Chit-Chat: The Feels

[peacheslatour]

44 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

The Christian right are hypocrites.  Sure they want the Ten Commandments and bibles in public schools.  But if another religion wants to display something they will have a fit.   

Look who they voted for to run this country, a president who breaks all the Commandments on an almost daily basis and his cabinet is looking like it will be filled with pedophiles, liars, idolaters and thieves. Hypocrites, every one of them.

[Annber03]

The most infuriating parti s that I guarantee the parents who want to ban books involving sexual themes or LGBTQ+ content have never actually read the books in question. They just heard "sex" or "gay stuff" and deemed it automatically objectionable. 

(To say nothing of how the people who make the biggest stink about anything sex-related or LGBTQ+ content or things of that sort are often involved in the same sorts of things they're judging others for and trying to ban them from doing, but that's a whole other topic.)

[bluegirl147]

Yes when they scream freedom of religion they forger it's also freedom from religion

I hear people say prayer is illegal in school.   No it's not.  Students can pray.  If they want to.  They just can't be made to pray by a teacher or some other school employee. 

When I was in 2nd grade in the mid 70s my class had to pray before lunch.  That was the only grade that happened.  I realized when I was older that teacher was pushing her religion on her students. If that happened when my son was in school I would raised holy hell.  No pun intended.

Edited November 17 by bluegirl147

[Dimity]

[Palimelon]

[lookeyloo]

13 hours ago, Bastet said:

Bush sucks. So does Chaney. The latter belongs on trial at the Hague. The only reason he supported Kamala was because the GOP went after his daughter. Turns out he had a heart. Probably not much of one, but still . . .

He had a heart transplant  back when.  so it is someone else's!

I am almost done listening to Hillary Clinton's latest book.  She reads it.  It is really compelling to me, for the personal and professional included.  Towards the end she does a deep dive into what a second 47 presidency would look like if all the guard rails stayed off and if no one else became the opposition or the resistance.  Scary.  I am staying away from the news, and hope there are enough resisters to help.

[Bastet]

5 minutes ago, lookeyloo said:

He had a heart transplant  back when.  so it is someone else's!

Just for clarity, that paragraph about Cheney you quoted was from @Lantern7, not me.

[peacheslatour]

I feel like Europe when Hitler was rolling tanks through the eastern countries. Other countries allied against him and England came into it and they all fought hard. Then the US finally came in and eventually the allies won. There is no one coming to save us now.

[bluegirl147]

Our enemies are more than happy to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

[lookeyloo]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Just for clarity, that paragraph about Cheney you quoted was from @Lantern7, not me.

Oh okay. It merged my comments and I'm not great at sorting all that out. 

[PRgal]

Someone upthread said that they didn't think religion belonged in public schools.  In my opinion, I feel that a mandatory course on world religions, taught in a non-proselytizing way can help us become more tolerant of different beliefs.  And this goes for different denominations of Christianity as well.  Many years ago, I was crossing the street at a busy part of Toronto where some weirdo was speaking into a mic loudly proselytizing his brand of Christianity.  He openly said that Catholics were sinners and that they weren't "real Christians."  It's not something I haven't come across in before that, but it was usually in writing.  It hit hard when it was in person even though I (by then) wasn't exactly Catholic anymore (I pretty much go to an Anglican church if I EVER step into one that isn't for a wedding, baptism or funeral).  I mean, sure, priests who abused little boys certainly ARE NOT real Christians, but that doesn't mean that every other Catholic isn't!!!!!  Or that the Catholic faith isn't.  Anyway.....I think learning about world religions could also end anti-semitism and Islamophobia as well as hate towards other faiths.  

Edited November 18 by PRgal

[RealHousewife]

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

The Christian right are hypocrites.  Sure they want the Ten Commandments and bibles in public schools.  But if another religion wants to display something they will have a fit.   

100% The same people who whine about minorities and victimhood want to be victims so badly. They'll make light of n word usage but argue Karen is a slur. 

[Annber03]

57 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Our enemies are more than happy to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

It's the "Monsters are Due on Maple Street" story, basically. 

