Politics

RobertDyck · 2021-03-02 20:06:36

Cost and safety of oil, as well as pollution caused by delivery...
noy2unt6yzf01.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=1da5960a11541caaa29441ee24fb53c7169f2b0c

I was an environmentalist, until Canada introduced carbon tax. Actually, I still want to help the environment, but tax on average working citizens doesn't solve anything.
bx9cajc09yh61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=2dcc43cfa3fca9abd9720bd12bdd810133f20486

SpaceNut · 2021-03-03 20:06:52

The finished underground is for natural, methane or propane and not used for oil which is not how its moved best in non earth quake or water table areas as they do not protect with the way above ground has been done.
The Keystone XL pipeline is how to go it wrongly without a care...
I agree that small polluting vehicles is not the solution either.

kbd512 · 2021-03-03 20:44:12

Robert,

We can't deal with governance problems through elections as long as we have the uni-party. They're never going to do what's in the best interests of the American people, so eventually the problems they've created will be dealt with using the ammo box, rather than the ballot box or the jury box or the soap box. President Trump did his best to turn the country around, but his best was not good enough.

Many of us want to develop and use our own oil reserves, but we have people in power who can't deal with objective reality, objective reality being that batteries are not a substitute for liquid hydrocarbon fuels. If we have to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to produce new fuel, I don't see that as an insurmountable problem. However, CO2 recycling needs to be fully developed and humanity isn't doing that in a serious way. The coal, oil, and gas reserves will eventually be depleted in another 200 to 300 years, accounting for projected consumption increases.

The health care issue is a particularly thorny one, but we won't adopt anything that another country came up with, even if it works well, because NIH.

Unfortunately, we're never going to take any existing nuclear weapons out of service until Russia stops building more nuclear weapons. There are still many people in both America and Russia who are fixated on a period of time (The Cold War) that ceased to exist decades ago.

$500B is more than enough to have the best military on the planet, full stop, but only if the money is intelligently spent.

At this point, given the looming maintenance issues with the Nimitz class super carriers and the obscene cost of the Ford class super carriers, I would scrap both classes so we can devote money to the America class light aircraft carriers carrying F-35Bs and micro fighters. The F-35C airframe does not share as many common parts as the F-35A and F-35B and the Navy never really wanted it to begin with, so retiring the super carriers could also serve the purpose of killing a fighter program that the Navy doesn't want and streamlining the retirement of the remaining Hornets and Super Hornets, many of which have been pushed well beyond their design service lives.

We could accomplish most of our naval missions using a single class of large ship. The 25,000t America class could serve in the light aircraft carrier, amphibious assault / landing transport, and arsenal ship roles equally well. America class light aircraft carriers are $2B per copy, vs an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, also $2B per copy, or a Ford class super carrier at $10B per copy. Their less expensive diesel engines are more economical to purchase and operate than gas turbines, they're still capable of attaining 25 knots, and that's enough to launch micro fighters and drones using a miniaturized version of EMALS and F-35Bs. Since no surface vessels can outrun a torpedo and the escort destroyers and cruisers rapidly deplete their fuel when steaming at 30 knots, the extra 5 knots of speed is a moot point.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-03 22:58:41

kbd512,

I think we're not that far apart. But I still feel problems can be resolved peacefully. First step is overturn "Citizens United". That will restrict big money in elections. I think you'll understand that I would like to see the Libertarian Party come to prominence. Here in Canada, we have more than 2 parties. Currently there are 5 parties with MPs elected to the House. The Green party only has 3, but they're there. In your country, a third party should focus on getting Representatives elected, don't waste money on a Presidential candidate. If neither of the two major parties have 50% or more of the Representatives in the House, then they have to get at least one other party to vote on their bill to get anything passed. That's when a third party can have significant influence.

When that happens in Canada, we call it a minority government. Canada currently has one. Opposition parties wanted to cancel carbon tax on propane or natural gas that farmers use to dry grain or heat barns. The government didn't want to, but all opposition parties ganged up and did pass the bill.

As for military budget, in year 2000, America spent $288 billion on military. Adjusting for inflation, today that works out to $437.49 billion. A little below your figure of $500 billion. And again, that's the last year the US federal government had a balanced budget.

