TGHusker

43 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Anyone else starting to think Trump will be getting jail time?  I mean...the jury is going to find him guilty. 

Seems like everything is pointing towards that. His “only the best “ lawyers don’t seem up to the challenge of overcoming the mounting evidence against Trump. Unless there is a hidden Trump fan in the jury that leads to a hung jury I don’t see how this jury can not convict. Not sure what the jail time can be in this case but Trump hasn’t gained any favors with the judge and has shown no signs of being remorseful for his behavior. 

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Shocking. 
 

 

It just never ends.    It is like an untapped volcano of corruption.  Anything he touches or anyone he draws into his circle is, has been or will be corrupt.    Buttt what about Hillary and Bill......  What about Hunter.......    His cult members deflect and excuse. 

30 minutes ago, commando said:

There is a strong resemblance. 

22 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

I still cannot believe that Gavin Newsom used to be married to her

With a face like that too -  I question Newsom's sanity. 

14 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Those drone strikes are starting to take their toll.  

 

 

Another affect - the fewer Petro $$s flowing into their economy from outside weakens their economy overall and their ability to wage war. 

does he get jail time for this?

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Maybe, his mouth is starting to fight back against his brain wanting it to say things it knows are completely false.

 

 

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Did you ever look into this to see if this claim is true? If so, what did you find out?

Yes, I did - that is why I said  "So I was told".    A lot of mis info out there to paint the 'other side' as the demon.   Her real or primary goal was preventing birth defects.    It also often bothered me with the thought - how can sincerely religious people (which I considered myself to be as well) can be pro choice while I'm pro-life.   So, we find people on both sides of most arguments (politics, abortion, economic, etc) to present half truths and as they say - "Be aware of half truths, you may get the wrong half".  I didn't have the full truth. 

On 4/29/2024 at 2:05 PM, knapplc said:

This was always the intent behind the repeal of Roe. 

 

Christo-fascists are worried Whites are going to become a minority in America. Forgetting that America for Whites was never the idea behind this country.

This got me thinking.  Back in the day (1980s) when I was active in peaceful abortion clinic protests, the leaders always pointed to the 'fact' that Margarette Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, started the organization to limit the births of minority women - thus most clinics were in locations where most minorities lived - all for the purposed of promoting the white population at the expense of the minorities - or so I was told.   Now 100 years after Sanger's work started to become known we have the same thing happening (if the before mentioned was really true) but in a different way.  As noted in your post of Ron F's tweets, Charlie Kirk's statements are a not so vailed racism that says the white majority must be maintained at all costs.  Well, any suppression of any culture is a lost for all of us.  One thing I've learned in working in international business is that all cultures, all ethnic backgrounds and races only ADD to the human experience and enriches us all.   While Sanger saw the value of birth control science in preventing birth defects (her original goal in her work), her association with the eugenics movement did hurt her reputation even though she disagreed with the racial and class focus of the movement.  The movement's ideas would become a part of Hitler's White Supremacy policies.  But Sanger should not have this tied around her as so painted by leaders in the prolife movement. Would not the Charlie Kirks of this day be more in line with the 'white supremacy' policies of Nazism?  I think so.  

On 4/28/2024 at 11:07 PM, Moiraine said:

 

 

You should share the public held debt percentage of GDP. It still paints a not pretty picture, but doesn't try to go for shock value with a mostly meaningless number/chart.

If US voters were less stupid and less insane, and maybe if there were term limits, maybe this would be addressed someday. For example the Democrats could make changes to Welfare, or the Republicans could make changes to the stupid farm subsidies (like field corn) and oil subsidies, without people having an irrational cow.

And not to mention, if elected Trump wants to restart his 2017 tax cuts.  

Term limits are needed - we got a lot of people from both parties getting fat off of govt pork. 

34 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Sure do. I was just minding my own business on the grassy knoll.

Good - I thought you might be washing windows at a certain book dispensary  

25 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Yeah, Billy C is really one of those Presidents that doesn't seem to get as much appreciation as he should.  Maybe it is the cheating or maybe it is that his wife is just an unlikeable human but Bill was a boss.

His character,  which at the time mattered to the FVP (Family Values Party) but no longer holds true - but I digress - is the big issue with the impeachment sting and his wife being who she is didn't help. 

17 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

I've been alive since '89, I won't count Bush Sr. because I know nothing about him.

 

 

In terms of coolness, it goes

Obama

Clinton

Biden

W Bush

Trump

 

In terms of quality of job done

Clinton

Obama

Biden

W Bush

Trump

If you could look back into history - would you change the above any?

My votes: 

Most Consequential - this is so very hard for someone who has lived through all of the listed presidents.  Most of you who know me via my posts would probably think I would mark Reagan - he and Eisenhower are my top 3.  But I put Johnson -  Johnson was perhaps after Trump my most disliked president but unlike Trump, he had an substantial impact on America for years to come (assuming there is no 2nd Trump term).  With Johnson we get the real good - civil rights laws, safety nets for the poor and other social programs that were needed. We also get the bad - escalation of Vietnam War, riots in American cities.  His impact was felt in both the election of Nixon (short term reaction to Vietnam) and the election of Reagan (long term reaction to the growing political class and size of govt.).  Vietnam remains a scar in the American mind even to this day.  