[PRgal]

I think a distant family member might have had polio when she was a child.  She never married, maybe because she thought her limp would turn guys off.  

[tearknee]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Someone upthread said that they didn't think religion belonged in public schools.  In my opinion, I feel that a mandatory course on world religions, taught in a non-proselytizing way can help us become more tolerant of different beliefs.  And this goes for different denominations of Christianity as well.  Many years ago, I was crossing the street at a busy part of Toronto where some weirdo was speaking into a mic loudly proselytizing his brand of Christianity.  He openly said that Catholics were sinners and that they weren't "real Christians."  It's not something I haven't come across in before that, but it was usually in writing.  It hit hard when it was in person even though I (by then) wasn't exactly Catholic anymore (I pretty much go to an Anglican church if I EVER step into one that isn't for a wedding, baptism or funeral).  I mean, sure, priests who abused little boys certainly ARE NOT real Christians, but that doesn't mean that every other Catholic isn't!!!!!  Or that the Catholic faith isn't.  Anyway.....I think learning about world religions could also end anti-semitism and Islamophobia as well as hate towards other faiths.  

"Islamophobia" is a silly term as the suffix -phobia implies that Islam is inherent to a member of that faith -- like the word "homophobia" which refers to a genuinely inherent trait -- people should not be shamed automatically through this false suffix for wanting to leave or reform -- whether internally or externally -- Islam.

Most of what is called "Islamophobia" is just anti-Arab racism.

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I feel like Europe when Hitler was rolling tanks through the eastern countries. Other countries allied against him and England came into it and they all fought hard. Then the US finally came in and eventually the allies won. There is no one coming to save us now.

No offence, I get your feeling and I don't want to derail into history lesson, but it wasn't so cute back then. First, the west basically sold us out to Hitler with their appeasement politics, then they made a deal with USSR and waited so that they could liberate the eastern part of the continent while the western Allieas could have already moved east, so that USSR could then and drag us all into communism whether we liked it or not.

Also, you guys have nukes. Nobody is going to actually attack you. If the US ends up in war, it will likely be against itself. The comparison to the trauma of WW2 in Europe does not work. 

[fastiller]

2 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I feel like Europe when Hitler was rolling tanks through the eastern countries. Other countries allied against him and England came into it and they all fought hard. Then the US finally came in and eventually the allies won. There is no one coming to save us now.

=&=

2 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

Our enemies are more than happy to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.

I saw a quote along the lines of (I'm being very loose here) 'we've ceded to Putin & he didn't even need to fire a shot'.

[peacheslatour]

9 minutes ago, fastiller said:

=&=

I saw a quote along the lines of (I'm being very loose here) 'we've ceded to Putin & he didn't even need to fire a shot'.

Okay look you guys, I ain't ceding nothin'to Putin. I was just feeling really low today. Apologies.

[JustHereForFood]

8 hours ago, Avaleigh said:

I remember an online discussion regarding edits and censorship of books from authors who are not alive to consent to changes being made to their work. The people who had the POV that books are a product of their time and people can either choose to read them or not were criticized in OTT fashion. The feeling was that if you didn't agree that offensive books should either be taken out of circulation or appropriately edited then all civililty pretty much went out of the window. 

Keep in mind too, this wasn't a discussion about out of date textbooks that contain offensive, inaccurate, or out of date content. That would have been perfectly understandable. People who think LGBT+ content has no place in school libraries need to get over it. I also think that non textbook books that have "offensive" content should not banned, edited, or taken out of circulation. This is an area where the market should ultimately decide. If people no longer want to read content that they feel is offensive then they don't have to buy or borrow said content. 

Ideally, we can have these sorts of discussions and still feel like we're in sync when it comes to the larger issues. These are the sorts of conversations and topics that come up, and there are sometimes people who make you feel like you aren't allowed to have your liberal card anymore. 

If I vote for the Democratic candidate, if I support and agree with all of the bread and butter issues--healthcare, freedom of choice, separation of church and state, social safety nets, equality for all--is it really that big of a deal if I'm okay with literature that is a product of its time? Does stuff like that have to be a deal breaker?

Yes, these kinds of discussions can get pretty one-sided.