Nuclear weapons: you don't have to reduce the nuclear arsenal to achieve the budget that I just said. Just don't increase it. I like your idea with carriers; I just think it's too late. Notice I suggested keeping Ford class carriers that have been built, under construction, or ordered. Cancelling would cost more money. Stop there, and mothball all Nimitz carriers. Or am I thinking too small?

And I asked for closing most overseas military bases. Before Putin annexed Crimea, I did a little calculation. Putin claimed Russia had only 2 foreign military bases, while the US had 100. I looked it up: Russia had 10 foreign bases, many in Ukraine or Crimea. The US had 400. All foreign military bases of all countries other than the US add up to just 50. That includes UK, France, China, etc. The US had 400. Since Russia annexed Crimea, those bases are no longer considered "foreign". But look at US foreign bases; don't you think that's excessive?

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 12:41:07

Robert,

The politicians will do their utmost to ensure that the problems can't be resolved through peaceful means. I'm not happy about that at all, but their behavior is making peaceful resolutions increasingly difficult to achieve. They've set up a Police State in DC now because even the Democrat politicians know that they're not seen as legitimate by half of the American people. Legitimate governments don't need 30,000 troops surrounding the places where they work. If Democrats don't believe in walls (like the one on our Southern border) or militarism, then someone needs to explain the optics of surrounding themselves with walls and tens of thousands of federal troops to them.

I would love to have a vibrant third party to give Americans real options, rather than a dilemma, but here in America we have the uni-party. I think the same way about having to build coalitions through power sharing with other factions, such that a plurality of people (through their representatives) can get at least part of what they want.

If it were up to me, most of the overseas military bases would've been closed many years ago. Any country with people who don't want us there... We're gone- no matter what their government wants. I would much rather that they determined for themselves what type of military protection to have. I'm only interested in protecting America, rather than the rest of the world. If other nations want military protection, then they can pay for it themselves. It's not our job to Police the rest of the world. Basically, it's time for other nations to determine their own fate. If they choose to destroy each other through war, then so be it. We can't fix stupid and it was pointless to try.

We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. We've been maintaining the stockpile we already have, and refurbishing weapons as necessary. This is another topic where functional working knowledge of the related issues is required. In general, nuclear weapons only serve as a deterrent to other nuclear-armed nations attacking you with their nuclear weapons. There haven't been any nuclear attacks since WWII, so obviously MAD works, however unpalatable civilians find that prospect to be. I've seen no game-changing technology developments on this front. The new nuclear weapons that Russia has built won't enable them to survive a full nuclear exchange, so the tax money expended was intended to give their nuclear scientists something to do so they don't transfer their knowledge and nuclear capabilities to other nations that don't already have nuclear weapons. They actually built what was supposed to be the end result of SLAM / Project Pluto, and after their first crash of a nuclear-powered cruise missile, which left a large swath of land in their country uninhabitable, they've seemingly given up on the idea, same as we did so many decades ago. Nuclear-armed ICBMs and gravity bombs remain every bit as effective as they've ever been, especially in light of the invention of stealth bombers. The handful of obscenely expensive interceptors available to the US / Russia / China / Israel are only sufficient to ensure that a rogue actor in command of one or a handful of nuclear weapons can't initiate a nuclear war. As rail guns and lasers make their way into military arsenals, all types of nuclear weapons except for weapons surreptitiously smuggled into enemy territory will eventually become impractical to effectively use. The warheads will then live a second service life as planetary defense systems intended to take out space debris entering into Earth's orbit around the Sun, so we're never going to simply "throw them away" and squander the tax money spent on them.

It's never too late to build an effective Navy until you find yourself in a shooting war. I want a 200 ship Navy consisting of a single class of 25,000t vessel that can serve equally well as a light aircraft carrier (catapult-equipped for X-36 style micro fighters or ramp-equipped for F-35Bs), amphibious assault transport (USN / USMC have repeatedly determined that waterborne transport is too slow and vulnerable, so helicopters like the Osprey or King Stallion are the only viable means of over-the-beach transport; I would eliminate all helicopters except Little Birds and Ospreys since none of them are economical to operate and none of them fly fast enough to warrant the expense of maintaining them as troop transports), arsenal ship (with triple the number of VLS cells of a Ticonderoga class cruiser or Arleigh Burke class destroyer), fast fleet oiler, floating hospital, troop and cargo transport, etc. The Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes are too small and the Nimitz / Ford classes are too big.

