kentuck
kentuck's JournalKamala Harris would make a great Secretary of State...
...and could increase her chances of being the President if she had that experience, rather than Vice-President, in my opinion.
Tony Blinken should retire from his position and Kamala Harris should be appointed to the post.
Hillary used the position to run for President, and during any other more normal time, she would have easily won.
If the VP has presidential ambitions, that would be her best option, in my opinion.
It would definitely stir up the political pot.
Has there ever been a more corrupt president than Donald Trump or a more corrupt SC Justice...?
...than Clarence Thomas?
And how lucky we are to have had them both at the same time. 
They both believe themselves to be above the law, and so far, no one has proven them wrong.
And why does the Republican Party attempt to "normalize" both of them?
Could it be that the Republican Party is just as corrupt?
Did the J6 Committee slow down the DOJ investigation ?
Could the DOJ have informed the public to the same degree that the j6 Committee did?
Could the DOJ have done the required investigation without the efforts of the J6 Committee? Even if Jack Smith had been appointed two years ago, would he be ahead of where he is today?
Or was it such a huge and complex investigation that there was no other way to inform the public of the scope and intent of the crimes committed in the attempted coup and overthrow of our legitimately elected government?
Did the J6 Committee slow down the process or did they speed it up? Could Garland and the DOJ have done the same thorough investigation if the J6 Committee had not been involved?'
In my opinion, the pace, which many believe has been too slow, was a necessity, in order for the people to understand the scope and the number of people involved in the conspiracy. I doubt that we would be where we are today if the J6 Committee had not have done the thorough job that they did. The DOJ would have only stepped on the Committee's work if they had ignored the work of the Committee and went out on their own accord to investigate what had transpired on January 6th. It is doubtful they would have delved into the inner workings of the conspiracists if the Committee had not made their information public.
Although many argue that the DOJ has been too slow in their investigation and indictments, I doubt they would be where they are today if they had gone out on their own, ignoring the work of the January 6th Committee.
In the big picture, in the biggest investigation in the history of the DOJ, they would not be as far along as they are today if not for the work of the J6 Committee.
Just my opinion.
Are the recent random shootings the beginning of a societal breakdown?
Have guns and violence finally pushed our country to a breaking point?
A small girl is shot attempting to retrieve a basketball from a neighbor's yard.
A young lady is murdered because she pulled her car into the wrong driveway, while looking for the home of a friend.
Young cheerleaders are shot as they mistakingly get into a car in a grocery story parking lot.
A young black man is shot because he rang the doorbell of someone while he was looking for his brother.
Someone was shot because he got into the wrong car at a gas station.
People delivering groceries by paid delivery are shot at by a neighboring homeowner.
Is this a new phenomenon or has this been happening all along but is just now being reported?
Or has the hatred, division, and paranoia finally taken root?
Freedom for Thee...
But not for Me?
Is "freedom' something that has to be compromised in a democratic society?
How much freedom do you lose if you are a child-bearing woman?
How much freedom do you lose if you are a transexual?
How much freedom do you lose if you are an immigrant from Haiti or Central America?
How much freedom do you lose if you do not support semi-automatic weapons on our streets?
How much freedom do you lose if you are an atheist?
How much freedom do you lose if you are gay?
How much freedom do you lose if you are from the South or from Appalachia?
How much freedom do you lose if you are homeless?
How much freedom do you lose if you support socialism?
How much freedom do we surrender to the system every day of our lives?
What is your definition of "freedom"?
The Blind Men and the Elephant
I am forever puzzled at how Republicans see Donald Trump as opposed to how most Democrats see him? Are they the Party of the Blind?
===========================
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it. The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said, "This being is like a thick snake". For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
In some versions, the blind men then discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth and come to blows. The stories also differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described, how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the men and their perspectives is resolved. In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to "see" the full elephant. In another, a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong. While one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of truth.[4][7]
The parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields of contradicting theories, the need for deeper understanding, and respect for different perspectives on the same object of observation. In this respect, it provides an easily understood and practical example that illustrates ontologic reasoning. That is, simply put, what things exist, what is their true nature, and how can their relations to each other be accurately categorized? For example, is the elephant's trunk a snake, or its legs trees, just because they share some similarities with those? Or is that just a misapprehension that differs from an underlying reality? And how should human beings treat each other as they strive to understand better (anger, respect, tolerance or intolerance)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
What is your read on Boris Epshteyn?
Reportedly, the Special Counsel spoke with him yesterday.
We know that he was born in Russia and went to school in Moscow and has been closer to Trump than any other adviser or lawyer since 2015.
He was in the circle for the fake electors scheme and also, the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Is it possible that he is working for Vladimir Putin?
We ask that everyone fasten their seat belts...
We are about ready to land this plane from hell.
There may be a little turbulence.
We hope you have enjoyed your trip.
How much of a role did FOX have in the Big Lie?
Could it have happened without them?
How much does the whistle-blower producer know and how much does she have on tape?
Her attorney was on Ari Melber's show this afternoon and quickly got the attention of the talk-show host, when he mentioned that the "law enforcement" was interested in the case.
Are they trying to scare FOX straight?
Murdoch seems to have made the decision to let a few people go? So far, only one has left. But some anticipate there may be more?
Perhaps Murdoch is attempting to recover from the large settlement, he is legally required to pay, and does not wish to duplicate his most recent disastrous decision?
Therefore, he will need to thin the herd. But, who would he let go?
In my opinion, he would prefer for "law enforcement" to believe he is trying to clean up the stalls.
But, it is really messy...
Plato quote:
"Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses." ~ Plato
================
Aristotle quote:
"Tyrants preserve themselves by sowing fear and mistrust among the citizens by means of spies, by distracting them with foreign wars, by eliminating men of spirit who might lead a revolution, by humbling the people, and making them incapable of decisive action."
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 111,111
