Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

rightocenter

Subscribe to rightocenter's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Saturday, December 03, 2016

1. This is like 2000 all over again, right? Nope.

2. Are we just doing this to give delusional liberals something to read? Yes.

3. How does the recount work? Millions of Dollars disappear, a few weeks pass, and we forget all about it.

4. Who will be recounting the Wisconsin vote? Every ballot will be personally handled by experienced state poll worker Joe Schultz.

5. Is there any truth to the claim that Jill Stein is using the recount as a ploy to get donations for the Green Party? She has shown no prior indication of being that politically savvy.


Thursday, December 01, 2016

Donald Trump intends to nominate Gen. James Mattis, one of the most respected military men of his generation, to run the sprawling Department of Defense, it was reported Thursday.

Citing people familiar with the decision, the Washington Post said the announcement from the president-elect is expected next week.

But since a law prevents those on active duty within the last seven years from serving in a civilian post, Congress will not only have to confirm Mattis but also pass a law making an exception.

Congress has done that just once, when Gen. George C. Marshall was appointed to the post in 1950.


Monday, November 28, 2016

The Wisconsin Elections Commission set a timetable Monday for a recount of the presidential election but rejected a request to require a count by hand made by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who quickly responded that she would sue.

Unless Stein wins her lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court, officials in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties would decide on their own whether to do their recounts by hand. That could mean some counties perform recounts by machine and some by hand.

Citing the results of a 2011 statewide recount that changed only 300 votes, Elections Commission chairman Mark Thomsen, a Democrat, said this presidential recount is very unlikely to change Republican Donald Trump's win in the state. read more


Friday, November 18, 2016

Here is the WashPo appointment tracker for all open Cabinet Posts, click the link (I know that scares many of you Libs because it will force you to both read and comprehend) to get the latest updates. read more


Monday, October 31, 2016

John Kass, Chicago Tribune: Has America become so numb by the decades of lies and cynicism oozing from Clinton Inc. that it could elect Hillary Clinton as president, even after Friday's FBI announcement that it had reopened an investigation of her emails while secretary of state?

We'll find out soon enough.

It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

So what should the Democrats do now? read more


Comments

We are a beach community, not a ghetto.

#23 | POSTED BY PROLIX247 AT 2016-12-04 05:10 PM

12% of California is considered "beach proximate" (19,600 sq. miles) , so the other 88% (144,000 sq. miles) would disagree with that assessment.

California would probably hurt the most from a secession tax-wise because the citizens and businesses would no longer be able to deduct their huge state taxes from their federal income tax.

Goat, if all you got is that we would be hurt by not deducting our state taxes from our federal returns, keep in mind that we wouldn't be paying "federal" taxes to the US but only taxes to the California Republic. In fact, if California seceded its tax base would expand by hundreds of billions of dollars while lowering the effective tax rates for Californians by an estimated 20%. Financial analysts for years have projected if Californians didn't have to pay federal tax its deficits would be erased in one year.

The biggest problem would be getting water from Colorado for Southern California, but since we grow 1/3 of the nations food, that would be pretty easy to solve...no water, no food.

As for the US, it would be fine without California but taxes would have to be raised by about 4.3% across the board to make up for the lost tax revenue and its GDP would drop by 18% with a Calexit. The US would also lose its largest military bases and deepwater ports on the Pacific Ocean as well as 12% of its national parks.

Given the fact that not only would there need to be a Constitutional amendment but 2/3 of the states would have to approve any secession attempt it would never happen but if it did, those of us here would be much better off economically. Politically, that would be a different matter, but that is for another thread.

Yeah I'm sure he checked each afghan he took pleasure in killing to see if they were a wife beater before he murdered them.
#58 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2016-12-02 08:50 PM

Don't know much about the Taliban, do you:

Women were not allowed to work
Women were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an
From the age of eight, females were not allowed to be in direct contact with males other than a close "blood relative", husband, or in-law
Women should not appear in the streets without a blood relative or without wearing a burqa
Women should not wear high-heeled shoes as no man should hear a woman's footsteps lest it excite him
Women must not speak loudly in public as no stranger should hear a woman's voice
All ground and first floor residential windows should be painted over or screened to prevent women being visible from the street
Photographing or filming of women was banned as was displaying pictures of females in newspapers, books, shops or the home
The modification of any place names that included the word "women" was required. For example, "women's garden" was renamed "spring garden".
Women were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated.

Any women caught violating these rules faced public flogging and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.

Males were encouraged to take care of these violations themselves by private "discipline" (including beatings and honor killings) if they could.

Pretty sure if they were pointing a gun at you in the early 2000s they were Taliban.

But go ahead with your little fantasy that the Big Bad Marine was indiscriminately killing people because they were "brown."

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable