JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[Kismet]

Nationalism gave the Brits the confidence & drive to leave their island nation & establish an empire that spanned the globe.

You need to read more history, especially BRITISH history. The original inhabitants of the Isles were homebodies - the Celts and Picts for the most part who were easily subjugated first by the Romans and then by the NORMANS who came from what is now FRANCE. In fact. William the Conqueror was a Norman noble who established the basis of the English monarchy in 1066 and, the rest, as they say, is HISTORY. You should try reading some before trying to BS your way through it. Happy to help you out.

In fact, the official language at court in England from 1066-1415 was FRENCH and English was only adopted by Henry V early in his reign around 1413 or so.

[Typical Lax Dad]

History is complicated:

https://www.quora.com/Were-there-Black- ... rocentrism

https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/se ... black-boy/

[old salt]

Nationalism gave the Brits the confidence & drive to leave their island nation & establish an empire that spanned the globe.

You need to read more history, especially BRITISH history. The original inhabitants of the Isles were homebodies - the Celts and Picts for the most part
who were easily subjugated first by the Romans and then by the NORMANS who came from what is now FRANCE. In fact. William the Conqueror was a Norman noble who established the basis of the English monarchy in 1066 and, the rest, as they say, is HISTORY. You should try reading some before trying to BS your way through it. Happy to help you out.

In fact, the official language at court in England from 1066-1415 was FRENCH and English was only adopted by Henry V early in his reign around 1413 or so.

So what ? The British Empire was not created in the 15th Century. You skip a couple centuries between 1415 & the early 17th Century when the British Empire began to take shape. A great deal of "history" took place to build a British national identity & nationalism during those centuries, including protracted wars with Spain, the Dutch & France, which became the first true "world wars", due to the imperial aspirations of all.

At that time, French was the common language of European courts as far east as St Petersburg. That did not hinder the development of European nation states, with diverse languages & distinct national identities.

[Kismet]

MY point (which you apparently totally missed) is that the genesis of those later British imperial generations were not native to the British Isles. The empire party actually began when those immigrant Normans decided they wanted back into Normandy and other places on the continent which began as early as the 14th Century when English kings controlled much of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy and then the Tudors, specifically Elizabeth I (16th Century) figured out that a strong navy was not only an essential part of defense (against Spain) but could also be used for offense and exploration and thus the East India Company was born around 1600.

You need to read more history..........like I said.

[old salt]

MY point (which you apparently totally missed) is that the genesis of those later British imperial generations were not native to the British Isles. The empire party actually began when those immigrant Normans decided they wanted back into Normandy and other places on the continent which began as early as the 14th Century when English kings controlled much of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy and then the Tudors, specifically Elizabeth I (16th Century) figured out that a strong navy was not only an essential part of defense (against Spain) but could also be used for offense and exploration and thus the East India Company was born around 1600.

You need to read more history..........like I said.

By the time they began building their Empire, a genuine British identity & nationalism had developed.
Using your logic (?), you can wind the clock back to the Romans, if you choose.
Even though he ruled centuries before the Age of Empire, since you cited Henry V ...
It may have been a battle between cousins & Fleur de lis may have shared his tunic,
but King Harry & his band of brothers were fighting against the French, under the flag of England.

[MDlaxfan76]

Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.

There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.

The history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.

And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.

And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.

[Kismet]

MY point (which you apparently totally missed) is that the genesis of those later British imperial generations were not native to the British Isles. The empire party actually began when those immigrant Normans decided they wanted back into Normandy and other places on the continent which began as early as the 14th Century when English kings controlled much of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy and then the Tudors, specifically Elizabeth I (16th Century) figured out that a strong navy was not only an essential part of defense (against Spain) but could also be used for offense and exploration and thus the East India Company was born around 1600.

You need to read more history..........like I said.

By the time they began building their Empire, a genuine British identity & nationalism had developed.
Using your logic (?), you can wind the clock back to the Romans, if you choose.
Even though he ruled centuries before the Age of Empire, since you cited Henry V ...
It may have been a battle between cousins & Fleur de lis may have shared his tunic,
but King Harry & his band of brothers were fighting against the French, under the flag of England.

Again MY POINT was that the folks in England who later built the Empire were essentially IMMIGRANTS and were not true nationalists - just like most of our current American nationalists also came from elsewhere as well. This "nationalist spirit" was acquired from such immgirants was the point.

King Harry was, indeed, fighting the French who wanted to reclaim the land that his predecessor Normans owned since they invaded the Isles in 1066 and that he still controlled as an English King and descendant of said Normans.