24 light aircraft carriers with catapults (micro fighters for light attack, Ospreys for AWACS / COD, MQ-25 tankers)
12 light aircraft carriers with ramps (F-35Bs for amphibious assault, Ospreys for AWACS / COD)
48 arsenal ships as carrier escorts (Little Birds for ASW)
48 fast fleet oilers (Little Birds for ASW)
24 amphibious assault transports (Ospreys for troop transport and Little Birds for special operations)
36 logistics vessels (Ospreys for vertical cargo transport / underway replenishment)
8 hospital / humanitarian aid vessels (Ospreys for patient transport and Little Birds for surveying damaged infrastructure)

All ships would be fitted with SeaRAM, lasers, and M230 chain guns for point defense. The arsenal ships would be VLS-equipped for ESSM for fleet air defense, JASSM for land or ship attack, and ASROC for submarine attack. Each arsenal ship would also mount rail guns for extended range point defense and lightweight torpedos for ASW. We would re-fit or upgrade the Aegis radars and VLS cells from the retiring Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke classes and recycle the scrapped steel into the new hulls.

Apart from that, the Navy would procure a horde of small gun / missile / torpedo boats to protect the heavies from swarms of small aerial drones, other similar craft, and submarines.

A carrier battle group under the new paradigm would consist of 3 catapult-equipped carriers, 3 arsenal ships, 3 fleet oilers, and 1 logistics vessel. The fleet oilers make weekly fuel runs into friendly ports to sustain the battle group at sea. The logistics vessel will store enough refrigerated food and spare parts to sustain the battle group for an entire deployment, which will be 3 months instead of 6 months. Every ship in the fleet is powered by large marine diesel engines capable of propelling the vessels to a top speed of 25 knots, which is sufficient for launching subsonic micro fighters that don't dictate higher take-off and landing speeds associated with supersonic fighters. The idea is to do 2 deployments per year so that everyone on the ship and in the air wing maintains currency / proficiency in combat operations. The shorter deployment timeframe is intended to relieve the burden on young families with only mom or dad to take care of the kids, as well as the wear and tear on equipment associated with lengthy deployments, but most importantly to reduce the crew complacency that inevitably results from extended deployments.

In actual practice, all carrier-based attacks on enemy targets involve fighters loaded with bombs, flying at subsonic speeds. The use of greater numbers of micro fighters carrying a pair of bombs to pre-designated targets is aligning realistic airframe capabilities and modern precision guided munitions technology with actual as-practiced naval aerial attack against lightly defended targets. Any IADS-defended target (communications systems, radar arrays, server rooms, electric generating stations, oil refineries, naval ships) can be serviced with a missile like JASSM (a stealthy long range cruise missile with a highly sophisticated guidance system capable of mid-flight re-tasking to an alternative target) more effectively than a fighter-launched weapon. Most other targets (ammo dumps, bridges, parked aircraft or vehicles, artillery pieces, troop barracks, etc) will be serviced using small guided munitions such as SDB-II or Pyros. A more limited selection of targets (moving armored vehicles or troops) require the use of small guided missiles (Griffin or Hellfire) or gunfire (30mm chain gun). Jet-powered fighters, even ones that are only capable of flying at high subsonic speeds, are all but immune to shoulder launched SAMs (because the engagement window is far too brief). If a target is so heavily defended that there's a risk of unacceptable losses, then those are prime candidates for missile attacks launched from arsenal ships.

The goal here should be to provide like-kind military capability for far less money than we currently spend on defense. To do that, we're going to stop creating "super weapons" and start creating "practical weapons" that can be sustained for far less purchase and operational cost. I'm all for having a very potent defense capability, but not at the expense of all other aspects of our way of life.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-04 13:33:35

Defense News, February 4, 2020: Trump’s new nuclear weapon has been deployed

A new nuclear warhead requested, designed and produced under the Trump administration, has been deployed aboard a nuclear submarine, the Pentagon confirmed Tuesday.
The deployment of the W76-2, a low-yield variant of the nuclear warhead traditionally used on the Trident missile, was first reported Jan. 29 by the Federation of American Scientists. The first to move out with the new weapon was the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), deploying from Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia at the end of 2019, FAS reported.

