On 8/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, James DiEugenio said:

We now have two people on the record about this issue, Napolitano and RFK Jr.

And both of them are hearsay. But about these sources.

 

Yikes Bill, all the major increases are with the Democrats. Why isn't this just a blow out?

It would be interesting to see how much of the increase is from 7/20 to the election, 11/20.

I wouldn't think that there would be  a low turn out rate with people who have registered in just the last 4 years.

The 2 Phils      RIP

The first 4 minutes  Phil Hartman doing Phil Donahue  on the Donahue Show.

A time capsule here. I ran across this,

Because he can be so easily caricatured and made fun of, people forget that Phil Donahue lost his show on MSNBC because he was too anti George Bush's War in Iraq.

Here he very cooly, beats the brains out of misogynist  douchebag, De Mohrenschildt fibber,  Pro Iraq War, Bill O'Reilly.

We shouldn't forget he was a good guy and a force for good!

Here Donahue talks about losing his job at MSNBC.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sometimes I really wonder about this community and its political instincts  and acumen.

Jim: You don't determine the values in the community here, and don't give us loyalty oaths.

I've  never been particularly impressed with your political knowledge. JMO

And if you don't see a  greater picture beyond your one issue. I don't think anything of your "political instincts and acumen."

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

"Trump says he will declassify, what is Harris going to do in response?"

Jim: "Trump says he will declassify,

As I said in one of the many related threads lately.  "more titanic hopes"

JIm: "what is Harris going to do in response?"

I'd say nothing. You know why? Because probably not one per cent of the population can tell you who Ruth Paine is

This is funny stuff, George Conway is running very funny anti Trump ads near Mara Lago under Psychopac.org so now Trump is forced to run ads down there to counteract them. It's particularly funny because his ex-wife Kellyanne works for Trump!

Conway's introduction to psychopac.com.

On 8/28/2024 at 3:40 AM, Bill Fite said:

He explained how my immune system mis-recognized corn as an invader and was reacting by producing antibodies to fight it.  And that counterintuitively in this process a craving for corn (Fritos) was also produced.

Interesting, going against your immune system!

I was told with my liver,that Lemonade would be good for me. Now it's the only thing I have a food addiction to!

I cut out ice cream 10 years ago. I use to eat a half gallon in 3 sittings, this incidentally at my old steady weight 35 lbs. ago. Then my blood sugar went too high and I stopped altogether. I lost about 5 lbs.!

Interesting, I've never had a food allergy i knew of. But there are so many people with allergies to peanuts. I've always thought there might be something with peanuts because, have you ever had a "peanut burp"? That is the worst! It can  trigger  a sort of shallow throw up that i always suppress, but end up with a terrible taste in my mouth that I swallow! heh!

i use to buy perfectly good viagra from India at 10 cents on the dollar. Now that's pretty common.

I'm sure there are places in the world that  you get GLP 1 drugs at a considerable discount, or will be soon. 

I understand you just have no craving for food or alcohol! You eat not even half of what you used to eat, mostly just to eat!

*****

Gosh that Gil is such a Trump shill!  The way he ceased on the Trump visit to Arlington! And he seems so clueless about Trump's past statements about servicemen! 

And then the altercation and Trump's being reprimanded for his obvious cynical politicizing.

Do you think Gil is just so isolated, he's never heard what Trump for example said about John Mc Cain and our warriors  being "losers"?   Will he see the headlines about the altercation at Arlington and dismiss it  as the work of "Operation Mockingbird"!

Some people here are really far gone!

If the Georgia case gets thrown out,it won't necessarily be because Fani Willis had an affair with her fellow prosecutor  in the case. It will be because Trump's attorneys will contest that she prejudiced the trial when she grandstanded in a  Historic Black Church saying that the criticism of her and Nathan Wade was "racially motivated."

This woman had the biggest career break of her life getting this case, and it was a slam dunk with a smoking gun tape. And she couldn't  keep herself from charges of improper conduct. First with the relationship, whether I care or not. But then arrogantly publicly claiming the opposition calling it on her as racial discrimination in a public forum.