[old salt]

MY point (which you apparently totally missed) is that the genesis of those later British imperial generations were not native to the British Isles. The empire party actually began when those immigrant Normans decided they wanted back into Normandy and other places on the continent which began as early as the 14th Century when English kings controlled much of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy and then the Tudors, specifically Elizabeth I (16th Century) figured out that a strong navy was not only an essential part of defense (against Spain) but could also be used for offense and exploration and thus the East India Company was born around 1600.

You need to read more history..........like I said.

By the time they began building their Empire, a genuine British identity & nationalism had developed.
Using your logic (?), you can wind the clock back to the Romans, if you choose.
Even though he ruled centuries before the Age of Empire, since you cited Henry V ...
It may have been a battle between cousins & Fleur de lis may have shared his tunic,
but King Harry & his band of brothers were fighting against the French, under the flag of England.

Again MY POINT was that the folks in England who later built the Empire were essentially IMMIGRANTS and were not true nationalists - just like most of our current American nationalists also came from elsewhere as well. This "nationalist spirit" was acquired from such immgirants was the point.

King Harry was, indeed, fighting the French who wanted to reclaim the land that his predecessor Normans owned since they invaded the Isles in 1066 and that he still controlled as an English King and descendant of said Normans.

I understood your point. It was not relevant to my point.
I've been stressing the positive aspects & accomplishments of Pan-Anglo-nationalism, not it's genesis.

[old salt]

Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.

There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.

The history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.

And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.

And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.

You continue to dismiss the main part of both definitions & refuse to acknowledge that nationalism can yield positive results.
You are engaging in all or nothing reductionism, attempting to make "nationalism" a pejorative.
Of course there are negative aspects of unchecked nationalism, just as there are overreaches by transnational organizations.
We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.
To demean or dismiss either side, or to question their legitimacy by blaming foreign actors or malign intent, is to avoid reality.

[a fan]

We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.

That's certainly the right wing sales pitch as to what Brexit and Trumpism is about.

That's not even close to what's actually happening. The left and guys like me have been trying to explain this for 3 years now. No amount of calm, rational explanation.....with citations, and actual math.....will change their mind. Anything short of giving Trump a *******, is dismissed out of hand as TDS.

Oh well. Their kids will pay the price, not them, so who cares, I guess.

[MDlaxfan76]

Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.

There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.

The history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.

And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.

And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.

You continue to dismiss the main part of both definitions & refuse to acknowledge that nationalism can yield positive results.
You are engaging in all or nothing reductionism, attempting to make "nationalism" a pejorative.
Of course there are negative aspects of unchecked nationalism, just as there are overreaches by transnational organizations.
We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.
To demean or dismiss either side, or to question their legitimacy by blaming foreign actors or malign intent, is to avoid reality.

Interesting that you reference that definition. Note what I have bolded.

Pan-Anglo Nationalism is an ideology which supports the view that English-speaking nations are the most politically advanced in the world, that the culture and values of English-speaking nations are superior to others and, where possible, should be imposed on others. Pan-Anglo nationalism is a legacy of the British Empire and, like the "Unwritten Constitution" of the U.K., it is defined more by specific cases than by compacts or documented agreements. Prime cases include the close cooperation in World Wars I and II and in making the post-war treaties and political and economic arrangements. Today, the prime example is the close cooperation of the U.S., U.K. and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The full spectrum of Pan-Anglo nations need not be included to validate every case. The "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. (which trumps the U.K.'s committment to its European Union partners) is another prime case - given vivid illumination by President Bush's placing of a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.

As with other nationalisms, support for Pan-Anglo nationalism is not a constant but waxes and wanes. It is most easy to identify when in conflict - as evidenced by its resurgence in the face of the current threat from Islamic extremists - but usually exists at a lower level of expression promoting and extending its values and influence.

Because the English-speaking nations consider themselves to be the most advanced nations politically and culturally, they have undertaken to be the policeman of the world, generally supporting their most powerful member, the U.S., in fulfilling this role.

The military and economic power of the English-speaking nations is unrivalled and provides enormous leverage in setting world trade and economic policy. It also ensures that Pan-Anglo culture and values are dominant to the extent that they are considered the norm. Hence, these values are rarely identified as stemming from one national source but rather termed universal. It is one of the great political challenges today to get Pan-Anglo nationalists to admit (a) that their values and culture are actually their values and culture and (b) that the rest of the planet should be allowed and encouraged to contribute to the search for universal values.

