The Conservative Principle
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
Interesting that un-American, anti-American Liberals want to pin Jeffrey Epstein's actions on Pres Trump even though The President kicked him out of Mar-A-Lago years ago for behavioral purposes. Yet, we find out it was Bill Clinton that flew on Epstein's sex plane where there was a lot of mile high activity that Mr Epstein was having with underage girls. The media stay fairly quiet on this
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tein-six-times-not-the-four-times-he-admitted
Former President Bill Clinton claimed that he took four trips, accompanied by the Secret Service, on billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express" private airplane, but flight manifests reveal at least six separate journeys, two of which were without Secret Service agents.
The two trips not acknowledged by Clinton were from Miami, Florida, to Westchester, New York, in early February 2002, which appears to be the first time that Clinton joined Epstein, and a trip in Asia.
One May 2002 Asian trip, without Secret Service agents, included stops in Japan, Hong Kong, China, Thailand, and Brunei. The other, in November 2003, with Secret Service agents, included stops in Norway, Siberia, Hong Kong, and China.
Another divergence from Clinton's account is that the manifests show no Secret Service agents were present for one of the former president's Africa trips with Epstein.
The discrepancies between Clinton's claims and the flight manifests draw the former president deeper into the Epstein scandal. Epstein has also been associated with Prince Andrew and President Trump, a fellow resident of Palm Beach, Florida. Trump reportedly flew with Epstein and in 2002 described him as a "terrific guy," adding: "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tein-six-times-not-the-four-times-he-admitted
Former President Bill Clinton claimed that he took four trips, accompanied by the Secret Service, on billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express" private airplane, but flight manifests reveal at least six separate journeys, two of which were without Secret Service agents.
The two trips not acknowledged by Clinton were from Miami, Florida, to Westchester, New York, in early February 2002, which appears to be the first time that Clinton joined Epstein, and a trip in Asia.
One May 2002 Asian trip, without Secret Service agents, included stops in Japan, Hong Kong, China, Thailand, and Brunei. The other, in November 2003, with Secret Service agents, included stops in Norway, Siberia, Hong Kong, and China.
Another divergence from Clinton's account is that the manifests show no Secret Service agents were present for one of the former president's Africa trips with Epstein.
The discrepancies between Clinton's claims and the flight manifests draw the former president deeper into the Epstein scandal. Epstein has also been associated with Prince Andrew and President Trump, a fellow resident of Palm Beach, Florida. Trump reportedly flew with Epstein and in 2002 described him as a "terrific guy," adding: "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
President Obama is now a millionaire, but if the nation agrees to reparations payments, will the former president get a payout?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tions-difficult-definition-column/1632932001/
If the United States made amends for its history of slavery through reparations, would former President Barack Obama be eligible to receive a payment? It’s an interesting question that frames some of the thornier problems with the proposal.
The most obvious issue is that Obama’s father was African, not a descendant of American slaves or raised in African-American culture. Also, his white mother was a descendant of those who held people in bondage, and Obama noted in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that there was a family legend he was related to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. From a genealogical perspective, Obama is on the wrong side of history.
This raises the issue of culpability. It is hard to make the case for reparations on an individual basis, because all the people directly involved in American slavery, both victims and culprits, are long since passed on. And parsing out the bloodlines of descendants to determine who is eligible or responsible is not only complicated, it also raises disturbing parallels to the exclusionary logic used by segregationists, not to mention the Nuremberg Race Laws.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...tions-difficult-definition-column/1632932001/
If the United States made amends for its history of slavery through reparations, would former President Barack Obama be eligible to receive a payment? It’s an interesting question that frames some of the thornier problems with the proposal.
The most obvious issue is that Obama’s father was African, not a descendant of American slaves or raised in African-American culture. Also, his white mother was a descendant of those who held people in bondage, and Obama noted in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that there was a family legend he was related to Confederate President Jefferson Davis. From a genealogical perspective, Obama is on the wrong side of history.
This raises the issue of culpability. It is hard to make the case for reparations on an individual basis, because all the people directly involved in American slavery, both victims and culprits, are long since passed on. And parsing out the bloodlines of descendants to determine who is eligible or responsible is not only complicated, it also raises disturbing parallels to the exclusionary logic used by segregationists, not to mention the Nuremberg Race Laws.
I have gone back and forth on whether Joe Biden would be the nominee of the Democrat party for president in 2020, but I have now reached a rock solid conclusion. Even though he is too old, too stupid and too lethargic, he is the the only person that the Dems CAN nominate as everyone else is so far to the left that they would not be able to head back to the center for the general election. He is a leftist as well but not nearly as far as the rest and has name recognition. His running mate will be Kamala Harris and this is my final decision on this prediction.
Agree and they will crush Trump.
Then why didn't Trump leave it, when he was incessantly complaining about America during his campaign?
Joe going down.
Most likely nominee = Warren
At a certain point, Joe will yield to some "unforeseeable event or circumstances." Such that even those who thought he will be the nominee will say "oh well, he would have won except for some health thing, or some other thing, etc. etc. but we did not know that at the time." But those "unforeseeable circumstances" are already baked into my trade decision. His numbers will go mighty, mighty low even without an event. An event would facilitate his graceful, face-saving exit but is not required. If he chooses, he can go down by a thousand cuts too.
Last edited:
This is highly unlikely, but those two would be the only two with any chance at all.
Last edited:
Folks, this is not how the country was founded. There was a reason that the founders made one person commander-in-chief and it wasn't to have to file papers with Congreff in order to take military action or defend the country. Just like the War Powers Act, this bill is also unconstitutional, un-American and anti American. Sadly, a few Republicans voted for it. I imagine it's because deceitful Democrats threw in the salary increase etc and they couldn't look like they were against that. Let's hope that this never sees the light of day in The Senate. --What BS--
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-...ing-approval-to-use-force-on-iran-11562952130
WASHINGTON—The House of Representatives passed an annual defense-policy bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds for military operations against Iran without congressional consent and repeal the 2002 authorization of force against Iraq.
The bill, which passed 220-197, also included a salary increase for military service members and paid family leave for all federal workers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-...ing-approval-to-use-force-on-iran-11562952130
WASHINGTON—The House of Representatives passed an annual defense-policy bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds for military operations against Iran without congressional consent and repeal the 2002 authorization of force against Iraq.
The bill, which passed 220-197, also included a salary increase for military service members and paid family leave for all federal workers.