However what seems so arbitrary about it is, at first they were discussing just taking Willis off the case ("take the load of Fani!")  and appointing a new Prosecutor. Now it seems we've crossed that bridge and if she's taken off the case, the case is thrown out!  Just as in the case of moving a venue or the appointment of a  judge to hear the case. It often seems so arbitrary, and yet it can be so critical!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/08/26/trump-georgia-appeal-racist/

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My own belief is that Harris will be less supportive of militant American imperialism than Biden.

Her family is from India and Jamaica, and she has a history of defending persecuted people.

I agree.. But putting it concretely the next existential hurdle outside of an outright war throughout the Middle East would be a breakdown of a ceasefire process and a U.S. withholding funds to Israel. We can say, should that breakdown happen, a move to defunding  would more likely happen under Harris, but she would be fiercely opposed by the Republicans who currently stand to win the Senate, but let's hope they don't.

Of course, keep in mind this is a Rigby segue from Chris Martenson's" Peak Prosperity" to Daniel Beto  David's insurance Ponzi scheme to now "Naked Capitalism".  He covers a lot of bases!.

Quite an algorithm there!

4 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

The Rising Democratic Threat of "Hopeful Militarism"

The Democratic Party's attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/08/the-rising-democratic-threat-of-hopeful-militarism.html

Peter Bloom

Aug 26, 2024 Common Dreams

In an already historic presidential campaign featuring the rising threat of Christian nationalism, assassination attempts, and the sudden switch of a presidential nominee, one of the most under-the-radar but worrying developments has been how the Democratic Party has increasingly sought to associate its militaristic policies with a campaign centered on "hope" and "joy." This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy. As the United States grapples with the genuine threat of far-right extremism and the specter of Trumpism, it becomes crucial to critically examine the Democrats' approach to national security and foreign policy.

The Democratic Party's emphasis on hope and joy in their political messaging is not new. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, with its iconic "Hope" poster and message of change, set a precedent for this approach. In the face of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the Democrats have doubled down on this strategy, presenting themselves as the guardians of democracy and harbingers of a brighter future.

However, this narrative of hope and progress is increasingly intertwined with a commitment to maintaining and even expanding American military dominance. Nowhere was this more evident than in Vice President Kamala Harris' acceptance speech, where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains "the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world."

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions.

This juxtaposition of hope and militarism creates a troubling paradox. On one hand, the Democrats present themselves as champions of peace, multilateralism, and global cooperation. On the other, they continue to advocate for policies that perpetuate a cycle of global conflict and divert resources from pressing domestic needs.

The Democratic Party's deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions. Despite rhetoric about creating an "opportunity economy" and investing in social programs, the reality is that trillions of dollars continue to flow into military spending. This massive allocation of resources not only prevents real investment in creating a more equitable and sustainable society but also fuels global conflicts and instability.

The growing marketplace for surveillance technology globally further complicates this picture. As the United States seeks to maintain its technological edge in military and intelligence capabilities, it simultaneously exports these technologies to allies and partners around the world. This proliferation of surveillance tools raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for authoritarian abuse.

The Dangerous Conflation of Militarism with Progress and Democracy

One of the most concerning aspects of the Democrats' approach is the attempt to link militarism with concepts of multilateralism and global cooperation. This rhetoric, championed by President Biden and his predecessors, suggests that a strong military is essential for maintaining international order and promoting democratic values abroad.

However, this conflation ignores the complex realities of global politics and the often counterproductive effects of military intervention, where even legitimate support for regimes can turn into a profitable opportunity for weapon’s makers. By framing military power as a tool for promoting democracy and human rights, the Democrats risk legitimizing interventions that may ultimately undermine these very values.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally. At home, the massive defense budget diverts resources from critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. This misallocation of funds perpetuates economic inequality and hinders efforts to address pressing social issues. Globally, the United States' military-first approach to foreign policy has often led to unintended consequences. From the destabilization of entire regions to the creation of power vacuums that give rise to extremist groups, the track record of American military interventions is far from unambiguously positive.

