Nikki's taking off the gloves.

people who pay the most taxes strongly supported Trump

those who are living off the tax dollars of others strongly supported Biden

 

Yea all these Congressional District are full of Trump supporter.

After the Midterms, One Party Controls All the Wealthiest Congressional Districts (yahoo.com)

Here are the 10 richest congressional districts in the U.S. by median household income:

1. Congressional District 10, Virginia: $116,069 | Democrat
   
   
2. Congressional District 18, California: $112,702 | Democrat
   
   
3. Congressional District 17, California: $107,946 | Democrat
   
   
4. Congressional District 11, Virginia: $105,024 | Democrat
   
   
5. Congressional District 7, New Jersey: $104,987 | Democrat
   
   
6. Congressional District 3, New York: $104,805 | Democrat
   
   
7. Congressional District 11, New Jersey: $103,419 | Democrat
   
   
8. Congressional District 8, Virginia: $100,649 | Democrat
   
   
9. Congressional District 33, California: $99,902 | Democrat
   
   
10. Congressional District 8, Maryland: $97,663 | Democrat
    

 

We have been in Germany for 79 years, in Korea for 74. Afghanistan is as important.

 

That's not what his comment was about.

 

that is a small slice that doesn't reflect reality.

 

I lost interest at "virtue signal."

 

Richard M. Nixon told an aide that they should find a way to secretly “monkey wrench” peace talks in Vietnam in the waning days of the 1968 campaign for fear that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency, according to newly discovered notes.

In a telephone conversation with H. R. Haldeman, who would go on to become White House chief of staff, Nixon gave instructions that a friendly intermediary should keep “working on” South Vietnamese leaders to persuade them not to agree to a deal before the election, according to the notes, taken by Mr. Haldeman.

The Nixon campaign’s clandestine effort to thwart President Lyndon B. Johnson’s peace initiative that fall has long been a source of controversy and scholarship. Ample evidence has emerged documenting the involvement of Nixon’s campaign. But Mr. Haldeman’s notes appear to confirm longstanding suspicions that Nixon himself was directly involved, despite his later denials.

“There’s really no doubt this was a step beyond the normal political jockeying, to interfere in an active peace negotiation given the stakes with all the lives,” said John A. Farrell, who discovered the notes at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library for his forthcoming biography, “Richard Nixon: The Life,” to be published in March by Doubleday. “Potentially, this is worse than anything he did in Watergate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/...ons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html

Not that I expect you to find this evidence persuasive.

 

From the link in #222:

". . . Mr. Shesol uncritically accepts Mr. O’Donnell’s uncritical acceptance of John A. Farrell’s misinterpretation of H. R. Haldeman’s notes of his late night telephone conversation with candidate Nixon on October 22nd 1968.

Mr. Farrell disserves his readers by failing even to mention the context of that conversation. Earlier on the 22nd, Nixon had received word that, despite his assurances to the contrary, and in order to tilt the increasingly close election to his Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, President Johnson was going to declare a surprise bombing halt in Vietnam in the last days before the election.

Haldeman writes “N mad as hell,” and most of his four pages of notes deal with Nixon’s plan to let Johnson know that his duplicity had been discovered, and dissuade him from announcing the bombing halt.

By failing to provide his readers with this vital contextual information, Mr. Farrell has convinced many that Nixon wanted to “monkey wrench” LBJ’s hope for peace in Vietnam, rather than convince the President not to announce such a strategically risky and politically motivated “October Surprise.”

The story and backstory of the Nixon/Haldeman telephone conversation may be found here: Misunderstanding A Monkey Wrench."

Case closed.

 

After the tax cut he gave them why wouldn't they?

 

What, in your mind, was his comment about?

 

Mr. Farrell, in an article in The New York Times Sunday Review over the weekend, highlighted the notes by Mr. Haldeman, along with many of Nixon’s fulsome denials of any efforts to thwart the peace process before the election.

His discovery, according to numerous historians who have written books about Nixon and conducted extensive research of his papers, finally provides validation of what had largely been surmise.

While overshadowed by Watergate, the Nixon campaign’s intervention in the peace talks has captivated historians for years. At times resembling a Hollywood thriller, the story involves colorful characters, secret liaisons, bitter rivalries and plenty of lying and spying. Whether it changed the course of history remains open to debate, but at the very least it encapsulated an almost-anything-goes approach that characterized the nation’s politics in that era.

Case closed.

Halderman's note.



https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html?_r=0

 

tell us-what party caters to net tax payers
what party constantly whines that productive people don't pay "their fair share" (which is one of the biggest lies in American politics)

 

You would do yourself a favor by educating yourself.

The 7 Myths of the GOP Tax Bill
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/the-7-myths-of-the-gop-tax-bill/547322/

Anecdotally, I have two very wealthy friends, former Dems, who vote Repub solely because they want their taxes to be cut. Something that may help you understand why more high wage earners identify as Repubs. Conversely, lower wage earners identify as Dems because Dems favor a progressive tax system.

 

You have made my point. Thanks. Farrell misrepresented Haldeman's note.

 

His comment was about two Democrat fairy tales: Nixon and Vietnam, and Reagan and Iran.

 

Good for her. I don't agree with her on just about anything, but she would be better than Trump insofar as she is not crazy and at least she understands the strategic value of backing Ukraine and she won't kiss Putin's butt like Trump does.

And yeah, that's what she's banking on, something's going to happen and tip the scales in her favor. Hell, she just might be the nominee, no one can say for sure.

 

And my comment is equating Trump and Biden is a false equivalency on multiple fronts. One has policy differences and the other threatens freedom and rights. As for fairy tales, that's your opinion not fact and to circle back to my first sentence, the cornerstone of a free and lawful society and not a society "governed" by a King and not rule of law.

 

Please see #209, the origin of the exchange. Your intervention was off topic.

 

Nixon's treason in vietnam, there is evidence
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-nixon-interfered-1968-peace-talks-180961627/

Reagan's iran/contra fiasco is widely known and I find it just as hard to believe Reagan didn't authorize arms for hostages as it would to believe Nixon didn't authorize the hair brained Watergate burglary..

What are the fairy tales? What are you saying isn't true or are you merely lawyering the argument with 'no clear cut evidence' which works in a court room, but not in the court of public opinion?

 

Iran/Contra was not in the discussion. The fairy tale was Reagan's alleged interference in freeing the Iran hostages. The other fairy tale was Nixon's alleged interference in Vietnam peace talks. Both claims have been shown in this thread to be false. If you are going to intervene in an ongoing exchange, please learn what it's about.

 

Seems more like off topic is a deflection from the actual conversation that the two men are vastly different as to make false equivalencies claims between the two a tough pill to accept on any high moral horse strawman binary choice.

 

I'm happy to take that on as a separate matter.
Trump is morally unfit. Biden is mentally unfit. Neither will get my vote.
Democracy is not at risk regardless of who wins; our institutions are strong enough to prevail.

 

That's your opinion (my point) and Biden is not a threat to your opinion and that right, but, Trump is. There is no moral equivalency to use as justification. It's simply a stark reality that one must accept, where ever you start and end, Joe Biden is simply a better man and leader as POTUS in a binary choice.

 

We disagree. Biden disqualified himself by his dishonor in Afghanistan.