No, Salty, the great evil done in the name of 'nationalism' is why this ideology is, at its core, inherently illegitimate.
It is not simply a matter of "unchecked"; it is that it inherently assumes a superiority and, thus, a right to enforce it upon others.
There are no historical cases in which 'nationalism' has not resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of others.

I quite agree that Brexit and Trumpism are, at least in part, manifestations of this ideology (or at least the pull of 'national identity'), though both are less about 'nationalism' than actual 'white nationalism'. They are extremely anti-immigrant, both have their core base in fear of demographic change. Brexit is a bit more complicated due to the European Union and the sense of sacrifice of 'control', but the ethnic issues are really dominant. Trumpism is full on about demographics.

It is actually more akin to the hard right white nationalist ideologies of Eastern Europe and the strains found throughout Europe.

That's the ugly underbelly of Trumpism; it should be rejected.

Be a patriot, Salty, not a nationalist.
Defend the values of a free society, human rights, and the rule of law.
Be proud of America's role in that cause.

But attract others to these values through the strength of their appeal, rather than the enforcement upon others, unless in protection of those defenseless from persecution.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.

There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.

The history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.

And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.

And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.

You continue to dismiss the main part of both definitions & refuse to acknowledge that nationalism can yield positive results.
You are engaging in all or nothing reductionism, attempting to make "nationalism" a pejorative.
Of course there are negative aspects of unchecked nationalism, just as there are overreaches by transnational organizations.
We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.
To demean or dismiss either side, or to question their legitimacy by blaming foreign actors or malign intent, is to avoid reality.

Interesting that you reference that definition. Note what I have bolded.

Pan-Anglo Nationalism is an ideology which supports the view that English-speaking nations are the most politically advanced in the world, that the culture and values of English-speaking nations are superior to others and, where possible, should be imposed on others. Pan-Anglo nationalism is a legacy of the British Empire and, like the "Unwritten Constitution" of the U.K., it is defined more by specific cases than by compacts or documented agreements. Prime cases include the close cooperation in World Wars I and II and in making the post-war treaties and political and economic arrangements. Today, the prime example is the close cooperation of the U.S., U.K. and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The full spectrum of Pan-Anglo nations need not be included to validate every case. The "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. (which trumps the U.K.'s committment to its European Union partners) is another prime case - given vivid illumination by President Bush's placing of a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.

As with other nationalisms, support for Pan-Anglo nationalism is not a constant but waxes and wanes. It is most easy to identify when in conflict - as evidenced by its resurgence in the face of the current threat from Islamic extremists - but usually exists at a lower level of expression promoting and extending its values and influence.

Because the English-speaking nations consider themselves to be the most advanced nations politically and culturally, they have undertaken to be the policeman of the world, generally supporting their most powerful member, the U.S., in fulfilling this role.

The military and economic power of the English-speaking nations is unrivalled and provides enormous leverage in setting world trade and economic policy. It also ensures that Pan-Anglo culture and values are dominant to the extent that they are considered the norm. Hence, these values are rarely identified as stemming from one national source but rather termed universal. It is one of the great political challenges today to get Pan-Anglo nationalists to admit (a) that their values and culture are actually their values and culture and (b) that the rest of the planet should be allowed and encouraged to contribute to the search for universal values.

No, Salty, the great evil done in the name of 'nationalism' is why this ideology is, at its core, inherently illegitimate.
It is not simply a matter of "unchecked"; it is that it inherently assumes a superiority and, thus, a right to enforce it upon others.
There are no historical cases in which 'nationalism' has not resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of others.

I quite agree that Brexit and Trumpism are, at least in part, manifestations of this ideology (or at least the pull of 'national identity'), though both are less about 'nationalism' than actual 'white nationalism'. They are extremely anti-immigrant, both have their core base in fear of demographic change. Brexit is a bit more complicated due to the European Union and the sense of sacrifice of 'control', but the ethnic issues are really dominant. Trumpism is full on about demographics.

It is actually more akin to the hard right white nationalist ideologies of Eastern Europe and the strains found throughout Europe.

That's the ugly underbelly of Trumpism; it should be rejected.

Be a patriot, Salty, not a nationalist.
Defend the values of a free society, human rights, and the rule of law.
Be proud of America's role in that cause.

But attract others to these values through the strength of their appeal, rather than the enforcement upon others, unless in protection of those defenseless from persecution.

It is what it is.

[old salt]

Great movie; but interestingly, certainly no argument for 'nationalism', and quite anti-war.

There's another, non-shakespeare re-telling of the story now on amazon.

The history of 'nationalism', is that the second part of the definition I posted (twice) some pages back, the notion of superiority at the expense of other nations, has proven to be incredibly problematic.