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 16:05:44

Robert,

That news article you linked to is a bit like someone claiming that an engine that someone took out of the junkyard, cleaned up, and replaced some internal components, is a new engine. The term "new" is a misnomer. The W76-0 warhead design has been in service since 1978. The W76 weapons that remain in service were all converted to W76-1 variants. The W76-2 variant is a conversion of some existing in-service W76-1 weapons to lower their nominal yield. They're repurposing existing warheads that are already part of our stockpile. When they say "production", they mean they took the pit or physics package out of existing in-service nuclear warheads and transferred that into new packaging to ensure that it remains operational. Nuclear warheads, like all other man-made things, don't last forever. The existing warheads can only remain operational if they are periodically refurbished.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-04 16:23:11

Congressional Budget Office: Long-Term Implications of the 2021 Future Years Defense Program

In his proposed budget, the President requested a total of $706 billion for DoD in fiscal year 2021—4 percent less than was appropriated in 2020 after removing the effects of inflation. Of that total, $637 billion is designated for the base budget, which is intended to fund normal, peacetime activities. The remaining $69 billion is designated for emergency activities and overseas contingency operations (OCO)—that is, temporary, war-related activities, such as operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Department of Energy: Budget Request 2021, Fact Sheet

The FY 2021 Budget Request proposes $26.9 billion for national security programs at the Department of Energy, including the Office of Environmental Management (EM), and Office of Legacy Management, and NNSA.

That totals $732.9 billion. So my proposal would cut $295.4 billion. No, I don't expect the Department of Energy to cut anything, but do expect those cuts from Defense.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-04 16:34:01

kbd512 wrote:

That news article you linked to is a bit like someone claiming that an engine that someone took out of the junkyard, cleaned up, and replaced some internal components, is a new engine.

But it has a shiny new turbocharger, fuel filter, spark plugs, and just look at that electronic timing!

kbd512 wrote:

The existing warheads can only remain operational if they are periodically refurbished.

It's called radioactive decay. Devices don't spontaneously stop working as long as they're kept dry, in a clean environment, without wear. But radioactive isotopes have a half life. Radiation can cause material degradation, but frankly radiation from uranium is minimal.

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 18:45:24

Robert,

It may look like a brand new engine, but the person who plucked it out of the junkyard knows better. However, humanity has already built so many things and used so much energy to create them, that it would be silly to start from scratch when so many perfectly serviceable parts already exist. Exceptionally precise computer control of machining processes, computer-controlled combustion, and aerospace materials or coatings are the "secret sauces" that make new engines "modern" and "better" than what came before.

If the OEMs "splurged" on billet crankshafts / camshafts / main caps / connecting rods / rocker arms / oil pump and timing gears, high-Nickel iron blocks, die cast Aluminum heads that flow as well as they reasonably can, shaft-mounted rockers, WPC treatments for moving parts, ARP studs to hold everything together, and liberal use of aerospace coatings to prevent corrosion, then it would be a rarity to have any kind of combustion engine last fewer than a million miles with regular oil changes. I would much rather own an engine and transmission built like an anvil than every electronic gizmo and doo-dad known to man. The gizmos don't get from Point A to Point B any better, but a rock solid drive train would. Customers complain incessantly about the drive train maintenance costs, but won't buy the car unless it has a multi-thousand dollar infotainment center that they should never touch while actually driving. That's just nuts.

The steering, windows, locks, and transmissions should all be manual. Cheap plastic parts can't fail when they're not present to begin with, and no time / money / effort has ultimately been saved. The electrical system should come with a full complement of modern LED lights. The computer should control the engine's combustion process and nothing else. If that's what the OEMs spent their money on, rather than fancy flat panel displays and surround sound systems in the dash, then the aftermarket could focus on all the bells and whistles that someone with more money than uncommon sense wanted to throw at it.