The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally.

Perhaps most troubling is the way in which militarism is being normalized and even celebrated within ostensibly progressive political discourse. By linking military power to concepts of hope, progress, and global cooperation, the Democrats are fundamentally reshaping the way Americans think about the role of force in international relations. This normalization process makes it increasingly difficult to question or challenge militaristic policies. When criticism of military spending or interventions is framed as opposition to "hope" or "progress," it becomes easier to marginalize voices calling for a more peaceful and just foreign policy.

The US embrace of surveillance technology as a tool for local and national security raises serious questions about the compatibility of these practices with democratic values. While presented as necessary for protecting citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, the expansion of surveillance capabilities poses significant risks to civil liberties and privacy rights. Moreover, the export of surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable human rights records, undermines the Democrats' claims to be champions of democracy and freedom. This contradiction between rhetoric and action further erodes trust in the political system and reinforces cynicism about the true motives behind foreign policy decisions.

The Rising Threat of “Hopeful” Militarism

The Democratic Party's approach to militarism presents a unique danger in American politics, one that diverges significantly from the overt hawkishness often associated with their Republican counterparts. While figures like Trump and the far-Right occasionally denounce "endless wars" - even as they continue to support the military-industrial complex - the Democrats have crafted a narrative that intertwines militarism with a vision of global progress and democratic idealism.

This rhetorical strategy embodies a distinct form of hypocrisy. By framing military interventions and the maintenance of global military supremacy as essential components of preserving and spreading democracy worldwide, the Democrats have effectively weaponized hope. They present militarism not as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of an optimistic, forward-looking vision for both domestic and international progress.

The risk lies in how this framing normalizes and even glorifies military action. When couched in the language of hope, democracy, and global cooperation, policies that perpetuate conflict and divert resources from crucial social needs become more palatable to a progressive audience. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows the Democrats to pursue interventionist policies while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of their supporters.

Furthermore, this "hopeful" militarism creates a false dichotomy: either support military action or abandon the cause of global democracy. By conflating military might with democratic values, the Democrats make it challenging to envision alternative approaches to international relations and conflict resolution. This narrative effectively silences critics, painting them as pessimists or isolationists who lack faith in American ideals.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions. When military interventions are framed as necessary steps towards a more peaceful and democratic world, it becomes easier to overlook the immediate human cost and long-term destabilizing effects of such interventions. The rhetoric of hope acts as a veil, concealing the harsh realities of war and occupation behind a facade of noble intentions.

The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions.

This approach also shores up support for the military-industrial complex among those who might otherwise be its critics. By aligning military spending with progressive values, the Democrats create a cognitive dissonance that allows their supporters to reconcile their desire for social progress with continued investment in weapons and warfare. This effectively broadens the base of support for militaristic policies, making substantive changes to America's foreign policy approach even more challenging.

The Democrats' "hopeful" justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good. This approach not only perpetuates harmful policies but also corrupts the very ideals it claims to uphold, turning concepts like hope, democracy, and progress into tools for justifying military dominance.

Recognizing and confronting this rhetorical strategy is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge the prevailing paradigm of American militarism. It requires a willingness to question even those narratives that align with our values and to critically examine the gap between hopeful rhetoric and the often harsh realities of military action. Only by disentangling our aspirations for a more just and democratic world from the machinery of war can we begin to forge a truly progressive approach to global affairs.

Reimagining Security and Reclaiming Hope

As we confront the challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to global inequality, it is crucial to reimagine our approach to security and progress. True hope for the future lies not in maintaining military dominance but in addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.

Investing in diplomacy, international development, and conflict resolution could yield far greater returns in terms of global security than continued military buildup. Similarly, redirecting resources towards education, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure could create genuine economic opportunities and improve the lives of millions of Americans.

