• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

You can add Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan to that list.

Arguably, you could add all of the Eastern European countries they “liberated” since they just turned them into satellites anyways.
We could have a substantial list for the US as well. Its just that Canada and Mexico arent on it recently

Panama
Grenada
Iraq
Iraq
Afghanistan
 
Depending, among some, on whether you like who wins, and who loses ;)

And where does this tax money get spent? In offshore factories making Bradley's?

@RangerRay appears to be correct ....
View attachment 88981
(source)
View attachment 88982
(source)

As opposed to billionaires using their own properties to conduct government business on the taxpayer's dime? Discuss ;)
But we'll see if that changes during Trump Time 2.0.
You mean like the Bush or Reagan ranches or Biden's Delaware and other properties or any one of Obamas many properties? Or are you saying Trump is the only one in history?

Quite the extrapolation from someone receiving a million bucks of campaign funds for an interview. That's quite the stretch trying to compare the two. Maybe you could find some less biased articles next time.

1r504h.jpg
 
You mean like the Bush or Reagan ranches or Biden's Delaware and other properties or any one of Obamas many properties? Or are you saying Trump is the only one in history?
How much rent/user fee did Bush, Reagan, Obama or Biden collect from the government use of those properties?
 
How much rent/user fee did Bush, Reagan, Obama or Biden collect from the government use of those properties?
No idea, but they used those properties a lot. And they are still using them for Bush, obama and soon biden. Besides, if the House and Senate thought it was out of line, they would have passed a law. They haven't. So it would appear it's considered the cost of guarding the POTUS. but that is no matter right? It's Trump so it's OK to complain about him and totally ignore all those that came before. Like,the meme says, quite the stretch taking an article about Winfrey and Harris campaign funds and applying it to the cost of protecting the POTUS and hinging the whole thing on the single word 'billionaire.' Sounds like someone else is unhappy about Trump winning.
 
No idea, but they used those properties a lot. And they are still using them for Bush, obama and soon biden. Besides, if the House and Senate thought it was out of line, they would have passed a law. They haven't. So it would appear it's considered the cost of guarding the POTUS. but that is no matter right? It's Trump so it's OK to complain about him and totally ignore all those that came before. Like,the meme says, quite the stretch taking an article about Winfrey and Harris campaign funds and applying it to the cost of protecting the POTUS and hinging the whole thing on the single word 'billionaire.' Sounds like someone else is unhappy about Trump winning.
I think an eyebrow or two being raised when someone in power makes money via his businesses by directing government spending to said businesses is warranted and normal. This was brought up last time he was president.

Regardless. Protective services and staff have to stay somewhere. It probably makes sense to have them stay on Trump properties that also happen to be his businesses. But he profits.

Imagine a PM here owns a chain of hotels and happens to live in said hotels and directs his staff and details to stay at those places. In the USA that sort of stuff is more acceptable here than there. The kickbacks most politicians make is crazy but also seems acceptable to the point that no one in that orbit really wants to scratch the surface lest they all get caught up in it.
 

So this is actually a good thing. I suspect he may find resistance across party lines though to this idea…
Good idea or no, the high bar for a Constitutional amendment will be impossible to achieve. The last one was in 1991 and there has been a lot of water under a lot of bridges since then.
 
Good idea or no, the high bar for a Constitutional amendment will be impossible to achieve. The last one was in 1991 and there has been a lot of water under a lot of bridges since then.
I don't know... Americans might be ready for a change.

Senators or Representatives who fight it might find their "safe seats" not so safe next election.
 
Grade 5 literacy is far too low in a supposedly first-world country.

Even Grade 5 literacy is not required to vote.

Voter Literacy Tests in the U.S. were banned with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
 
Regardless of everything else, we can at least be absolutely certain that in January, Kamala Harris, who lost the election, and who is the current Vice President, will fulfill her solely ministerial role to certify the results of the election. A few weeks later, there will be a peaceful and timely transition of power from one government to the next according to the will of the electorate.
That has got to be a conflict of interest. I know that there probably haven't been issues in the past, but Who knows what could happen in the future now.
 
Back
Top