John, I, too, feel politically "homeless" at this point. I thought Chris Christie would had been a fairly decent Presidential choice given our countries' condition. "Works well with others" motto. Terms for Congress,etc., absolutely good idea! My question to you is will Pres. Trump and his cabinet get into "hot water" early on in his term, or towards the end? Some Are rogue characters when I've researched them, and such lack of qualifications is startiling to me. That can only lead to more chaos, no?
John: I was just forwarded an article by Lionel Shriver, a classic liberal and Spectator columnist. She wrote, "Most wokesters don't care about social justice. They care about appearing to care about social justice." Economists talk about incentives, but I think there's more to this than just monetary value. People are also motivated by a sense of belonging and virtue, to be a part of something grand and on the side of the angels. Does this explain much of the rise of leftist ideology in the 21st Century?
"Is change coming to national news networks? It depends on the ownership and what restrictions they put on the individuals giving the news. The hatred would still be there and the bias. Will the bias and the hatred be changed within the individuals or would they have to be replaced? That is a question, will it? — Conrad P."
I was amused by a recent segment on NewsMax regarding the intraMAGA controversy regarding the H-1B visas. The anchor had two pundits on to give their views on it. The first pundit was a NewsMax Correspondent. She failed to discuss the issues in the H-1B visa or to even indicate where she stood on the controversy. Instead, she said that there was a split within MAGA on the issue and that both sides were well-intentioned, were patriots and wanted to make America great again but had different approaches as to how to get there. She also said that the debate is healthy and something to the effect of "isn't it great that we can have a vigorous and honest debate as to how to make our country great."
She had that "deer in the headlights" look, conveying that she hadn't yet been given the answer from her Almighty. I even felt embarrassed for her. What entertainment!
That same Correspondent doesn't hesitate to assail the character of those on the Democratic or the "establishment" Republican side and to act as though there's only one side - the Trump side.
BTW (with apologies to Bill!), the other pundit - who spoke last - wholeheartedly agreed with the Steve Bannon wing and assailed the H-1B visa system.
Why do you treat MAGA like a party rather than a movement? WHo I like and dislike have never been judged by that measure. And Why would any Republican refrain from nominating a conservative. You guys live in dream world.
Because he's more enamored with celebrities, and other random people he likes. The criteria for getting a job offer from Trump is unconditional loyalty to Trump. Nothing to do with competence or seriousness.
John, I, too, feel politically "homeless" at this point. I thought Chris Christie would had been a fairly decent Presidential choice given our countries' condition. "Works well with others" motto. Terms for Congress,etc., absolutely good idea! My question to you is will Pres. Trump and his cabinet get into "hot water" early on in his term, or towards the end? Some Are rogue characters when I've researched them, and such lack of qualifications is startiling to me. That can only lead to more chaos, no?
John: I was just forwarded an article by Lionel Shriver, a classic liberal and Spectator columnist. She wrote, "Most wokesters don't care about social justice. They care about appearing to care about social justice." Economists talk about incentives, but I think there's more to this than just monetary value. People are also motivated by a sense of belonging and virtue, to be a part of something grand and on the side of the angels. Does this explain much of the rise of leftist ideology in the 21st Century?
"Is change coming to national news networks? It depends on the ownership and what restrictions they put on the individuals giving the news. The hatred would still be there and the bias. Will the bias and the hatred be changed within the individuals or would they have to be replaced? That is a question, will it? — Conrad P."
I was amused by a recent segment on NewsMax regarding the intraMAGA controversy regarding the H-1B visas. The anchor had two pundits on to give their views on it. The first pundit was a NewsMax Correspondent. She failed to discuss the issues in the H-1B visa or to even indicate where she stood on the controversy. Instead, she said that there was a split within MAGA on the issue and that both sides were well-intentioned, were patriots and wanted to make America great again but had different approaches as to how to get there. She also said that the debate is healthy and something to the effect of "isn't it great that we can have a vigorous and honest debate as to how to make our country great."
She had that "deer in the headlights" look, conveying that she hadn't yet been given the answer from her Almighty. I even felt embarrassed for her. What entertainment!
That same Correspondent doesn't hesitate to assail the character of those on the Democratic or the "establishment" Republican side and to act as though there's only one side - the Trump side.
BTW (with apologies to Bill!), the other pundit - who spoke last - wholeheartedly agreed with the Steve Bannon wing and assailed the H-1B visa system.
Saw this the other day, and it cracked me up: https://x.com/Floridagirl0850/status/1873932706918375717
Why do you treat MAGA like a party rather than a movement? WHo I like and dislike have never been judged by that measure. And Why would any Republican refrain from nominating a conservative. You guys live in dream world.
Why would Trump refrain from nominating conservatives for the Supreme Court?
Because he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. :P
Because he's more enamored with celebrities, and other random people he likes. The criteria for getting a job offer from Trump is unconditional loyalty to Trump. Nothing to do with competence or seriousness.