Challenging the dominant narrative of militarism as progress will require concerted effort from civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and engaged citizens. By highlighting the true costs of militarism and presenting alternative visions for national security and global cooperation, these groups can help shift the public discourse.

The Democratic Party's attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power. While the threats posed by far-right extremism and global authoritarianism are real, the answer does not lie in perpetuating a cycle of militarism and conflict.

True hope for the future lies in reimagining our approach to national security, global cooperation, and economic progress. One where movements social movements around the world can unite to support one another in resisting and replacing economic and political oligarchs locally and globally. By challenging the normalization of militarism within progressive discourse and presenting alternative visions for a more peaceful and just world, we can reclaim the concept of hope from those who would use it to justify endless war and surveillance.

I will give an honest appraisal of this. First I wondered who wrote It. I was sure it was either 1)a person who lives outside the U.S., which it was, a Brit. Or 2) any academic  without any real understanding of U.S. politics. And so it appears. Peter Bloom, a Professor at the University of Essex in the UK

Then i read this introduction:

Yves here. It is sobering to see what the Democratic party propaganda machine is cooking up and will probably succeed in selling. The messaging boils down to “War is love”.

Oh for Chrissake!,  do people really keynote on an intertwining hidden meaning that will rouse the masses in a speech like this in the U.K.?

where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains “the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

It's a political speech, and we have a lot of them in the U.S. Harris is perceived rightly as a California Liberal, whose  moving to the center to appeal to centrists and those who are concerned about Harris defending the U.S. role as a global superpower, just as JFK did. Just as all Democrats do. What that means to them is not the same as it means to me, and probably not Harris.

This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy.

Pffff...More academic BS! The "hope and joy" was struck as a contrast to Trump's forever Doom and Gloom, it's not used as a pretext for further militarization!

******

Not that I don't understand the concerns stated. For example I can't with any conscience condone the funding of Israel genocide against the Palestinians. But as I've said before, I'm in the minority. The sort of sitting on the fence about this does represent currently the will of the American people. That equation is what currently is. And nothing in this speech will change that reality. She'll be a bit harder on Netanyahu than Biden, though we'll see how much.

But there are limits to U.S. public support that never existed before. It's harder to get boots on the ground in a foreign war than it ever has been in our lifetimes. Now the next stage is to learn hard lessons from proxy wars.

I think what the author doesn't understand is no foreign policy was made here in reality, or by dog whistle.

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ozempic is truly fascinating.  I think Trump has been taking it.

Self-disclosure.  I started taking the old, inexpensive oral hypoglycemic drug, Metformin, about ten years ago.

I lost 30 lbs., almost all in my gut (i.e., greater omentum) and have kept my weight and glucose levels at normal levels for the past 10 years, with Metformin and exercise.

Old studies showed that Metformin increased longevity in mice.

Now look at this incredible GLP-1 data... 😲

 

Ozempic-like drugs will cure what ails you

Kevin Drum

August 25, 2024 

This is pretty damn impressive:

A 5-year observational study of ~12,000 individuals with obesity taking GLP-1 drugs (without diabetes) with propensity matched controls
A significant reduction of all-cause mortality (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15, 0.34)https://t.co/mbYzzdtOEP pic.twitter.com/4hLCYbm0TS

— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) August 25, 2024

 

Over the course of five years, obese people in the control group had a 3.5% chance of dying. Similar people in the group that took GLP-1 drugs (like Ozempic) had only a 0.75% chance of dying.

What's more they found that the GLP-1 group had lower risk of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, hypertension, stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and allergic reactions.

They're going to start putting this stuff in the water supply before long.

 

That's interesting W. I've been thinking of taking one of these to lose 35 lbs. I'm concerned about 2 things. 1)The loss of muscle mass. And 2) With the side effects I've heard, Would I have to take it for life?  This weight gain happened as result of selling my house in late 2019 and traveling. found myself in hotels eating out a lot. Then one day, I was able to weight myself and I was up 35 Lbs.  even though honestly I felt no different and I was physically just as active. So I feel I had a "set weight" that was constant for 15 years.  So if I could get back there, I wonder if I could stay at that weight and discontinue usage?   I immediately stopped eating out so much and if I travel in car I carry a rice cooker and buy vegetables and fish.  Hotels since covid are much more likely to now have to have refrig and microwave now, so Iv'e kept my diet constant to what it was before. Still the most I've lost is 5-10 lbs. 

