TRUMP 2020 U.S.A.

Friend: a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.

a member of the same nation, party, etc.

Acquaintance: a person known to one, but usually not a close friend.

A friend is exactly whom one talks to about religion and politics. Not to overlook internet monkey pooh flinging... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I see you've joined the copy-and-pasta clan. Welcome to the club.

Friend: a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.

a member of the same nation, party, etc.

Acquaintance: a person known to one, but usually not a close friend.


A friend is exactly whom one talks to about religion and politics. Not to overlook internet monkey pooh flinging... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

When talking to a "friend" about religion and politics, they soon become "acquaintance."

Friend: a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.

a member of the same nation, party, etc.

Acquaintance: a person known to one, but usually not a close friend.


A friend is exactly whom one talks to about religion and politics. Not to overlook internet monkey pooh flinging... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I totally disagree. Both religion and politics have to be handled very carefully because there is a great deal of passion involved. There is very little upside and a great downside to such discussions so I don't go there.

I have very close friends from Alabama who I know are staunch Republicans. We obviously differ on many political issues and to discuss those differences would get us nowhere. Because more than likely those "discussions" would lead to arguments. And arguments lead to strained relationships in most cases.

I see you've joined the copy-and-pasta clan. Welcome to the club. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Thanks, but it's just a temporary, honorary, membership. I did it to ensure we relied on a common understanding of the English language.

When talking to a "friend" about religion and politics, they soon become "acquaintance." Originally Posted by Precious_b

I will presume you meant an "acquaintance." (It's an Alt-Write thing)


But that's the thing about math, it's dependable, unless it's common core math - then it's garbage.



To wit: It all adds up - time to get new friends.

I tend to agree to some extent. I would refer to that as M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) Detente. Believe it or not, I have insanely liberal friends and family who know that I am their polar opposite (mostly). While we do try to avoid chaos, sometimes someone lets a loose missile fly and the resulting return volley is typically immediate. Then it's back on the instigator whether the affair goes thermal nuclear or not.

Luckily, my insanely liberal friends/family are somewhat intellectually gifted and we do/can have those discussions without blood shed. Oftentimes they are quite 'spirited', other times they end with agreeing to disagree. But one thing is sure, rarely would something go unchallenged and we all know it

Side note: Most of my insanely liberal friends and family share another trait in common. Most all know and have stated that when/if SHTF, they will try to make it to my place as fast as humanly possible. I know my family would survive the arrival and I'm somewhat certain my friends would as well. I would put the odds at least at 85% anyway.

I totally disagree. Both religion and politics have to be handled very carefully because there is a great deal of passion involved. There is very little upside and a great downside to such discussions so I don't go there.

I have very close friends from Alabama who I know are staunch Republicans. We obviously differ on many political issues and to discuss those differences would get us nowhere. Because more than likely those "discussions" would lead to arguments. And arguments lead to strained relationships in most cases. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I will presume you meant an "acquaintance." (It's an Alt-Write thing)


But that's the thing about math, it's dependable, unless it's common core math - then it's garbage.



To wit: It all adds up - time to get new friends. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You got a link to where ellen fesses up about the question she avoids ad naseum? Until then, Grammar Nazi.

You got a link to where ellen fesses up about the question she avoids ad naseum? Originally Posted by Precious_b

Yea verily:

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1061917601


I am also glad she has not cast that pearl necklace I left her towards them either.

Yea verily:

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1061917601


I am also glad she has not cast that pearl necklace I left her towards them either. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I would only accept that as an answer if she never posted on these boards. Anywhere on these boards, Grammar Nazi.

....and the wall is still alive and well in bullet points of trump speechs. And ellen still ain't answering or admitting he lied.

Fearless Leader stated to the crowds, "..."But Mexico is in fact, you will soon find out, paying for the wall, okay? … The wall is ultimately and very nicely being paid for by Mexico."

According to Politico, "There’s no evidence of this. We asked the Trump team for more details and haven’t heard back. Trump previously claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which he will soon sign. There is no provision for the wall in the free trade agreement."

....and the wall is still alive and well in bullet points of trump speechs. And ellen still ain't answering or admitting he lied.

Fearless Leader stated to the crowds, "..."But Mexico is in fact, you will soon find out, paying for the wall, okay? … The wall is ultimately and very nicely being paid for by Mexico."

According to Politico, "There’s no evidence of this. We asked the Trump team for more details and haven’t heard back. Trump previously claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which he will soon sign. There is no provision for the wall in the free trade agreement." Originally Posted by Precious_b

They are paying for it in a way. A recently completed section of the wall blew down on to the Mexican side on Wednesday due to 30 mph winds. Mexican authorities had to divert traffic away from a road adjacent to the wall on the Mexican side.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51307868

Trump had just bragged about the wall going up at record rates the day before. Looks like the construction design was so rushed that it didn't allow for 30 mph winds.

To quote Don Jr. just before the Trump Tower meeting when he thought that Russia was about to illegally share some campaign dirt on Hillary, "I love it".

....and the wall is still alive and well in bullet points of trump speechs. And ellen still ain't answering or admitting he lied.

Fearless Leader stated to the crowds, "..."But Mexico is in fact, you will soon find out, paying for the wall, okay? … The wall is ultimately and very nicely being paid for by Mexico."

According to Politico, "There’s no evidence of this. We asked the Trump team for more details and haven’t heard back. Trump previously claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which he will soon sign. There is no provision for the wall in the free trade agreement." Originally Posted by Precious_b

Trump's contention is that the money generated in this country due to the new USMCA will cover the cost of the wall. While most agree that the new USMCA is somewhat better for this country than NAFTA, no one has predicted a huge increase of dollars into the U.S. treasury to pay for the wall.

Meanwhile, billions of tax dollars that were allocated by Congress to the Pentagon for military projects are being diverted by Trump to pay for his wall. Abuse of power?

I would only accept that as an answer if she never posted on these boards. Anywhere on these boards, Grammar Nazi. Originally Posted by Precious_b

That's Senior Alt-Write to you Mr/Ms Open, Tolerant, Inclusive, Enlightened one

I ponder: Why did the US Constitution allow for a standing army, especially considering the framers were largely against it. Was it some ridiculous and trivial, barely worth even mentioning really, thing like for "the common defence? Why yes I do think it was. Seems appropriate to build a fence for the common defence. Being Commander in Chief, GEPOTUS would have say over how the military prioritizes protecting the country. Actually, would it not be dereliction of duty if he did not build de fence to provide for the common defence??

Meanwhile, billions of tax dollars that were allocated by Congress to the Pentagon for military projects are being diverted by Trump to pay for his wall. Abuse of power? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I ponder: Why did the US Constitution allow for a standing army, especially considering the framers were largely against it. Was it some ridiculous and trivial, barely worth even mentioning really, thing like for "the common defence? Why yes I do think it was. Seems appropriate to build a fence for the common defence. Being Commander in Chief, GEPOTUS would have say over how the military prioritizes protecting the country. Actually, would it not be dereliction of duty if he did not build de fence to provide for the common defence?? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

IF Trump want to build his wall, a wall that the majority of people in this country do not want, he should get his money the old fashioned way -- through Congress appropriations. Not by "stealing" it from Congress approved projects. This act of declaring a "National Emergency" and then redistributing money opens a Pandora's Box for future presidents.

"Americans Used to Support a Border Wall. What Changed Their Minds?"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...ed-their-minds