, a Constitution describes jihadi islamism as its most sacred law and the most commonly practiced mohammedan faith throughout Afghanistan, while other belief system and followers of other religions are "free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites" within the limits of the demonic Moongod jihadist islamist Sharia Law.

Benghazi, foreign policy, and the Stevens Initiative
https://www.kasu.org/2022-09-12/benghaz … initiative

As all politicians do they deflect and blame, when something stupid happened Trump would balme someone else, Clinton blame some other person, Bush jnr blames something else, Obama blame someone else, Susan Rice trying to deflect responsibility lies to the American people multiple times after the 2012 Benghazi attacks by saying it was the fault of some actors and kids who uploaded some stupid 'innocence of muslims' video. Susan Rice’s almost doxxed and hunted down Americans and other international citizens, her repeated statements on national television blaming social media videos so called “The Innocence of Muslims” for terrorism attacks, she was promoted to national security adviser during his second term. The Police soon came knocking on the actor and film makers doors. Mark Basseley Youssef formerly known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is an Egyptian-American writer, producer, and promoter of Innocence of Muslims, a dumb film which was critical of Islamism and the pedophile terrorist prophet Moo-ham-mad, the movie featured Moo-ham-mad chatting with his talking Donkey, Moo-ham-mad would make Haaa haaaaw heee haaw noises to the Donkey while the Donkey talked back to Moo-ham-mad in Arabic, I wonder what special plant he ate or what drugs people were on back in those days?

She supported the jihads and blamed the actors and film makers of some silly film not even worthy of B-movie status, a silly film uploaded on the internet that Low IQ uneducated jihadists without computers took the rumors and got enraged over, enraged enough to kill infidels. Susan Rice decided to support the guys hunting infidels instead of supporting Free Speech?

Bush Jnr and Bush Snr visions for Mars?

Acronyms and History for those new to Mars and SLS

NASA Glenn Research Center's 2001 Plan to Land Humans on Mars Three Years Ago
https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com … -plan.html

Acronyms

BNTR = Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket
CTV = Crew Transfer Vehicle
DAV = Descent/Ascent Vehicle
DRA = Design Reference Architecture
DRM = Design Reference Mission
ECRV = Earth Crew Return Vehicle
GRC = Glenn Research Center
ISRU = In-Situ Resource Utilization
JSC = Johnson Space Center
LH2 = liquid hydrogen
LOX = liquid oxygen
MAV = Mars Ascent Vehicle
MTV = Mars Transfer Vehicle
SDHLV = Shuttle-Derived Heavy-Lift Vehicle
SEI = Space Exploration Initiative
SEP = Solar-Electric Propulsion
SHAB = Surface Habitat
SLS = Space Launch System

In October 2001, at the 52nd International Astronautical Congress in the European aerospace center of Toulouse, France, nuclear propulsion engineers from NASA's Glenn Research Center (GRC) in Cleveland, Ohio, led by Stanley K. Borowski, Advanced Concepts Manager in GRC's Space Transportation Project Office, described a variant of NASA's 1998 Mars Design Reference Mission (DRM) based on Bimodal Nuclear-Thermal Rocket (BNTR) propulsion. The BNTR DRM concept, first described publicly in July 1998, evolved from nuclear-thermal rocket mission designs Borowski and his colleagues had developed during President George H. W. Bush's abortive Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), which got its start with a July 1989 presidential speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11, the first piloted Moon landing mission.
This post contains more than its share of significant acronyms. As an aid to the reader, these are grouped alphabetically and defined at the bottom of the post, just ahead of the list of sources.
NASA's first Mars DRM, designated DRM 1.0 in 1997, was developed by a NASA-wide team during the 1992-1993 period. It was based on Martin Marietta's 1990 Mars Direct mission plan. SEI's demise temporarily halted NASA Mars DRM work in 1994.
The civilian space agency resumed its Mars DRM studies after the announcement in August 1996 of the discovery of possible microfossils in martian meteorite ALH 84001. This enabled NASA planners to release their baseline chemical-propulsion DRM 3.0 in 1998. There was no official DRM 2.0, though a "scrubbed" (that is, mass-reduced) version of DRM 1.0 bears that designation in at least one NASA document.
Shortly thereafter, NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, which led the DRM study effort, was diverted from DRM work by the in-house COMBO lander study (more on this below). Left largely to its own devices, NASA GRC developed a pair of DRM 3.0 variants: a solar-electric propulsion (SEP) DRM 3.0 and the BNTR DRM 3.0 discussed here.
In BNTR DRM 3.0, two unpiloted spacecraft would leave Earth for Mars during the 2011 low-energy Mars-Earth transfer opportunity, and a third, bearing the crew, would depart for Mars during the corresponding opportunity in 2014. Components for the three spacecraft would reach Earth orbit on six Shuttle-Derived Heavy-Lift Vehicles (SDHLVs), each capable of launching 80 tons into 220-mile-high assembly orbit, and in the payload bay of a winged, reusable Space Shuttle Orbiter, which would also deliver the Mars crew.
The SDHLV, often designated "Magnum," was a NASA Marshall Space Flight Center conceptual design. The Magnum booster would burn liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX) chemical propellants in its core stages and solid propellant in its side-mounted boosters. Magnum drew upon existing Space Shuttle hardware: its core stages were derived from the Space Shuttle External Tank and its twin solid-propellant rocket boosters were based on the Shuttle's twin Solid-Rocket Boosters.