Highest Rank - Eisenhower - hands down.  His measure response to Korea, Communist aggression and Soviet military expansion literally kept us out of WW3.  He pushed for and got the Interstate Highway System  based on his experience in WW2 - this transformed America.  He pushed for Civil Rights Laws and was hugely popular during his time in office.  America remained in peace while there were several opportunities for more trigger happy guys to start a war - but he didn't go that route. 

Favorite:  Reagan - We needed his personality after Carter.  We needed also his fortitude to stand against Soviet expansion at that time.  We also needed his efforts to expand the economy after the Carter malaise.   Regardless of where he may have failed in other areas (social programs), he met the greatest challenges of his day. 

Under Appreciated:  It pains me to say this as I didn't care for him while he was president but it has to be Clinton.  He knew when to compromise wt congress to get a balanced budget (the last one we've had),  he kept us out of a major war, and the economy was pretty good during his term in office.  With all of his personal shortcomings - he had a good team that managed well and he recognized that the era of big government was over and moderation was needed.   Yes, he had the benefit of the 'peace dividend' that was secured by the Reagan/Bush foreign policy but he didn't 'blow it'.  

We've probably all have seen Ranking of Presidents polls that come from various political or historical perspectives.  With that in mind, I wanted to create our own HB poll - but with a twist - ranking presidents from Eisenhower forward to today. I doubt there is anyone on HB who lived when Truman was president but there are some of us who were born during the Eisenhower presidency.  I want to get your thoughts, during this presidential election season, on the following:

Who was the Most Consequential President since Truman.      -  This is very hard - consequential could be good, bad and a mix -  regardless of where they rank historically

Who should be the Highest Ranked President by historians    - Lincoln, Washington, FDR are typically the highest ranked presidents and for good reason.  What about those during our life time?

Who was your Favorite President   - regardless of consequentialness or rank - who did/do you like the best  

Who was the most Under-Appreciated President - by that I mean the president who should get a 2nd look - that historically may not be a high ranking president but who should be appreciated more. 

Some of you are fairly young and don't have the personal history of some of the older posters- you may need to look back as a student of history.  Our opinions / rankings may come from and through totally different filters.  It will be interesting to hear your perspectives.  

37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Anyone who still backs him is a traitor to America. 

Agreed.  That article was a chilling reminder as to why this election is truly the most consequential of our life time. (over used phrase but true this time)   Some of these Trump advisors remind me of those in the 2nd picture below.   The article paints an alt-right utopia as the dream outcome of this group.  Trump has no sense of history or place.   

10 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

I agree with you here. Sadly though a stack Supreme Court is often wanted by both parties. To be honest though, if justice truly is blind, it shouldn't matter but we all know how often politics plays a huge part in the outcomes. I am also against lifetime appointments. Seriously, all elected and appointed positions pertaining to government both state and federal should have term limits but especially supreme court justices for just this reason. It would prevent (or at least make it more difficult to) stacking. Also, age restrictions on justices. 75 and the judge is removed mid-term or early term. Also, I'm not against adding by term/age limiting. Meaning if a justice has fulfilled their term or has breached the age limit, they are honored by respecting their accomplishments through advisory positions to the court. 

I think 18 years max on the SC.  2 full presidential terms plus 2 years.    Like any job, it is hard to keep the creative, intellectual juices flowing after a number of years.  The challenge to think creativity is often lost and ruts are formed.   Culture changes much in 18 years but of course, we want decisions to be tied to the constitutionality of the an issue and not by flippant cultural changes.  

21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah, I've seen that.  The conservative justices want to delay it as long as possible so it further delays some of his trials so they aren't decided before the election.

 

Yes, this should be the most important decision they are deciding and it should be done immediately.  

 

Watching the SCOTUS recently drills home the opinion I've had for a long time.  The SC is best when it's a 5-4 split.  One side having a large majority on the SC is a really bad thing.

Yes, agree on the bold.  Of course I use to think the same about Congress - Dem / GOP split.  But until the GOP gets rid of its cultish/MAGA ways, I don't want them controlling either the house or the senate. 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, I wonder if we are going to get a ruling on this today.

Some have written that the ruling will not come until the end of the court calendar - end of June    This should be an emergency decision.  

32 minutes ago, Fru said:

ONE bad man? Dude. C’mon.

And the cult he created

3 hours ago, Crusader Husker said:

Nailed that one!

 

I am a traditional organ guy though.  My wife is an organist.  I don't mind contemporary at all, problem is a lot of Lutherans are really bad at it.

I've been on the contemporary side for decades - now longing more for the traditional. 

What country are we living in?  North Korea, China, Russia -  if Trump and his ilk had their way, he'd replicate their systems and set himself up as dictator.   Yes, Russia has elections too.  Funny how Putin always wins.  

Just now, Scarlet said:

We're witnessing the death of American democracy.  Everything else that is argued about on this board is moot if the executive branch is granted complete immunity.  

Yep - a president become DeFacto king, ruler for life if he so desire.   I wish that escalator had swallowed him up in 2015.  A decade of chaos because of one bad man.