One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: rafterman
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 next>>
Nov 15, 2023 17:20:54   #
Oldsailor65 wrote:
Barbra Streisand Says She ‘Can’t Live’ in U.S. if Trump Becomes President

Barbra Streisand says she “can’t live in this country” if former President Donald Trump is reelected in 2024, adding that she thinks President Joe Biden has “done a good job.”

“I will move. I can’t live in this country if he became president,” Streisand said told late-night host Stephen Colbert during an interview on The Late Show after being asked about her opinion of the idea of a second second Trump administration.

Watch Below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSu8pqPG4rA&t=173s


After Colbert asked her where she would live if not the United States, the “Woman in Love” singer said, “Probably to England. I like England.”

Streisand went on to say that the political climate in the United States is “bad.”

“Well, I like Biden. I think he’s done a good job,” she added. “I think he’s compassionate. He’s smart. He supports the right things.”

The Grammy winner also responded to a question from Colbert about the rise of antisemitism in the United States.

“It’s so sad,” she said. “It’s so sad what’s going on today — meaning, people have to live together, even though they are different religions, or wh**ever. People are people. It’s true. You know, we all want the same thing. We all want love in our hearts, we all want family.”

Streisand continued:

We all want to feel secure. I hope for the best because this is heartbreaking, what’s happening now with these people — the children, the mothers — it doesn’t matter what religion they are. Do you know what I mean? This is beyond religion. This is insanity for us not to learn how to live together in peace.

“You see, this is why it’s hard to talk about my career or even my book when this deadly combustible thing is happening in the world,” she added. “I could easily cry about this. Where is God in this time? Where is he or she? Why can’t that energy stop this madness?”

Streisand had been talking to Colbert about her new memoir, My Name is Barbra.

In her book, Streisand called President Trump “completely unfit” to be commander in chief while simultaneously praising her friends Bill and Hillary Clinton as “the most appealing couple.”

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/11/14/watch-barbra-streisand-says-she-cant-live-in-u-s-if-trump-becomes-president/

She and other Hollywoodies promised this in 2016 .
I'll bet she doesn't move....she didn't the last time. I stilll listen to her music though, she has a fantastic voice.
Barbra Streisand Says She ‘Can’t Live’ in U.S. if ... (show quote)


GOODBYE. But I will add, that if she were a real American, she would stay. She doesn't understand that Trump would be elected due to the privileges of freedom of speech and viewpoints we all have. Our founding fathers understood that we are not perfect. They knew that because, in the Preble to the Constitution, they wrote, We the people of the United States IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION. Today, we all know the country is not perfect. There are some of us who are not happy with the current guy in office - and we have not left. We endure and hope for change by casting a v**e for someone different. I wish her all the good luck in the world in finding a country that better suits her. This one does me fine.
Go to
Sep 23, 2023 13:15:37   #
Knightlady wrote:
I believe it always has been in one form or another. It's just that since Hillary, it's been watched. But since Trump and Biden, it's become a focal point


Nixon believed that Kennedy stole the 1960 e******n. So, it has been a controversy since then, just not as publicized. Social media and Hillary and Trump have made it a more public debate and hullabaloo. Google search of the question: "Did Nixon believe there was v***r f***d when he lost to Kennedy?" brought over 703,000 hits. See link at: https://www.google.com/search?q=did+Nixon+believe+there+was+v**er+fraud+when+he+lost+to+Kennedy%3F%22+&sca_esv=567866750&source=hp&ei=bhQPZeLVF-bjkPIPq_G34Ag&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZQ8ifqTJreFW7gUpROAyBWPAtTGW08Oc&ved=0ahUKEwjixIXMlcGBAxXmMUQIHav4DYwQ4dUDCAs&uact=5&oq=did+Nixon+believe+there+was+v**er+fraud+when+he+lost+to+Kennedy%3F%22+&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IkJkaWQgTml4b24gYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGVyZSB3YXMgdm90ZXIgZnJhdWQgd2hlbiBoZSBsb3N0IHRvIEtlbm5lZHk_IiBIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA-AEC-AEB&sclient=gws-wiz
Go to
Sep 23, 2023 13:13:49   #
proud republican wrote:
What do you think about sending military to protect our Southern Border??.. We're protecting other countries' Borders, why can't we protect our own??


