monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

That he does, george, but you, of all people, should not be pointing fingers in this regard. Your posts are mostly pompous, overblown pandering to a narrow minded, conservative, rah rah America viewpoint.

Is there anything more narrow minded than that?

Yes, I'm a cheese eater. So what? You use the term as if there's something negative about it.
CLUE: You're the negative on a2k. I mean that in the nicest way.

Why does Trump want a sacrificial lamb?

Secondly, I don't use the term in any way. It's all Layman's.

Quote:

More Americans than ever view the news through red-colored glasses. In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

That’s an astounding shift in attitudes, and partisan instincts almost certainly explain the rapid change. Republican voters opposed Obama, so they had no use for his plan to attack the Assad regime, and Republican voters generally back Trump, so they support last week’s strikes.

But look a little closer at the details, and the asymmetry between the parties becomes more obvious: four years ago, 38% of Democratic voters backed Obama’s proposed strikes in Syria, and now, 37% of Democratic voters support Trump doing the same thing. In other words, there’s been effectively no change.

This isn’t limited to rank-and-file voters; the dynamic affects elected officials, too. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have been brazenly inconsistent on the issue, opposing Obama’s approach because it was Obama’s approach, and supporting Trump’s offensive because it’s Trump’s offensive.

If you possessed the honesty to look at it, and the cojones to say stop it, there would be relative peace in the world.

You folks are like Germans heiling Hitler. But yours is much more pernicious, much more insidious, much more deeply evil.

In August, Donald Trump reflected a bit on foreign policy and declared with great confidence, "[Vladimir Putin is] not going into Ukraine, okay, just so you understand. He's not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want."

It was, at the time, a bizarre thing to say, because Putin's forces were already in Ukraine. It raised concerns about Trump's ignorance and ability to keep up with current events.

But in hindsight, perhaps the trouble was with Trump's confusion about the word "into." Take the president's latest rhetoric about U.S. policy towards Syria, for example.

Quote:

President Donald Trump said in an interview to air Wednesday that "we're not going into Syria" after the United States launched a cruise missile strike against a government airbase in that nation over a chemical attack in the country's six-year civil war.

Putting aside the fact that Trump just ignored his own rule about discussing his future security plans, his declaration that "we're not going into Syria" is problematic because we're already in Syria.

Not only have U.S. forces launched military offenses against the Assad regime and ISIS targets -- putting the United States in the position of attacking more than one side of Syria's civil war simultaneously -- but as Rachel noted on the show last night, hundreds of American troops are currently serving in Syria, the country the president says we're not going into.

If you'd have walked into my booth at the Canton Market, I could have sold you anything.

Look at who the major backer is of the climate groups?

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

... the only way the climate groups can effect their change is through a global movement of socialism, and climate change is just the new boogie man in their bag of tricks. Look at who the major backer is of the climate groups? ...