It's already weird if people who write historical fiction want their characters to have attitudes of present times, but to change it for authors from the past? Why do people think it's progressive? How are we supposed to learn how far we have moved, if we can't see the comparison?

Also, the attitudes now can change pretty fast, so any change might not be as effective in a few years anyway.

15 minutes ago, fastiller said:

=&=

I saw a quote along the lines of (I'm being very loose here) 'we've ceded to Putin & he didn't even need to fire a shot'.

 

Well, people voted for his two investments, Donald Trump and Jill Stein. Investing in both sides of the horseshoe seems to work. 🤮

Edited November 18 by JustHereForFood
Something weird happened to my quotes.

[tearknee]

Putin has some kind of hold on Trump -- but we don't know what it is. And Trump won't be the only one.

Putin is ex-KGB and they don't ever truly leave.

For example, the United States never retaliated for Hezbollah's car bombs that killed 300 Americans at the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in 1983 and the group's subsequent kidnapping of 17 American hostages, among them Terry Anderson of the Associated Press and Coloradan Thomas Sutherland.

The Soviets, who lost three diplomats to Hezbollah in the early days of Lebanon's Shiite reign of terror, did retaliate. Whether the KGB did the "wet work" or contracted it out to freelance assassins, of whom there were plenty in Beirut at the time, dead Shiites started showing up all over the city, castrated and horribly tortured.

Hezbollah never targeted the Soviet Union again.

 

[Yeah No]

6 hours ago, PRgal said:

I think I've seen a drag queen IRL maybe ONCE (outside of the Pride parade, and even then, it was from a distance because I have issues with crowds) and I'm 45!  Okay, and a kid at camp who attempted to do it (but wouldn't even make the cut to be on RuPaul's show today. 

In my best Samantha voice, "Oh honey, we have lead different lives".....😉

5 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Note: I do not believe the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools, even if equal time and space is given to other religions.  Public schools are not the place for religious teachings -- that's what church/synagogue/mosque is for.  I also do not believe books should be banned.  If you don't want your kid reading something, fine, but don't tell me what my (hypothetical) kid can or can't read. 

Yeah, it's a little thing known as "separation of church and state".

5 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

Look who they voted for to run this country, a president who breaks all the Commandments on an almost daily basis and his cabinet is looking like it will be filled with pedophiles, liars, idolaters and thieves. Hypocrites, every one of them.

It makes me sick!

2 hours ago, PRgal said:

Someone upthread said that they didn't think religion belonged in public schools.  In my opinion, I feel that a mandatory course on world religions, taught in a non-proselytizing way can help us become more tolerant of different beliefs.  And this goes for different denominations of Christianity as well. 

Yes, I agree. It wouldn't violate separation of church and state if taught that way and educating people on world religions would help them become more tolerant of them. When I studied them in college I was surprised at how much they all had in common or complemented each other. When you concentrate on the similarities it can be inspiring and restore your faith in humanity. Where religions tend to go wrong is in their corruption, not their basic tenets.

I personally think concentrating on inspiring things is a much nicer way to pass one's time than focusing on politics. I actually never focused that much on politics because I always saw it as a "dirty business". And after all the scandals I didn't trust most politicians very much. I preferred to concentrate on spirituality, personal growth and other soul-enriching, inspiring things. It wasn't until Trump won the election in 2016 that I suddenly woke up and started thinking about it because it scared me out of my mind.

[Anela]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/msnbc-morning-joe-hosts-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-meet-donald-trump-coverage-1236064734/

Ugh.   

[bluegirl147]

8 minutes ago, Anela said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/msnbc-morning-joe-hosts-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-meet-donald-trump-coverage-1236064734/

Ugh.   

Doesn't surprise me in the least.  They go whatever way the wind blows.

[Dimity]

[Anela]

I rarely watch the news, because we got rid of cable in 2020. I watch streamers who watch the news on stream, and read articles, as well as watching clips on YouTube.  I have CNN through HBO, but they just don’t interest me anymore.  
 

I swear that most of the media didn’t push back against him, because they thought he would be good for ratings again (ignoring how many people are sick of him, and them), and also picturing the work they could be putting out, throughout this new nightmare.  The horrific things they could be covering. 