I believe that there is a law stipulating that the military cannot be used at the borders. However, I think that all we need to do is declare the cartel(s) in Mexico terrorists just like we did Al Queda - and then go after them inside Mexico just like we did Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. A natural military maneuver would be to have the military close our southern border. This would stop the average immigrant from crossing our border as they are today. It would also mean that human trafficking and the import of illegal drugs that presently exist at the border to be stopped as well. It would last until the existing cartel(s) were either eliminated by our military or they are forced to stop or negotiate a way to stop using our border as their self-serving means to cross our border.
Go to
Dec 13, 2022 15:45:50   #
woodguru wrote:
Because someone is charged with a crime and not found guilty in court does not mean they did not do the crime...not at all.

Trump was let off of the hook on impeachment because republicans refused to hold him accountable, not because it was not proved he did the crimes as charged, but because they refused to hold him accountable.

When the DOJ decides not to prosecute a crime, it's not always because there was no crime, but because the standard of proving it is too cumbersome or hard to define, that in no way means that someone is innocent, it means they are getting away with crimes.

Up until just recently, when i**********nists were successfully charged with and found guilty of i**********n, there was constant lip service about how there was no i**********n because the DOJ had not charged it...because it's not charged didn't mean there was none.
Because someone is charged with a crime and not fo... (show quote)


So - If I accuse you of being a jerk and a jury of your peers on this site decides there is not enough evidence to prove that assertion/contention and finds you not guilty, does that mean you're still a jerk even though you were not found guilty of being a jerk?

Point is - Sometimes people or groups, with the express purpose of harassing, do or say something against a person or group of people EVEN IF NOT TRUE just to create a false atmosphere/mood/tone/vibe or plant false evidence and the accused is prosecuted and is found NOT GUILTY. That person or group for the rest of their existence must live with that h*****g over their heads - EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT PROVEN. To further support my theory, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the opposite of guilty as innocent.

Appears wrong to me that someone found not guilty should still be thought of as guilty. That is why we have the rule of law - innocent until proven guilty. Just think - in this example - if I used the word r****t, p*******e, misogynist, or other gross bad behavior in its place.

All I am saying is that people like Donald Trump are going to be accused of all kinds of things that can't be proven. (What if I substituted the name Joe Biden in place of Donald Trump - OR, how about Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin, Tucker Carlson, Dan Bangino, Steve Scalise or Hillary Clinton who in my opinion are all jerks?)

Respectfully, please understand I DO NOT THINK you are a jerk and just like the DOJ, would not ask anyone on this site to adjudicate that allegation knowing there isn't any (or enough) evidence to support the accusation.

As far as Republicans not impeaching Trump - NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE. The Democrats screwed the pooch on that occasion.

And you are correct, just because DOJ doesn't charge you doesn't mean that no crime has been committed. It just means that by the RULE OF LAW anyone who would be charged with a crime has to be proven to his or her peers to be guilty with enough supporting/not false evidence - or the concept of innocent until proven guilty has no value.
Go to
Aug 11, 2020 09:46:02   #
proud republican wrote:
Post office always been slow .,
But hey,you don't care as long as you say something nasty about this President ! ! And I have news for you , Milosia

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/511372-poll-plurality-of-v**ers-prefer-v****g-in-person-over-mail-in


I've v**ed by mail in every national e******n since 1968 because I was usually out of the country. In Florida, I can v**e by mail - AND - there is a website that I can see when my b****t arrived at the v****g center and when it is counted. I fill it out and send it in within 24 hours of receiving it, usually about 30 days prior to the actual e******n date. I've always felt safe mailing in my b****t and will do so again for this e******n.

You have to let the changes made play themselves out. Every executive who comes into a failing organization like the post office is going to get a lot of heat when changes are made - and this is no different. Unfortunately, the democrats have made it political - AGAIN - as they usually do. If President Trump hired a contractor to remodel the bathroom in the Oval Office, Pelosi and Schummer would somehow find a way to politicize it.
Go to
Aug 4, 2020 19:53:41   #
woodguru wrote:
The right won't want to watch him floundering