And in an age of true, world existential threat from major nation state warfare, we found an alternative path that focused on building international institutions and interdependencies that provided a contract that inherently favors peace over destruction and subjugation.

And for 70 years it has worked remarkably well, lifting billions out of poverty and avoiding existential conflicts.
Work in progress, nevertheless.

You continue to dismiss the main part of both definitions & refuse to acknowledge that nationalism can yield positive results.
You are engaging in all or nothing reductionism, attempting to make "nationalism" a pejorative.
Of course there are negative aspects of unchecked nationalism, just as there are overreaches by transnational organizations.
We are currently witnessing a struggle in western democracies to find a balanced, happy medium.
Brexit & Trumpism are manifestations of that struggle.
To demean or dismiss either side, or to question their legitimacy by blaming foreign actors or malign intent, is to avoid reality.

Interesting that you reference that definition. Note what I have bolded.

Pan-Anglo Nationalism is an ideology which supports the view that English-speaking nations are the most politically advanced in the world, that the culture and values of English-speaking nations are superior to others and, where possible, should be imposed on others. Pan-Anglo nationalism is a legacy of the British Empire and, like the "Unwritten Constitution" of the U.K., it is defined more by specific cases than by compacts or documented agreements. Prime cases include the close cooperation in World Wars I and II and in making the post-war treaties and political and economic arrangements. Today, the prime example is the close cooperation of the U.S., U.K. and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The full spectrum of Pan-Anglo nations need not be included to validate every case. The "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. (which trumps the U.K.'s committment to its European Union partners) is another prime case - given vivid illumination by President Bush's placing of a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.

As with other nationalisms, support for Pan-Anglo nationalism is not a constant but waxes and wanes. It is most easy to identify when in conflict - as evidenced by its resurgence in the face of the current threat from Islamic extremists - but usually exists at a lower level of expression promoting and extending its values and influence.

Because the English-speaking nations consider themselves to be the most advanced nations politically and culturally, they have undertaken to be the policeman of the world, generally supporting their most powerful member, the U.S., in fulfilling this role.

The military and economic power of the English-speaking nations is unrivalled and provides enormous leverage in setting world trade and economic policy. It also ensures that Pan-Anglo culture and values are dominant to the extent that they are considered the norm. Hence, these values are rarely identified as stemming from one national source but rather termed universal. It is one of the great political challenges today to get Pan-Anglo nationalists to admit (a) that their values and culture are actually their values and culture and (b) that the rest of the planet should be allowed and encouraged to contribute to the search for universal values.

No, Salty, the great evil done in the name of 'nationalism' is why this ideology is, at its core, inherently illegitimate.
It is not simply a matter of "unchecked"; it is that it inherently assumes a superiority and, thus, a right to enforce it upon others.
There are no historical cases in which 'nationalism' has not resulted in the slaughter and subjugation of others.

I quite agree that Brexit and Trumpism are, at least in part, manifestations of this ideology (or at least the pull of 'national identity'), though both are less about 'nationalism' than actual 'white nationalism'. They are extremely anti-immigrant, both have their core base in fear of demographic change. Brexit is a bit more complicated due to the European Union and the sense of sacrifice of 'control', but the ethnic issues are really dominant. Trumpism is full on about demographics.

It is actually more akin to the hard right white nationalist ideologies of Eastern Europe and the strains found throughout Europe.

That's the ugly underbelly of Trumpism; it should be rejected.

Be a patriot, Salty, not a nationalist.
Defend the values of a free society, human rights, and the rule of law.
Be proud of America's role in that cause.

But attract others to these values through the strength of their appeal, rather than the enforcement upon others, unless in protection of those defenseless from persecution.

Just like with the definitions. You take a limiting modifier, apply it universally & ignore the rest.

You choose to ignore this part :

Prime cases include the close cooperation in World Wars I and II and in making the post-war treaties and political and economic arrangements. Today, the prime example is the close cooperation of the U.S., U.K. and Australia in the invasion of Iraq. The full spectrum of Pan-Anglo nations need not be included to validate every case. The "special relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S. (which trumps the U.K.'s committment to its European Union partners) is another prime case - given vivid illumination by President Bush's placing of a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.

As with other nationalisms, support for Pan-Anglo nationalism is not a constant but waxes and wanes. It is most easy to identify when in conflict - as evidenced by its resurgence in the face of the current threat from Islamic extremists - but usually exists at a lower level of expression promoting and extending its values and influence.

Because the English-speaking nations consider themselves to be the most advanced nations politically and culturally, they have undertaken to be the policeman of the world, generally supporting their most powerful member, the U.S., in fulfilling this role.