KBD Motors would focus on the basic design of the drive train, with an emphasis on reliability and serviceability, paired with a simple yet reliable unibody welded sheet steel box fabricated from slightly thicker metal. The body / chassis would either be stainless or protected by ion bonded aerospace coatings, rather than various epoxies / primers / paints. My vehicles wouldn't be as fancy as others, nor embody the pinnacle of racing performance, but they should still be around in another 50 years for your grandchildren to use and enjoy. Machines like cars and light aircraft should be simple to use and repair, inexpensive to own / operate, and capable of providing many decades of reliable service. I'm of the opinion that this is where we ultimately "went wrong".

I almost forgot about the nukes, but yes, material degradation from radioactive decay was what I was talking about. I never claimed that the weapons would spontaneously quit working, but over time the radiation from the pit degrades the serviceability of the weapon, as you already noted. All of our nuclear weapons programs are intended to keep existing weapons in service for the foreseeable future, and that is what they're accomplishing. If we have newer guidance computers that can reliably deliver the weapon to within a foot of the intended detonation point, then we should absolutely use modern technology to ensure that the existing weapons land where intended. If we have newer metal alloys that permit the metal components to last twice as long as the prior ones did, then we should absolutely use those as well. There's no point in having nuclear weapons that aren't guaranteed to work. When it comes to deterrence, I'm of the opinion that the status quo should be maintained. As of right now, that means nuclear armed nations don't directly attack each other. I see that as a good thing that doesn't need changing, just for the sake of changing it.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-04 22:46:12

The US dismantled many warheads under the START treaty. They needed to get rid of the nuclear material, including plutonium. The only way to destroy an element is either a nuclear explosion or as fuel in a nuclear reactor. US reactors are designed for 2% enriched uranium and no plutonium. Canadian reactors could use them as fuel, but must be diluted with non-enriched uranium. So nuclear material was shipped to Canada. However, so much was sent that Canada's stockpile was enough to make us the 3rd most heavily armed nuclear power. But Canada made a point of not having nuclear weapons. (Quietly maintained a factory where nuclear weapons could be built, but that's another story.) That nuclear material could fuel Canadian reactors for at least a century, possibly multiple centuries. Then Prime Minister Stephen Harper was concerned about security so returned it.

kbd512 · 2021-03-04 23:45:50

Robert,

All the pits from the dismantled American and Russian warheads are in permanent storage. We're not going to give the pits to anyone, including the US military. They're at where they're at, they've been there for decades now, and that's where they'll remain, because that's the agreement we have with the Russians.

RobertDyck · 2021-03-05 09:26:20

All sorts of things happen that isn't what the public is told. There's an agreement that Canadian uranium will never be used for nuclear weapons, only reactor fuel. According to people who work in the industry, there's a secure storage vault in the US where uranium is kept, with a line painted on the floor, US source uranium on one side, Canadian on the other. According to an American general, he doesn't care, when they need uranium to make weapons, they'll take whatever they want from wherever they want, a painted line on the floor is irrelevant. So they're blatantly violating the agreement. And yes, for years the pits were sent to Canada for disposal. But far too many were sent, too many to be used as fuel in CanDU reactors. These Canadian reactors were designed to use refined uranium, but non-enriched. Proportion of U-235 is as it comes out of the ground. But the reactors can use highly enriched uranium and plutonium. It has to be diluted with non-enriched uranium, but the highly enriched or plutonium makes the fuel produce more energy. This was in Canadian news, started in the early 2000s. But as I said, far too much was sent to Canada, so Stephen Harper ordered it all sent back to the US. Surprised? Again, they lie to the public.

kbd512 · 2021-03-05 18:31:14

Robert,

Yes, governments manage many things that aren't typically public knowledge. Vessel and troop movements immediately come to mind. That doesn't mean anything nefarious is going on.

There's no shortage of Plutonium per your own statement, so going through the hassle and expense of making new Pu239, while breaking an international agreement with a partner nation, when thousands of existing Pu239 pits are already sitting in storage, is rather pointless. Unless the American General you referred to has a name, then all claims without attribution are meaningless.