I'm on the right and I watched it. I guess Swan didn't like the fact that President Trump is a realist and he definitely thinks positive thinking and having a positive outlook is something scornful - "Swan began by asking whether the president’s positive thinking had necessarily been the right approach to the c****av***s when the US death toll was now past 150,000 – and rising." The real point here is that Swannie was PREDISPOSED to disagree with anything and everything President Trump said. I knew it before the interview, President Trump did and his campaign advisers definitely knew it. What is he supposed to do - STOP - just because of some DISAGREEMENT with The Swannie Man. If President Trump stopped doing something because someone disagreed with him, he would have never sought the p**********l nomination in the first place AND would have rolled over and never got the southern border wall built, or got the conversation going about stopping i*****l i*********n, or there would have been no tax reform, or there wouldn't be any regulation reform - (I could go on). But knowing the writer of this post, he will disagree with me. But that doesn't stop me from writing nor does The Swannie Boy disagreeing with him stop President Trump. I'm on the right - I watched this and I read it. I saw your post and I answered. Your move.
Go to
Jul 16, 2020 07:23:04   #
bylm1-Bernie wrote:
This is quite possibly the most ludicrous thread ever started on OPP and gives us another example of the depths to which the left will go to accomplish their purpose, not to mention the shallowness of their thought.


Blym1=Bernie - A very insightful, succinct post. Thank you for saying this so eloquently. And saying it without the requisite spewed hatred - which if you were from the left, would be the usual companion of the post.
Go to
Jul 12, 2020 08:45:02   #
factnotfiction wrote:
Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt

Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of political action committees

Enforcement of existing i*********n l*ws and opposition to i*****l i*********n

Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization and the USMCA

Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators

Direct e******n of the United States President by popular v**e and other e******n system reforms

Federal e******ns held on weekends or E******n Day (on a Tuesday) made a national holiday

Limited access by lobbyists and special interest groups

No tax exemption for any political advertising by any special interest group
Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing ... (show quote)


I could/would support all EXCEPT "direct e******n of the United States President by popular v**e" and I would have to know what were the other "e******n system reforms". I strongly support the E*******l College. I have done a lot of study and research about the EC since I was first introduced to it in high school in the 1960’s. Understanding the E*******l College was a priority in schools I attended. I wrote a paper on the EC for one of my university political science courses. It is apparent to me that it is easier to support disbanding the current e*******l college process then it is to support maintaining it. That is due to many misconceptions and misunderstandings which can be easily justified, defended and rationalized.

I am against direct e******n because the e******n through the e*******l college prohibits small pockets of the country deciding an e******n. The E*******l College ensures that EVERY v**e counts - whether you live in a highly-populated area or in a small rural area, requiring each P**********l candidate to consider that all areas of the country are equal to another; whether you live in an area that mainly supports one political party over another; and it preserves the two-party system. The E*******l College is a "fail-safe" process for our general e******n of the President.

The 2016 e******n is one of five p**********l e******ns in American history in which the winner of the popular v**e did not win the presidency. Trump received 304 e*******l v**es and Clinton 227 (two e*****rs defected from Trump and five defected from Clinton). Clinton received 48% while Trump 46% of the popular v**e, a margin of about 3 million v**es. T***p w*n 2,626 counties while Clinton took 487 of them nationwide.
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5265150031

The 2016 e******n is a good example of "ensuring every v**e counts" as the President is elected to work for the benefit of all the people who live in the United States, not to represent a geographic or geographical region. The legislative branch of the U.S. federal government was specifically established over 200 years ago, utilizing a bicameral (two-tiered) system in which one chamber (The House) represents states based on population, while the other chamber (The Senate) represents all states equally, regardless of population.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

Understanding the E*******l College is an easy undertaking. Read this article, "What is the E*******l College" at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/e*******l-college/about.html. Also, view these two videos 5-minute videos: the first is titled "Popular V**e vs E*******l College" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0 and the second is titled "Understanding the E*******l College" at https://tinyurl.com/y4t9472z. This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_E*******l_College provides a good “top to bottom” understanding/explanation of the E*******l College especially how the Three-fifths clause and the role of s***ery influenced the implementation. A Youtube.com search results in a number of videos at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=e*******l+college. A google.com search returns over 70 million hits at https://tinyurl.com/yymvgfaa.

One item I noted that came about from my recent research that I found extremely enlightening. The belief that “all areas of the country are equal to another” may not be accurate. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_p**********l_e******n candidate Kennedy's campaigning sk**ls decisively outmatched candidate Nixon's, who wasted time and resources campaigning in all fifty states while Kennedy focused on campaigning in populous swing states. E******n analytics website FiveThirtyEight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight identifies the states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin as "perennial" swing states that have regularly seen close contests over the last few p**********l campaigns.
Go to
Jul 12, 2020 06:33:30   #
proud republican wrote:
Are you for Death Penalty?? Yes??No??,Maybe???