Edited November 18 by Anela

[bluegirl147]

5 minutes ago, Anela said:

I swear that most of the media didn’t push back against him, because they thought he would be good for ratings again (ignoring how many people are sick of him, and them), and also picturing the work they could be putting out, throughout this new nightmare.  The horrific things they could be covering. 

All true but I would add they are afraid of him.  He is going to appoint someone to run the FCC who is going to be on his side.  And if any media company or news organization does a story he thinks makes him look bad or doesn't sufficiently kiss his ass enough then he will threaten (and maybe succeed) to pull their license.

Also corporations and billionaires (I'm looking at you Bezos) who will benefit from the tax cuts he will most certainly want to pass own more and more of the outlets we get our news from.  When all is said and done most of them are going to be propaganda machines for Trump and the GOP.

 

 

[lookeyloo]

9 minutes ago, Anela said:

I rarely watch the news, because we got rid of cable in 2020. I watch streamers who watch the news on stream, and read articles, as well as watching clips on YouTube.  I have CNN through HBO, but they just don’t interest me anymore.  
 

I swear that most of the media didn’t push back against him, because they thought he would be good for ratings again (ignoring how many people are sick of him, and them), and also picturing the work they could be putting out, throughout this new nightmare.  The horrific things they could be covering. 

Agree.  I have thought for a long time that there is too much punditry to fill the 24 news cycle.  Rehash, restate, etc.  And all the pundits and their analysis on the criminal cases were All Wrong even before the election.  So, therefore, I don't bother with it anymore.

[Eri]

5 hours ago, Browncoat said:

And they say, "Well if the kids don't like or follow the Ten Commandments, they can just not look at them on the wall of the school." (I may have paraphrased a bit), but they will ban "questionable" books from the library.  Can the religious kids just not look at those books?  Don't both things just boil down to "if you don't like it, don't look at it?"

Note: I do not believe the Ten Commandments should be posted in schools, even if equal time and space is given to other religions.  Public schools are not the place for religious teachings -- that's what church/synagogue/mosque is for.  I also do not believe books should be banned.  If you don't want your kid reading something, fine, but don't tell me what my (hypothetical) kid can or can't read. 

Indeed - If an atheist deemed The Bible too offensive, containing "illicit content' or against their beliefs, would Moms for Liberty respect their religious freedoms and agree to ban that as well? 

It's the tolerance paradox. If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Eri said:

If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

In other words, right now.

 

 

Edited November 18 by bluegirl147

[fastiller]

1 hour ago, Anela said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-news/msnbc-morning-joe-hosts-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski-meet-donald-trump-coverage-1236064734/

Ugh.   

 

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Doesn't surprise me in the least.  They go whatever way the wind blows.

 

35 minutes ago, Anela said:

I swear that most of the media didn’t push back against him, because they thought he would be good for ratings again (ignoring how many people are sick of him, and them), and also picturing the work they could be putting out, throughout this new nightmare.  The horrific things they could be covering. 

 

25 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

All true but I would add they are afraid of him.  He is going to appoint someone to run the FCC who is going to be on his side.  And if any media company or news organization does a story he thinks makes him look bad or doesn't sufficiently kiss his ass enough then he will threaten (and maybe succeed) to pull their license.

Also corporations and billionaires (I'm looking at you Bezos) who will benefit from the tax cuts he will most certainly want to pass own more and more of the outlets we get our news from.  When all is said and done most of them are going to be propaganda machines for Trump and the GOP.

 

 

This is what Anticipatory Obedience looks like.

[andromeda331]

12 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

No offence, I get your feeling and I don't want to derail into history lesson, but it wasn't so cute back then. First, the west basically sold us out to Hitler with their appeasement politics, then they made a deal with USSR and waited so that they could liberate the eastern part of the continent while the western Allieas could have already moved east, so that USSR could then and drag us all into communism whether we liked it or not.

Also, you guys have nukes. Nobody is going to actually attack you. If the US ends up in war, it will likely be against itself. The comparison to the trauma of WW2 in Europe does not work. 

