Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Who he picks is a crap shoot. You'd be amazed how quickly the rancor turns to ego when offered a spot in history and all the perks that come with it.
Nothing Donald Trump is a crap shoot.
IF it were, Donald Trump would NOT have entered the race with everyone, virtually, saying he wasn't serious, didn't have a chance, would be gone by the first of 2016. Then he went on to knock off 16, extremely qualified candidates with vast political experience. He did this long before Hillary Clinton has been able to put away a far left, flat out Socialist. At the same time, he has accumulated all the delegates necessary to win on the first ballot.
Hillary Clinton hasn't even done that with a Socialist competitor and the rigged Democrat nomination system.
You misunderstood. I imagine Trump has known all along who he favors. I meant as far as us surmising whom that might be, it's a crap shoot. Could be any of a dozen or more.
I don't. But he supported it. That's enough.I was thinking of nafta and Glba but nafta was before that. Although he did actively support it and voted for itWasn't Gingrich over the House when Bill CLinton signed all that BULLSHIT when he was President? No thanks
Please, specifically what BS are you addressing?
As you know, GLBA was passed with large bipartisan support and signed by President Bill Clinton.
Since there was bipartisan support, how do you put the blame on one person?
Unimportant, but I was vehemently opposed to the bills passage. Frankly, I do not recall what the position of the National Association of Realtors was at the time. My guess is that they supported passage.
I misspoke that it was done federally, it was done by state govt's at the bequest of their citizens and CHURCH GROUPS....it was a HUGE movement in the United states in the late 1800's and early 1900s and the NAZIs got some of their ideas FROM US.....She did support eugenics to some degree including WHITE WOMEN who were mentally challenged or physically challenged, but it was never her main focus, her main focus was to educate ALL women on birth control methods so the women themselves with their knowledge, could choose their own fate....the Eugenics movement was a movement of its own, and half of our congress supported the movement as well....might have even funded it in some manner, if memory serves... it was a different day and age.Jackson, you are absolutely correct about Sanger. So was the group of black preachers that did their homework before asking the National Portrait Gallery to remove her bust. They share your view of Sanger:
Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well-documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion. Nevertheless, a prestigious institution like the National Portrait Gallery should have higher standards and subject its honorees to higher scrutiny…
Like Hitler, Sanger advocated eugenics – the extermination of people she deemed “undesirables.” Finding that the American people rejected that idea, she then switched to birth control as a way of controlling the population growth of black people and others.
Please show us all where HALF OF CONGRESS supported eugenics. A source and link will be fine. Provided it isn't one of those conspiracy sites.
As the previous poster mentioned, perhaps you are confused with Nazi Germany.
Please READ all of this link.... I had no idea how deep, us Americans went in supporting it....
Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compulsory sterilization
See also: Compulsory sterilization § United States
In 1907, Indiana passed the first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in the world. Thirty U.S. states would soon follow their lead.[51][52] Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921,[53] the U.S. Supreme Court, in Buck v. Bell, upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924, allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.[54]
Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[55] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[56] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[30] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[30] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[57][58]
Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[30] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less "desirable" members of society.[30] Eugenicists therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to "protect" white racial health, and weed out the "defectives" of society.[30]
A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[59]
Newt may be the only person who can out-disgust Trump in the sustained and never-ending GOP war on women.
And I suppose you are a Clinton supporter, lol!Sure. Trump and Gingrich both have so much in common. They both cheated on their first and second wives and have been married three times.I never thought Romney was the best choice in the last election. I wanted to see Newt Gingrich get the nod. but party pushers weren't supporting him because he divorced his wife and remarried.
What does that have to do with leading a country, the ability to unite Congress into positive action, something we haven't seen for an exceedingly long time? Congress is broken.
Gingrich knows the political maneuvers that can make things happen for the country as he demonstrated with his "Contract for America." He was popular with both sides of the aisle. And he knows our history and is keen on the l;aw and the Constitution. Trump needs that!
That is my hope for Trump's VP. What is the choice of other Trump supporters?
Family values! Family values!
Those with really high IQs aren't supporting the lying UN/Brussels Obama regime, muslim hugging, Ambassador murdering, war on women who sleep with her slug husband, hidden server, a video was responsible, Billary........
I doubt you meant what you posted but, I'll play along.
Please show us all where any Republican or Conservative has stated that you CAN NOT get her birth control from her employer.
Not at all surprised to see my far left Progressive good friends coming out as raving bigots.
THANK YOU!
I respect Gingrich very much as an author, particularly as an Historian author, he is amazing ...a very cultured person!
Having said that, as a VP no.... and I think he doesn't want to be VP either.
I respect Gingrich very much as an author, particularly as an Historian author, he is amazing ...a very cultured person!
Having said that, as a VP no.... and I think he doesn't want to be VP either.
Oh, I think he desperately wants to be VP.
whether Trump picks him is the question.
I think he could do Trump some good because he's a policy wonk, while Trump can't seem to remember what his own positions are from day to day.