I was once a firm believer in the death penalty - and openly advocated for it. However, for several years, I vacillated between being for/against it. During this time, I usually failed to voice a stance, usually not supporting it, but never condemning, directly opposite of when I advocated for it. What ultimately caused me to finally take a stance against it, came about after contemplating what my thinking was on a******n.

I am not a believer in aborting/terminating/executing an innocent fetus. So, to be consistent in thought I decided that I would also not be a believer in aborting/terminating/executing a possible innocent life at any time. Therefore, I am against the death penalty.

This was not an easy decision because as a military "lifer" in the U.S. Navy, I was involved either directly or indirectly in taking life (aborting/terminating/executing), a fact of life and part of the job which I had no problem with my participation. However, the circumstances involved with the support of taking a life defending my country and supporting of taking life as punishment were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Humans a not infallible, so we are subject to making errors in judgement.

The margin for error in making a judgment on taking a human life with evidence that may be faulty either due to human error or skewed presentation was not something I wanted to face. Once I subjected myself to that head-on, it became an easy decision to align myself with not aborting/terminating/executing a human for a crime that at some point in time had the possibility of being wrong and unnecessarily k*****g an innocent human life.
Go to
Jul 10, 2020 06:37:28   #
Nutter wrote:
Mt Rushmore... *think about it-"
In 1996, when Bill Clinton visited during his re-e******n campaign, ABC news called it a place where American ingenuity and American creativity came together and formed an amazing American accomplishment..

In 2008, when Barrack Obama campaigned there, CNN called Mt Rushmore a majestic site and every president should visit..

In 2016, Bernie Sanders campaigned there and said he was humbled to be in to be in the presence of 4 of the greatest American presidents.. CNN described the scene as awe-inspiring...

2020...Trump visits...CNN called it a celebration of w***e s*******y and Trump will stand before two former s***e owners on land wrestled away from Native Americans...

If you think the media isn't agenda-driven, you have your head up your ass.
Mt Rushmore... *think about it-" br In 1996, ... (show quote)



Below is a list of U.S. Presidents who have visited South Dakota while in office: (At https://www.sdpb.org/blogs/images-of-the-past/p**********l-visits-to-south-dakota/, see a pictorial presentation from the South Dakota Public Broadcasting of P**********l Visits to South Dakota, by Brian Gevik - dated November 2019). Go to https://www.argusleader.com/story/life/2015/05/01/hail-chief-sitting-presidents-visited-sd-since-mckinley/26714857/, for a list - with a description of the visit - of the 16 President who have visited Mt. Rushmore.
William McKinley, 1899
William Howard Taft in October 1911
Theodore Roosevelt, April 1902 (After Presidency, Sept 1910)
Woodrow Wilson, September 1919
Calvin Coolidge, June-July & August 1927
Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 1936
Harry Truman, May 1948
Dwight Eisenhower, June 1953
John Kennedy, August 1962
Richard Nixon June 1969,
Gerald Ford, August and October 1976
Ronald Reagan, September and October 1986
George H.W. Bush, 1982 (as Vice-President), Sept., 1989, July 1991, Sept 1992 & Oct 1992
Bill Clinton, September & November 1996, July 1999 (After Presidency, October 2006)
George W. Bush, August 2002
Barack Obama, May 2015
Donald Trump, 2018
Go to
Jul 9, 2020 10:40:14   #
proud republican wrote:
Supreme Court sends case on on Trump's Grand Jury subpoena back to lower court....What does it mean ???????


Trump’s taxes may be released to grand jury, supreme court rules – See this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/jul/09/scotus-donald-trump-tax-returns-us-c****av***s-news-f***i-

Supreme court sends congressional subpoenas case back to lower court

The supreme court has issued its second opinion in cases related to subpoenas of the president’s financial records.

It is another 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and it calls for sending the case back to the lower court to more closely review concerns over the separation of powers.

“The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information,” Roberts wrote in the decision.