Pretty much. They appeased him and kept trying too long after the invaded Poland. The other countries pretty much when like this; the Dutch well they invaded Poland and Belgium but they won't invade us because we're neutral. Denmark-they invaded Poland but we'll declare neutral. Norway-well they invaded Poland and Denmark but they won't invade us because we're neutral. It's really not that different from now Russia has never stopped. They maded it all the way to Berlin in WW2 and kept all the land they took. Putin invaded Crimea, nothing happened. No one did anything. So of course he invaded Ukraine. You have people saying let him have parts of Ukraine or all of it. As if that's going to end things. Ah, no Putin will invade another country and another until he's stopped. That's how Putin works. That's how Russia rolls.

13 minutes ago, Eri said:

Indeed - If an atheist deemed The Bible too offensive, containing "illicit content' or against their beliefs, would Moms for Liberty respect their religious freedoms and agree to ban that as well? 

It's the tolerance paradox. If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.

That's what's infuriating and so hypocritical of the Christian right. They are banning books that have any mention of sex and other stuff have offends them. But the Bible has most of those things. There's a lot of disturbing stuff in the Bible. Rapes, violence, animal sacrifice. By their own defintion the Bible should be banned. But of course it won't. Some books should before older ages. I don't think it books or religious texts should be banned.  There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible.  

[Palimelon]

The irony is people are getting the Bible itself banned for the reasons the Christian Right is banning other books.

Utah primary schools ban Bible for 'vulgarity and violence'.

After a Colorado Springs school district banned several books, one parent is requesting they pull the Bible, too.

[bluegirl147]

13 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

They appeased him and kept trying too long after the invaded Poland.

And now Trump is being appeased. Only he's not invading other countries.  He just won't stand up for our allies.  

14 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Ah, no Putin will invade another country and another until he's stopped. That's how Putin works. That's how Russia rolls.

And who is going to stop him.?  Trump can't help but fawn all over Putin.  Whether it's because Putin has something on him or Trump admires any and all dictators or simply Putin has played Trump like a violin Trump isn't going to stop him.  The fact he wants Tulsi Gabbard (who many think is a Russian asset) to run our intelligence agencies tells us he is going to let Putin do whatever he wants.  

17 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

There's a lot of disturbing stuff in the Bible. Rapes, violence, animal sacrifice.

What is even more disturbing is they think the Bible is basically a history book. So all that violence is real to them. And many of them think all that stuff is going to happen again.  In the name of God of course.  Meanwhile two penguins of the same sex taking care of an egg is dangerous to children.

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, lookeyloo said:

Agree.  I have thought for a long time that there is too much punditry to fill the 24 news cycle.  Rehash, restate, etc.  And all the pundits and their analysis on the criminal cases were All Wrong even before the election.  So, therefore, I don't bother with it anymore.

And 99.9% of it is speculation. I gave up on it years ago.

[PRgal]

15 hours ago, Yeah No said:

In my best Samantha voice, "Oh honey, we have lead different lives".....😉

 

I can't help but wonder whether I'll ever be able to unsee or unhear that...  #sorrynotsorry

[bluegirl147]

I have seen too many people (who just a couple weeks were anti Trump) saying you know he just might be able to do good things. My question is good things for who?

[tearknee]

17 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I have seen too many people (who just a couple weeks were anti Trump) saying you know he just might be able to do good things. My question is good things for who?

1. John Barron
2. David Dennison
3. John Miller

[PRgal]

17 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I have seen too many people (who just a couple weeks were anti Trump) saying you know he just might be able to do good things. My question is good things for who?

People with large investment portfolios?  I still question this.  Anthony Scaramucci thinks there's a risk of the markets crashing, 2008 style, according to Business Insider (but in the same article, he ALSO said that it isn't likely the outcome...so whatever?  I'm less optimistic and lean more on the cautious side, but still have not sold anything.   Maybe I should.....

[bluegirl147]

It's not just the economy we should be thinking about. What if there was another pandemic? And RFK Jr. is in charge of HHS?  What if there is a hot war with Iran? And we have the Fox News guy in charge of the Pentagon?  Not to mention what could happen to immigrants.  I'm trying to be hopeful we can get through this but when I see people who should be resisting going along with things it makes me see how Hitler was able to do what he did.