The military and economic power of the English-speaking nations is unrivalled and provides enormous leverage in setting world trade and economic policy.

Given the above, has Pan-Anglo nationalism been a net positive or negative ?

As far as exporting our ideals, that was a component part of Pan Anglo nationalism.
You're setting up a strawman re. enforcement of our values.
When forced to fight, defeat & occupy enemy countries, we endeavored to introduce liberal democracy as we rebuilt them.

Spare me the condescending lecture on patriotism.
How's your theory of promoting revolution, regime change, & exporting democracy with a M-16 working out ?
Be a realist -- when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow.
That's the model our adversaries like China, Russian, N Korea, Iran, the Taliban & ISIS are using.
China's more than happy to introduce universal values to the rest of the world population, ...via G5.

[MDlaxfan76]

I’m not ignoring the ‘positives’ in the slightest.

Let’s be clear, I have no doubt about what set of values I wish to see prevail for generations to come. I’m sure as heck glad that some other sets, all under the banner of ‘nationalism’, did not prevail.

Here’s the problem with a world in which nationalism is acceptable, nation states don’t simply compete, they believe they have a right to destroy and subjugate their neighbor.

We simply cannot afford that logic.

Of course, there are many in the world who prefer the chaos of anti-globalization or who resent the preeminent position of the US in the world as currently constructed.

We absolutely do not want to devolve to an alignment in which each 'great power' believes that it has a right to conquer and take and subjugate their neighbors.

We have a heck of a challenge ahead of us on how to deal with China, the fundamental question of whether the Chinese are inevitably on a collision course that will result in full-scale war with the US. There's no survival of such a war.

"Nationalism" hastens that event, 'globalism' has a chance of mediating that outcome.
Which in no way means that we should not continue to believe in and promote the virtues of the values we believe are essential.
But this needs to be on the basis of their appeal.

Frankly, I think those values can and will prevail if we don't give up on them.

[old salt]

Here’s the problem with a world in which nationalism is acceptable, nation states don’t simply compete, they believe they have a right to destroy and subjugate their neighbor.

Do you really think that's a fair description of American nationalism ?
That, unchecked, we have a desire to destroy & subjugate our neighbors ?
We're the ones building a wall & enforcing our border.
The Brits don't want to conquer their neighbors. They want to be freed from them.
Have you been screening Hallmark movies for subliminal messaging ?

[Trinity]

Gallagher is gonna campaign for Trump. What’s their message there? It’s okay to hunt women and children?

[MDlaxfan76]

Here’s the problem with a world in which nationalism is acceptable, nation states don’t simply compete, they believe they have a right to destroy and subjugate their neighbor.

Do you really think that's a fair description of American nationalism ?
That, unchecked, we have a desire to destroy & subjugate our neighbors ?
We're the ones building a wall & enforcing our border.
The Brits don't want to conquer their neighbors. They want to be freed from them.
Have you been screening Hallmark movies for subliminal messaging ?

I don't believe that the US has behaved nearly as badly since Manifest Destiny, when "American Nationalism" was in full throated control. I think the negative view of "nationalism" built here as a result of the the two WWII's and we haven't been ruled by that concept since. We've nevertheless made some pretty darn big errors overseas, but I quite agree that we've behaved quite differently as we pulled back from "nationalism."

We're patriotic American globalists, not "nationalists".

Not a fan of Hallmark movies. Too sappy, too rote.

My wife and I did recently watch season one of Virgin River on Netflix.
Feels a little "Hallmark" at first, but much richer storylines.
Two of the primary male characters are Marine veterans.

[Trinity]

So our massive embassy in Iraq is under siege.

[Kismet]

Then there is this

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2019/12/3 ... uch-worse/

or how best to FUBAR a FUBAR. We finally have an idea what Trump and his numbnutz staff are up to in the Middle East. Buffoonery in lieu of strategy.
Dean Wormer nailed it - "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son"

The stable genius just plays golf every day (at one of his properties) and Tweets when done. What a dope!

Tonight reports are that elements of 82nd Airborne will be deployed to the Middle East. Here we go again. Too bad meetings interfered with GOLF today.

[holmes435]

Gallagher is gonna campaign for Trump. What’s their message there? It’s okay to hunt women and children?

Their message is the persecution complex. The message is that their singular "American" values are under attack by liberals (and cowards) as evidence by the trials and impeachment, and that they're innocent as evidence by Trump's pardon. The best offense is a good defense. The best defense is saying you're under attack and rallying the vote.

It's scary stuff when you get into the weeds.