yeah, if I remember correctly Oprah and the Rock were going to donate $10 million dollars… real villains….. Who else is stepping up?
Printable View
yeah, if I remember correctly Oprah and the Rock were going to donate $10 million dollars… real villains….. Who else is stepping up?
Your talking like a true conservative, not like a flaming liberal that I've come to expect from these boards. After all, it's their money right? They have the right to spend and give as they wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Oprah net worth around 3.5 billion, the Rock 800 million.
I don't understand why it should be a big deal, but maybe I'm missing something. How many other wealthy public figures didn't do anything at all? I suspect many of them are conservatives.
Reason #793b: Project 2025.
https://www.project2025.org/
I was being sarcastic. Ridiculous IMO to give them guff.Quote:
Originally Posted by cx3
Very good reason not to vote republican!Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
frugal-one, I know you were being sarcastic, so was I.
Disclaimer: I've never been to Hawaii, don't know anyone who lives there. And I'm indifferent that 10 million was donated by these two.
The fact remains that social media was not kind to Oprah and the Rock (don't know his real name).Why is this so? My meager understanding is that people are waking up by what they see going on. People from all races, economic classes, political affiliations, etc.This is way bigger than Republican vs Democrat.
If you have not done so, I urge you all to watch the documentary The Family:Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Bing Videos
From the web site,Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
"The time is short, and conservatives need a plan. The project will create a playbook of actions to be taken in the first 180 days of the new Administration to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies."
Something similar has come up in discussions I've had with a couple of conservative folks. At least the devastating policy part. I have wondered what exactly is so devastating. Sure, there are differences in policies that may tilt the country's direction one way or the other, but devastating? Employment is strong and the market corporate profits have been decent. We seem to be getting enough migrants to fill in the employment void. Inflation is relatively tame. There have been no loss of lives in wars. Those seem like the main issues that routinely come up as policies of debate. There's no pandemic or financial meltdown, which I might consider devastating. Or climate disasters. So I've been curious of what is so "devastating", real or perception?
I might substitute “annoying” for “devastating.” You are aware of hyperbole in political speak, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
and some actions have launched aspects of our country in the wrong direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
there is a LOT there. I just skimmed a few pages and I can see where you would like it at all.
By my vocabulary, annoying and devastating differ by an order of magnitude or more, and would think that would be the accepted difference beyond just common exaggeration. I'm just wondering what examples of policies this particular version of conservativism deem so dire, like the country is in a spiral of near terminal decay due to left policies. And one reason I'm wondering is because the same degree of extreme policy disaster came up in a few recent discussions and just didn't get to that part of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
So what do you perceive to be going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by cx3
I have no problem with people donating cash for disaster recovery; but do they really need to show up in person to preen for the media and use up local resources that may be in short supply?
I have no problem with political leaders expressing support for disaster victims; but do they really need to travel thousands of miles to talk about their kitchen fire?
I get the impression that disasters and their victims often get used as backgrounds and props for public relations purposes. Are they serving as beacons of hope or parasites?
Elan Musk, ultra right wing nut, in the news a lot lately. Scary discussion about him on Maddow Monday. According to the information she was touting and guest speaker, it appears he is in cahoots with Putin and impeding Ukrainians. The US government is supposedly relying on him too much … SpaceX and other ways.
https://www.nbc.com/the-rachel-maddow-show
When did it become "ultra right wing" to believe in free speech and being against war? Your link wouldn't take me to the Maddow show you watched but I read somewhere that she took him to task for just that recently so I'll assume I'm on the right track. Did she call him a traitor because he allows his Starlink system to keep Ukraine's civil infrastructure of schools, hospitals, etc., operating free of charge while not allowing its use in the war effort for fear of contributing to a new world war, or did she skip the former and go with the latter?Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
It's interesting to me to see how the left is gradually re-shaping their world view. When they branded themselves as 'liberal' while espousing illiberal views it was amusing, but during their switch to 'progressive' I can only assume they chose that description because 'fascist' was already taken.
That was the queen of England’s dilemma with the mining tragedy at Aberfan, Wales. The TV series “the Crown” accurately portrayed the queen‘s dilemma. She thought if she visited the site of the tragedy, her visit would take resources and attention away from the people of the village who experienced that horrible mining accident. She did not visit there immediately, and later that was one of the regrets of her reign.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
What the Starlink debacle in Ukraine shows is that privatizing of critical infrastructure is a bad idea. The US Military needs to build its own low earth orbit satellite network if such a thing is necessary for our defense and the assistance of our allies. Relying on a network owned by a man who has different goals than the US government clearly failed in this case.