Biden backtracks on 'threat' to America
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272 … to-america

NASA's Bill Nelson Says Donald Trump's Artemis Target Was Never Realistic
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-artemis- … sa-1737309

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-13 04:27:57)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-10 05:20:02

Looks like Trump might Never be President again
but not the first scandal, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton for example

Donald Trump rages at sexual abuse verdict after being told to pay E Jean Carroll $5m in damages - as it happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv … ve-updates

I think when Trump first ran the machine, the donors, the larger industry and media engine was not ready for him or considered him to much of a 'joke'
but he won.

They are ready for him now, not paying taxes, documents, women popping up, a phone call, Tea Party weird types and Q-Anon nutty guys, the guy with Horns dressed as a Shaman at the Capitol Riot, this time they seem more ready so they will have mountains of things to throw at Donald Trump, heck a time they censored his voice and they even banned him from much of the web. Carroll wrote for Outside Magazine about taking Fran Lebowitz camping and going down the Colorado with a group of “Women Who Run With No Clothes On.” and the way she recalsl her past is strange, for example who bursts out laughing remembering the trauma of getting raped, well it seems she does? I'm not sure what to think of this woman but some of the tone of speech and body movements seem off, coming from another of these Babylon Pagan Greek letter sisterhood masonic look fraternity sororities 'Pi Beta Phi'. She is an American journalist and advice columnist. Her “Ask E. Jean” column has appeared in Elle magazine, Carroll wrote for Saturday Night Live in the mid-1980s, went to Indiana to investigate why four white farm kids were thrown out of school for dressing like black artists in "The Return of the White Negro" Carroll was known for her gonzo-style first-person narratives, Carroll's biography of Hunter S. Thompson, Hunter: The Strange and Savage Life of Hunter S. Thompson, was published by Dutton, Carroll co-founded greatboyfriends.com with her sister, Cande Carroll. On the site, women recommended swamp old sex partner or trading their old ex-boyfriends to go swingers with each other, she was a bit of a stalker herself and tracked down her old boyfriends and moved in with them and their wives, she has a history of doing stories of gossip, contributing sleaze, more sex talk and more drama moments. Carroll appeared on the mid-1980s edition of Card Sharks hosted by Bob Eubanks, she was nominated for an Emmy for Outstanding Writing in a Variety or Music Program in 1987. Carroll was fired from Elle in February 2020; she wrote on Twitter that she was dismissed "because Trump ridiculed my reputation, laughed at my looks, & dragged me through the mud." Elle maintained that the decision to fire Carroll was a business decision unrelated to Trump. Her father, Tom Carroll, is an inventor, and her mother, Betty Carroll, is a retired Allen County Indiana politician. E. Jean Carroll authored books Female Difficulties: Sorority Sisters, Rodeo Queens, Frigid Women, Smut Stars, and Other Modern Girls, A Dog in Heat Is a Hot Dog and Other Rules to Live By. She also advised Tawkify's matchmaking team. Carroll has been a contributing editor to Esquire, Outside and Playboy magazines, Playboy at the height of the “Sensitive Man” era, E. Jean told her editors that "modern women run around complaining that they want a primitive man, so I thought it would be fun to come to New Guinea and find a real one.” Carroll was one of 13 women who accused CBS Corporation executive Les Moonves of sexual assault, in year 2023, Carroll disclosed that part of her legal expenses were funded by Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn, venture capitalist, and donor to the Democratic Party.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/19/2 … on-lawsuit

'Trump' has been a popular and controversial topic on newmars
the spooks
Ex-CIA director: Trump performance 'nothing short of treasonous'
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8322
Trump 2nd Term Policy Outline Calls For Moon Base & Mars Missions!
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9702
Can Donald Trump build an Antarctic Hotel?
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7645
The Outer Space Treaty: A Case of Inatful Drafting
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7650
Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!!
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8155
VP Pence calls for return to Moon and Boots on Mars.
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7783
Trump and the Fourth Turning
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7551
A US Department of Space
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7416
Trump Tower?
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7535

this time the machine is ready for Trump but I do not see him winning yet at the same time Biden is also 'Too Old' as many of the Left leaning pro-Democrat news stations or newspapers admit.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-05-10 05:40:21)

kbd512 · 2023-05-10 17:53:00

I never thought President Trump would win the first time he ran for office. That belief was clearly wrong.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-03 05:07:21

Donald Trump to appear in court for indictment hearing in Jan. 6 case
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/donal … ring-jan-6

Hunter Biden investigation: Pros and cons of a House impeachment inquiry
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … nt-inquiry

In Space, he helped make 'The Space Force'

and President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum also known as "Space Policy Directive-1". This directive amended Barack Obama's "Presidential Policy Directive 4," by replacing the paragraph beginning “Set far-reaching exploration milestones...” with the paragraph “Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the Solar System and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.”

this was followed by Directive-2 and 3

https://web.archive.org/web/20210120202 … use-space/

and Directive 4, Executive Order 13959 and a National Space Policy.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-03 05:11:13)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2016-06-07 18:23:45

Re: A Trump Presidency

#27 2016-06-08 10:22:52

Re: A Trump Presidency

#28 2016-06-08 11:58:22

Re: A Trump Presidency

#29 2016-06-08 12:28:49

Re: A Trump Presidency

#30 2016-06-08 13:35:24

Re: A Trump Presidency

#31 2016-06-09 07:38:12

Re: A Trump Presidency

#32 2016-06-09 17:02:12

Re: A Trump Presidency

#33 2016-06-10 00:30:06

Re: A Trump Presidency

#34 2022-09-12 12:31:30

Re: A Trump Presidency

#35 2023-05-10 05:20:02

Re: A Trump Presidency

#36 2023-05-10 17:53:00

Re: A Trump Presidency

#37 2023-08-03 05:07:21

Re: A Trump Presidency

Board footer