I think is milenials are still good. For a few more years. Also, we are the only generation that can save files, and know where they went.

But more youngsters would be nice.

The sooner the better.

President Miller, you mean?

Have you seen his competition?

If this was true, there would be no reason not to vote on it all together.

This happened under Biden. (Schumer then, too, I belive) Separated a bill, passed the parts the Republicans wanted, then the Republicans voted against the part the Democrat wanted.

Bend over, here it comes again.

I’m not sure I’d call that “unfortunate.” I’ve said for ages that if we can just get more people to vote, it will be good for the democrats. Work the rise of MAGA, I’ve included that if we can get them to think before they vote, that will be even better.

Which he will ignore as soon as he finds it inconvenient.

Why do people continue to think you can make a deal with someone who never upholds their end of a deal?

Congratulations on getting what you voted for.

This is the way.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Are we expecting the Democratic party to actually support him? Seems the national leadership would rather see someone else in his spot.

I’m trying to determine if we are using words to mean the same things. It seems we are not.

Since I don’t take issue with your goals, only your vocabulary, I suppose that continuing to discuss it is pointless.

Would you claim that the soap box failed of no-one spoke against him?

Would you claim the jury box failed if he was never brought to trial?

What liberty are you talking about? The liberty of approved leaders? It’s a failure because we voted for a bad leader?

We got the leader we voted for. The failure is in the people.

That’s not my idea of liberty at all. But you can’t say the ballot box failed, just because the people elected the worst president in the history of people in suits.

So, you propose to enforce liberty by not letting us choose our own leaders? Democracy, as long as your approve our choices?

This is an abomination.

Put it in the pile with the others.

Information flow can never go backwards. There’s plenty of examples of reporters or even social media compromising military operations. In at least a few cases, it has lead to the destruction of military assets. Once broadcast, the damage is done.

Trying to force reporters to think hard about what they are broadcasting is a good thing, from the point of view of national defence.

Is it normal to allow people to send military information to your enemy?

I’m not a huge fan of either of the two belligerent, but this is not exactly an unreasonable position to take. And they are at least putting reporters on notice.