kemmer

Oh right. Spears and sling shots.
Sorry.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

I already passed, decades ago. I agree with the comment, for not only Kushner but the President himself, right in the Oval Office, divulged classified material to the Russian Ambassador.

flash

Canada's too close. I say Iran or Venezuela.

zillaorange

Not worth wasting a key stroke.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

So? Happens alla time. US presidents and their administrations exchange classified data with their foreign counterparts on a regular basis. Do you think classified data didn't exchange hands during the Obama/Kerry Iran deal?

From its inception, the United States Intelligence Community (IC) has relied on close relations with foreign partners. These relationships often reflect mutual security interests and the trust each side has of the other’s credibility and professionalism.They are generally strategic and cover a range of national security priorities involving national defense, emerging threats, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, treaty compliance,cybersecurity, economic and financial security, counter-narcotics, and piracy.

President Trump really is trying to establish good relations with hostile nations in an attempt to convince them to either get their asses on the peace train or suffer the consequences.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

He's rude, disrespectful, insolent, and most of all bumptious. A consummate waste of time.

kemmer

Yeah, as Trump says, the 1st Amendment lets him do whatever he damn well pleases.
And as Mulvaney said, “Get over it”.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Absolutely right. The most recent terrorist attack that was planned for in Russia was averted because the U.S shared information with the Russian Government. Isn't it the Democratic Socialists who want the one-world government? What are they complaining about?

kemmer

Aww... Yew say th’ sweetest thangs.

kemmer

One world gov’t. is 200+ years in future, if that.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Chuckle....

How has China played Trump

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Don't expect a well-reasoned answer!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Welcome to the OPP Carl...

Hope you'll stick around

straightUp Loc: California

Jesus... the 2nd Amendment again?

It's as if these people don't realize there are other things that matter or that we've already heard ALL of their stupid arguments a million times already.

The 2nd Amendment is an ambiguous rule... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... So, does a rule that says I can't possess an AK-47 infringe on my right to bear arms if I am still allowed to keep my Mossberg 12-gauge and my Colt .44? That is the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment and and it's condemning the American people to an endless debate.

The rule itself hinges on a premise that doesn't even exist anymore, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". The only reason why a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state is because the U.S. didn't have (or want) a standing army. American republicanism (at the time) preferred to rely on militia.

That started to change a year after the Bill of Rights was ratified with a regiment established on the western frontier to deal with Indians and today we have the most expensive standing army in the world. This invalidates the premise and leaves the rule itself in a questionable state.

I have always been a defender of the 2nd Amendment but I'm changing my mind on this one. I would still like to see our right to bear arms protected, but we need an updated rule for that. One that makes sense in the 21st century because as it stands right now, the 2nd Amendment is just plain stupid.