[tearknee]

a quiet reminder that Vichy France "Chief of the French State" Marshal Petain got cheering crowds when he visited Paris a few months before D-Day...

[PRgal]

Just now, bluegirl147 said:

It's not just the economy we should be thinking about. What if there was another pandemic? And RFK Jr. is in charge of HHS?  What if there is a hot war with Iran? And we have the Fox News guy in charge of the Pentagon?  Not to mention what could happen to immigrants.  I'm trying to be hopeful we can get through this but when I see people who should be resisting going along with things it makes me see how Hitler was able to do what he did.

What could happen to immigrants has A LOT to do with the economy.  Not only do they contribute to your labour markets, but they are also spending and contributing to it.  They need to buy groceries and other discretionary items, after all.  I agree that RFK Jr. is a scary choice to health, but at least he is supposedly looking into banning certain ultraprocessed ingredients in food, aligning it to that of, say, European countries (I'm notorious with label-reading.  My parents think I'm OTT/crazy, but I want to know what I'm feeding my family).  That's pretty much the only thing I agree with.  Otherwise, Mr. Wormbrain is, well, Mr. Wormbrain.  

[EtheltoTillie]

It's ironic that RFK started as an environmental attorney.  Clean water and so forth.  Things that the Republicans hate about the administrative state.  I think he still has those goals, but the rest of the administration does not.  Remember:  "Don't touch the liquid gold."  My husband reminds me that the energy guy drank fracking liquid as a stunt to demonstrate its safety.

Edited November 18 by EtheltoTillie

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, PRgal said:

What could happen to immigrants has A LOT to do with the economy.

I understand that but I'm also talking about what happens to the people who are deported back to countries they haven't been in years.  And to the families left here.  

2 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

It's ironic that RFK started as an environmental attorney.  Clean water and so forth.  Things that the Republicans hate about the administrative state.

So of course they wouldn't put him in charge of those things. 

[EtheltoTillie]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

 

So of course they wouldn't put him in charge of those things. 

Yes, exactly.  He's being let loose on other things.

Reminder:  The original Chevron case was about clean air and what powers the EPA had.  That was overturned last year with Loper Bright. 

[EtheltoTillie]

This has probably been mentioned, but Trump and his ilk hate electric cars, but they love Elon Musk.  I give up. 

Removing lead from gasoline:  remember that?  That was a bad thing?  Okay, enough rants from me today.

[Dimity]

These pathetic men don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions, they won't be around to see how screwed up everything got thanks to them.

[EtheltoTillie]

I must say I got a laugh out of today's viral photo of everyone eating McDonald's on Trump's jet.  Everyone happy except RFK.  I am not finding a way to post the photo here. 

 

Scroll down below on this post -- that may work.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/photo-rfk-jr-eating-mcdonalds-drinking-coke-trump-goes-viral-1987051

Edited Monday at 10:36 PM by EtheltoTillie
viral

[tearknee]

CBS Sunday Morning ran a story in its latest episode, concerning how parents of school shooting victims deal with the tragedy. The story followed photographer Lou Bopp, as he traveled from home to home, photographing the child victim's bedroom. Many of the parents keep the room as their child left it before going to what would be their last day. Beds unmade; toys scattered all over the room. The parents would never touch anything, even letting dust accumulate. That story made me think about one thing. How many of those parents voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 election? Particularly with his "Smithers" J.D. Vance's attitude of "Get Over It" in regard to school shootings. I would hope that none of them did.

[peacheslatour]

29 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I must say I got a laugh out of today's viral photo of everyone eating McDonald's on Trump's jet.  Everyone happy except RFK.  I am not finding a way to post the photo here. 

 

Scroll down below on this post -- that may work.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/photo-rfk-jr-eating-mcdonalds-drinking-coke-trump-goes-viral-1987051

Here you go.

 

[bluegirl147]

41 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

Here you go.

 

All the money in the world and this is what they eat.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump doesn't make it to the end of his term. Because he dies or for other reasons.  He was always a means to an end whether he knows it or not.