So metformin is not a GLP-1?  I've been told by my physician that I could get wegovy for $250 a month. That strikes me as a somewhat high, considering I don't feel any different, but I should really start looking ahead.

Whatever info you can give me W. would be greatly appreciated!

I probably would have added some reference  to RK cutting off a dead whales head, staging a bike accident with a dead bear in Central Park, and squeeze in some  reference to "brainworm", but still , pretty good!

22 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your argument is non-existent, since you fail to address any of the issues raised.

The only credible news sources are those backing a Trump dictatorship?

OH WHEN THE BRICS---COMING MARCHING IN!

GO BRICS GO!

That's cool with me!

I'm already starting to hate our music!

I would change BRIC to CRIB

Strong man good!

Coal and fossil fuel forever!

Drill baby drill!

Dig baby dig!

Bono make it better!
 

Trump is still hedging the debate. This is exactly what Harris should be doing, bullying and humiliating the bully in ads with chicken sounds..

The back story is Trump seemed to be backing out so now Harris wants open mics. Sort of turning the psychological edge on Trump, who first wanted to debate Biden open mics!

Sort of Bobby Fischer stuff! Betting Trump will lose control!

On 8/24/2024 at 2:33 AM, Paul Rigby said:

 

I find out now that this source Chris Martenson, that both Kinaski and Rigby are using has no background in ballistics or any related topic at all. He's a right wing financial guru. He rails against Biden and Harris and extrapolates a claim for example that Biden and Harris's taxation plan would be a 44% tax on capital gains, which I would find outrageous but is simply untrue! That has not been going on for the last 3 years at all.

He, like me is concerned about the deficit. He wants to do the Project 2025 elimination of the Department of Education and probably wants education vouchers from the government because he home schools his 3 kids. He's another  dooms dayer  with a presentation about the "End of western civilization". Which I"m sure would be the ultimate justice for Kinaski, Cotter and Rigby until they actually find they have to live it out at their ripe old ages!.     heh heh

I suppose it's not unusual that an amateur detective that would spend 100's of hours researching this assassination attempt would be a die hard Trump fan, and it also it wouldn't surprise me if Kinaski and Rigby know nothing about his background but were driven algorithmically to his video clips. He seems to be your most used source despite the fact that you at least featured for a time or one two others with  more experience.

KIrk: Have they said that their investigation and everything they are going to release about this is concluded?

This was a sincere question and I got no answer. But the answer is that they've concluded nothing, and they are now making a bi partisan task force.  You're able to find info that they haven't released yet and you see it as evidence of a coverup. Quite possibly much of the information that  you and other internet researchers  have spent hundreds of hours accumulating, will eventually be released anyway. It's obvious that authorities investigating aren't happy with their findings about this either. But you're a long way from establishing any real government complicity.  And neither does Trump suspect that, who complimented the SS a couple of days ago.

This happens every 50 years or so. The 2 major parties are going through a realignment. The donor classes of both parties  are are being squeezed by the middle class discontent brought on by  their long range economic policies.

I think for 100 years the Republicans have always aspired to a strong pyramid style economic model, But the very effective specific targeting was started by the Republicans during the Reagan years and then picked up by Bill Clinton. But it's more than just globalism, it involves multi national corporations lobbying, buying politicians and actually drawing up legislation.

Many of the older among us actually remember an era when there was one household earner and a stay home mother taking care of the family. Then an erosion happened in stages when 1) it became necessary to have 2 earners to have a family,  then 2),now  many 2 earner households even with good education and training are stretched to the bone, and may not have a family. And 3)There is a now also a growing class of unmarried people who have given up hopes of having a family and are equally marginalized just on their own.