The opinion is not a total victory for Trump, but it does buy him time in the case, virtually ensuring the matter won’t be settled until after the November e******n.
Go to
Jul 9, 2020 09:38:56   #
Tiptop789 wrote:
Another trump supporter books passage on the SS Trumtanic. Trump's siren song, Obama can't ready be a citizen (because of his name). Forget that the State of HI has his birth certificate. Forget that the Clintons probably checked this out also. Of course your hoping beyond hope (like trump) they his newly appointed friends will side with him. Oh, btw, Congress does have a right to see them. You may want to go back & study the law books further. Where did you get them, trump university? He's going to release them anyway as soon as the audit is over. You may want to bring an extra life jacket on your voyage.
Another trump supporter books passage on the SS Tr... (show quote)


Just read the constitution Tiptop789. There are lots of places on the internet that you can read it plus there are some smartphone apps that make it really handy to have at your fingertips.

In order to override the Constitution, Congress would have to pass a law. What is the law? Can you cite "Oh, btw, Congress does have a right to see them"? I would happily get on the bandwagon and ensure Trump releases his tax returns IF IT IS THE LAW. Sorry to be a doubting Thomas on this my friend, but just because someone in Congress has said that Congress has the right doesn't make it so. Senators and Congressman say that Congress has a right to do a lot of things just to intimidate or for political purposes. Both sides do it on a day to day basis.
Go to
Jul 9, 2020 06:55:06   #
proud republican wrote:
Tomorrow Supreme Court will decide if President Trump has give up his Tax returns ....What do you think they will decide??? Judge Napolitano said it could be split NO for Congress Oversight , but YES for US District Court of New York


The Constitution DOES NOT require the release of the President's tax return - so, the Supreme Court SHOULD decide as such. But, all it takes is for one "supposed" Conservative Judge - like Roberts for example - to decide that even though no past President has been required to release their tax returns but because this is Trump - he's gotta release them. Even if they decide that he must release them if I were Trump it would take me until E******n Day to release them. However, I don't think SCOTUS will rule against Trump.
Go to
Jun 19, 2020 05:16:54   #
proud republican wrote:
What do you guys think ? Also known as Jubilee Day,Emancipation Day, Freedom Day.....


I h**e to admit this - but I NEVER heard of this day until there was an uproar by the left about Trump scheduling a rally on that date. I was amazed and embarrassed that I missed this as a day that was so important in our history. Since then, I've read a lot about it. I've concluded a few things:
1). It should not be just for b****s. It should be an Emancipation Day for w****s as well as we rid ourselves of the curse of s***ery on that date. W****s should be celebrating it along with b****s.
2). We have Black History Month - which creates awareness and as an American, if you don't know and understand what this month is all about - you should be ashamed of yourself.
3). We have Jackie Robinson Day in baseball - every American, even people who do not follow baseball know and participate and celebrate this historical day in our history.
4). It does not need to be a national holiday. It should be responsibly and enthusiastically supported by our Executive Branch and the House and Senate. It should be celebrated like Jackie Robinson Day or F**g Day which is on June 14.
Go to
Jun 18, 2020 09:56:48   #
lindajoy wrote:
The culprits are the incompetent CDC and WHO who rig more numbers and fabricate so much more than is...
Yet another “ missed step” in all their BS...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/611935/


We must remember that everyone in power at the CDC is liberal. They - all liberals - don't concern themselves with facts or correctly reporting factual data. Liberals are concerned with how something looks or feels. It is always "form" over "function". So why should the CDC be any different? I have to wonder, how can all those people get together and be so f**grantly and obviously wrong and think that the error of their ways won't be found and broadcast. Then I come to the conclusion that they think other/all people are either outright dimwitted or stupid because they are a r****t, a misogynist, or a homophobe. I've been a Conservative since 1968 and never before the last 3-4 years has it been so bad with liberals and their h**e for anything a conservative does or says. And never before has a President been so h**ed by the opposition like Trump. In my opinion (and many agree), Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were very bad Presidents, but there was never h**e directed at them from Conservatives. While Bill Clinton is a liberals liberal and I disagree with his premise for governance, I never h**ed him in the way current liberals h**e President Trump. I recall when I worked with a guy in 1995 who would make the liberals of today look like conservatives. Even though we had opposing views, there was a mutual respect for the other's viewpoint and beliefs. Our families went to ball games and had BBQs together. And, when he moved out of the state for another job, I felt a deep sense of personal loss. I don't think it is possible for people with opposing political views to have that kind of relationship in today's environment. That is very sad.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.