Also, Musk is in direct contact with Putin himself... as he admits. Does that not sound strange that a US citizen should be talking directly Putin? It would behoove you to look up that show. I cannot do the explanation justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I consider Rachel Maddow to be a political propagandist who crafts her commentary to suit her audience demographics and doubt that it behooves anyone to seek it out. I prefer listening to people without a brand to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXqTZa6R5Y
The investigative reporter from The New Yorker was interviewed… here is an article he wrote
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ks-shadow-rule
Again you put your head in the sand…. as you did early on about trump.
As with so many things, I think we are too far downstream to ever know what precisely went on. I watched (CNN) Blinken's reluctance and ultimate refusal to agree with Jake Tapper that there should be any repercussions for Musk. Muck refused to activate Starlink far enough to cover Sevastopol. He says he didn't have US gov't. permission to extend coverage to Crimea.
What is true? I agree we all need to pull our heads out of the sand, but then we need to look in all directions.
Everything about Blinken's silence and his body language said to me that we are not being told the whole story.
Apparently now when republicans don’t like the results of an election the plan is to impeach the election winner without any sort of evidence of wrongdoing. The shitbags in Wisconsin are apparently following in the footsteps of the shitbags in DC. And with the extreme gerrymander in Wisconsin there’s not a damn thing the voters can do to get rid of the unpopular Republican shitbags.
Yes, I voted for the woman you are referring to before I moved. Unfortunately Texas is full of the same.
I see that Kevin McCarthy is such a weak speaker of the house that he couldn’t get any spending bill passed, even with the draconian cuts demanded by the ‘burn it all down’ wing of his party.
That's what happens when every Democrat in the House, as well as a few Republicans, votes against your temporary extension of the continuing resolution. I wonder why they want the government to shut down? Is there a political advantage to be had if an entire party refuses to cooperate, perhaps by blaming the other party?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Maybe McCarthy should’ve pushed through the broadly bipartisan senate bill that passed. Or done a better job of counting votes so that he wouldn’t look like the sad ass that he is. But if he can’t even get the burners to vote for a bill that included much of their demented wish list he’s just a pathetic failure. Only people truly lost in the maga bubble will believe the silly trump party talking points that it was democrats who caused the shutdown.
https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net...7A&oe=653ECDC0Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
LOL. Are you trying to deny that trump is unquestionably the head of your political party? The dude knows he doesn’t even have to show up for the debates since they are actually VP debates. And apparently all of them lost last night since he has stated that he doesn’t know that any of them are worthy of being his VP for the 2024 election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
According to CNN, more people blame Biden & the Democrats in Congress than Republicans. Go figure...Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/stat...r-him-n2164487
I have no idea the details about that study but if the American public is that out of touch with reality than we deserve to re-elect trump and become a failed country.
My guess though, is that they did a poll that included 1000 republicans and 100 democrats or some such thing in order to get the desired horse race results that all the news organizations want.
The real question we should all be pondering is how did we get to the point where a president who was impeached twice for credible reasons and now under multiple indictments for some of the same credible reasons is not only remotely going to be one of our party’s nominee for President but by far the most likely nominee. There is something terribly broken in our country when 40% of the population enthusiastically supports a candidate of that (lack of) character.
“All the currently dry canals [in California] will be brimming and used to irrigate everything, including your own homes and bathrooms and everything. You’re going to be happy, and I’m going to get it done fast. They say that there’s so much water up north that I want to have the overflow areas go into your forests and dampen your forests. Because if you dampen your forests you’re not going to have these forest fires that are burning at levels that nobody’s ever seen before.”
Andy Biggs of Arizona
Ken Buck of Colorado
Tim Burchett of Tennessee
Eli Crane of Arizona
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Bob Good of Virginia
Nancy Mace of South Carolina
Matt Rosendale of Montana
They voted to oust McCarthy... and your point is....?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
You left out the 208 Democrats. Perhaps they'll be listed in the 'Why Not To Vote Democrat' thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Hilarious.
I see that one of the first actions taken by the new speaker pro tempore is to make Nancy pelosi and steny hoyer vacate their offices. So glad to see that he’s taking care of the important things first. I suppose next week maybe they’ll get on with the Hunter biden impeachment scam.
My son, who keeps up with the news, was thrilled with the vote yesterday. But, I reminded him of that famous saying, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." Who knows what will happen next. It depends on who gets in--his adversaries range from Trump supporter to more moderate Republicans, but overall they opposed McCarthy's mishandling of the budget stopgap measures, which was the straw that broke the camel's back.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I wonder why they were maintaining "hideaway" offices in the Capitol building? I thought they were reserved for Senators.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It's a mystery why the Dems voted him out. Although it's probably some sort of game of thrones logic, the new guy could easily be more conservative, like Jim Jordan or another who would be more aggressive about a government shutdown next time it comes up for a vote.