If Canada can mix the Plutonium from dismantled weapons into their reactor fuel to burn it, then I'm sure we've used that service in the past to dispose of the pits from American nuclear weapons. We've probably sent materials to Sellafield as well. We have around 5,800 pits, 3,800 or so are loaded into active weapons, and the other 2,000 are awaiting destruction. Your supposition that we're making more is simply wrong. All US nuclear sites are subject to, I believe, 18 yearly inspections by the Russians and the site doesn't know the inspection schedule ahead of time, so if someone was making new nuclear weapons and was caught doing so, you can bet your last dollar that the Russians would say something about it.

Status of World Nuclear Forces

United States nuclear forces, 2020

Russian nuclear forces, 2020

Most any fission reactor can burn Uranium or Plutonium, since all of them make Plutonium during normal operations.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but your statement about the US making new nuclear weapons is wrong, the claim that some American General said we were or that we would violate international agreements to do so has no attribution, and in general, that looks a bit like pot-stirring without substance. Maybe he did say that and maybe that's happened, but if it has, then nobody in a position to do anything about it has done anything, which should tell everyone else how important they thought that was, in the grand scheme of things.

SpaceNut · 2021-03-06 19:28:40

One of The Nation’s Largest Pipelines Caused The Biggest Spill in Decades–And We’re Just Hearing About It

seems that there was a Natural gas explosion in Texas injures 10 people

Both issues go back to quality controls and safety corners cut for profits....

They are still coming for Trump
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7Kz

RobertDyck · 2021-03-11 07:01:46

More from Texas. What's going on down there? Is there something in the water that makes all Texas lawmakers insane?
GOP Texas lawmaker introduces bill to allow death penalty for women who have abortions

Calliban · 2021-03-12 10:59:25

Insanity does appear to be the order of the day. I just watched Biden's speech.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/obe … st-address

Apparently, even after being vaccinated, Americans must continue to wear masks and are forbidden to meet up even out in the open. One might begin to wonder if these restrictions on freedom really have anything to do with the virus. Governments have repeatedly avoided the use of cost benefit analyses to justify these sorts of restrictions on freedom. Why exactly? Are they worried that the analysis won't back up their decisions?

Biden himself, looked nervous, confused and ill. Is it written down somewhere that presidential candidates have to be doddering pensioners? Maybe the party hierarchy like it that way. A confused pensioner is after all easy to manipulate and can be removed from office when needed on mental competence grounds when the time is right.

tahanson43206 · 2021-03-31 06:47:07

There are three topics that include the word "politics"

This one is the most generic of the set ...

This report is about the sensible coordination between the US and China in their simultaneous flights to Mars ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-china-con … 33140.html

Wed, March 31, 2021 3:52 AM
BEIJING (AP) — As their respective spacecrafts headed to Mars, China and the U.S. held consultations earlier this year in a somewhat unusual series of exchanges between the rivals.
China's National Space Agency confirmed Wednesday that it had working-level meetings and communications with NASA from January to March “to ensure the flight safety" of their crafts.
U.S. law bans almost all contacts between NASA and China over concerns about technology theft and the secretive, military-backed nature of China’s space program.
However, exceptions can be made when NASA can certify to Congress that it has protections in place to safeguard information, acting NASA Administrator Steve Jurczyk said during a video meeting last week.

I was glad to see this.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-03-31 17:10:18

They cloned the Russian Soyuz so they are very capable.

Edit for riot
GOP blocks Capitol riot probe, displaying loyalty to Trump and firm determination to shift the political focus away from the violent insurrection by his GOP supporters.

Sad that those whom were complicit to allowing it will not bare trial to unless their names come up in the personal trials of those charged.

It must have been a fake officer that died that day.....

Still after his taxes

Trump organization charged in 15-year tax scheme, CFO Weisselberg surrenders to Manhattan DA

there will be some that will want to know
https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-did … 28234.html

Donald Trump did not appear to donate his salary from his last 6 months in office as promised, says a report in the washington post of a yearly salary of $400,000

Trump frequently claimed that no other president had ever refused their salary, which is untrue. Both Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy did the same.

Trump made $1.6 billion while he was president, meaning his donated salary accounted for 0.1% of his earnings.

Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe says Trump is 'threatening members of law enforcement' in targeting officer who killed Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt

lindsey-graham-warns-trump-that-jan-6-riot-may-his-political-obituary

kbd512 · 2021-10-21 15:52:55

If you live in Democrat-run Chicago, they're no longer prosecuting people for stealing less than $1,000 worth of goods.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-21 18:15:20

Say what, allowed to break the law?
They must not be in America any longer....

kbd512 · 2021-10-21 19:07:02

SpaceNut,

Protesting doesn't end with billions of dollars of property damage.

Looting and burning down stores is not protesting the Police.

Firebombing federal courthouses is not about seeking any kind of justice.

All of that is lawlessness, otherwise known as anarchy.

As of right now, the political party acting as the enablers for that sort of anti-social behavior is the Democrat Party.

There are no Republican-run cities where you can go into a store or someone's home, steal $900 worth of stuff, and then walk out without being arrested and prosecuted. None. Period.

Want less anarchy?

Stop enabling the anarchists. You can still vote for Democrats, but they need to be actual Democrats, not anarchists or communists or other assorted extremists masquerading as Democrats.

If the Republican Party had DAs or politicians enabling that sort of behavior, then I'd be calling them out for the same utter nonsense.

I want to live in America, not some Mad Max wasteland that used to be America.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-21 19:56:57

https://www.federalcharges.com/illinois … heft-laws/

kbd512 · 2021-10-21 20:13:06

SpaceNut,

That only makes a difference if the DA decides to prosecute the cases brought before him or her.

kbd512 · 2021-11-05 15:27:34

1. Today Democrat Party operative, Igor Danchenko, a primary source used by former British Intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, in the infamous "Steele Dossier" fraud, has been arrested by the FBI and indicted on five counts of lying to the FBI about the authenticity of the information in the Steele Dossier.

2. The Steele Dossier was repudiated as false information by both the Mueller investigation, the FBI, as well as the Biden Administration Department of Justice.

3. Danchenko's arrest comes on the heels of the arrests of the Clinton Campaign lawyers who concocted the Steele Dossier fraud.

4. Igor Danchenko was hired by a long-time Clinton subordinate, Charles H. Dolan Jr.

5. Charles H. Dolan Jr was appointed to government office in the State Department whileformer Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was in office. He was previously employed under President Bill Clinton's administration as the Virginia State Democrat Party Chairman.

6. Charles H. Dolan Jr claims that he had no coordination with the 2016 Clinton Presidential Election Campaign, but is also under indictment for multiple counts of lying to the FBI regarding his role in fabricating the Steele Dossier.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1901 2021-03-02 20:06:36

Re: Politics

#1902 2021-03-03 20:06:52

Re: Politics

#1903 2021-03-03 20:44:12

Re: Politics

#1904 2021-03-03 22:58:41

Re: Politics

#1905 2021-03-04 12:41:07

Re: Politics

#1906 2021-03-04 13:33:35

Re: Politics

#1907 2021-03-04 16:05:44

Re: Politics

#1908 2021-03-04 16:23:11

Re: Politics

#1909 2021-03-04 16:34:01

Re: Politics

#1910 2021-03-04 18:45:24

Re: Politics

#1911 2021-03-04 22:46:12

Re: Politics

#1912 2021-03-04 23:45:50

Re: Politics

#1913 2021-03-05 09:26:20

Re: Politics

#1914 2021-03-05 18:31:14

Re: Politics

#1915 2021-03-06 19:28:40

Re: Politics

#1916 2021-03-11 07:01:46

Re: Politics

#1917 2021-03-12 10:59:25

Re: Politics

#1918 2021-03-31 06:47:07

Re: Politics

#1919 2021-03-31 17:10:18

Re: Politics

#1920 2021-10-21 15:52:55

Re: Politics

#1921 2021-10-21 18:15:20

Re: Politics

#1922 2021-10-21 19:07:02

Re: Politics

#1923 2021-10-21 19:56:57

Re: Politics

#1924 2021-10-21 20:13:06

Re: Politics

#1925 2021-11-05 15:27:34

Re: Politics

Board footer