In the baby boomer generation  there was room for a lot of failure, divorce some drug addiction but some recovery and  an overall good result, though maybe living somewhat marginally in their retirement years. But still with social security , and health care benefits, there's not the need for good income.

IMO, which could be simplifying it. I would say by in large those who were more susceptible to the passing economic conditions, workers who lost their jobs overseas and are then  faced with market induced wages, and prone to class envy and culture wars  tend to be followers of Trump and those who are failed aspiring to middle class affluence tend to be more Democrats. JMO

But unfortunately, on the Trump side, apart from my seeing Trump as having dangerous autocratic tendencies, I also fear   that  I see a lot of right wing people whose answer to a worker-middle class revolt is to head it off at the pass and reduce expectation and "dismantle the administrative state" and  defund or reduce the government to 1950's level, who are out  to influence Trump who has no real conviction of his own. Obviously in this situation, that would bring on great resistance and  I would suspect they are willing to establish a police state with greatly reduced liberties, which I could see with Trump as well.  JMO

The obvious slogan would be "Workers and marginalized middle class of the world unite". But this comprises 95% of the population and there's really not enough money among the top 5% to fix that problem. But there are a number of things that can improve.

Trump, RK, Musk, We've entered a period of unfettered, super wealthy hybrid loons!

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

All you can summon are snarky conclusions and other people's arguments.

True, I think John's greatest, and very often repeated, contribution to the forum was someone else's concept of "Phil Spector Dominance."

Cotter asserted Spector's U.S. world dominance  was so complete, the rest of the world might as well not even get up in the morning.

Thanks Denny, RK cites things about Trump' previous performance  I didn't even know. 

Not that that matters anymore!

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

  "I’ve known Bobby Kennedy for quite a while. Something has happened to him. Maybe it’s the worm that got into his brain, but saying Trump will protect your freedoms and keep America from becoming a totalitarian state, he’s out of his f--ing mind."

    -- Rob Reiner

Great quote, another narcissist, but  clinging to a false hope of power.

Baby boomer politician dementia---3 strikes you're out!

Thanks Larry!

But what's even worse is he tries to barter his position for power with Harris, and gets rejected, and now he's hanging on a thread, trusting  Trump, and his cult who have no real moorings are exalted!

And now the pot is sweetened for the one issue wonders here!

  "I saw it and it's been fake ever since"     

Same old cycle--------- titanic hopes for smoking gun--------hopes dashed-----------green shoots for greater, broader conspiracies!

Yippie!

Oh God, now  this forum is going to be dominated by the one issue, JFKphyles,  saying that Trump is the only answer!

That will be Ben's next post!

******

Yikes W.! I'm familiar with Greg Pallast but I never heard anything about this!

The baby boomer politicians are all dropping dead with dementia!

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And this is why they wanted no Democratic debates.  All the while knowing that Biden would have likely lost to Trump.

This is more of this conspiracy gibberish. Jim knows the Dems would not deliberately lose to Trump, so he's forwarding the conspiracy theory  that for some reason they engineered a "coup" because they wanted Harris all along despite the fact that she was  not a particularly successful candidate when she ran on her own.

At one point Jim was bragging that RK was over 20%. So he went from 20% now down to 2%!  An absolutely horrible showing, but like Trump,  he now cries foul!

But what's even worse is he tries to barter his position for power with Harris, and gets rejected, and now he's hanging on a thread, trusting  Trump, and his cult who have no real moorings are exalted!

17 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Could you please translate that into intelligible English, Kirk?

Yeah well this witting sentence below will be even more difficult for you to unpack, John. .

Is John aspiring  to follow in Trumps footsteps and blaze a new era of bored, idle septuagenarian social media trolling.or .......

is he just a glutton for my punishment? 

heh heh    If unpacked,  it's a joke John!

I agree W. She did exceed expectations.

I thought this could well be the case. She won't be at all intimidated by Trump in the debate. And that by itself will unnerve Trump.

Watch how she handles Russia Gate denier Super Hero obfuscater William Barr.