Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

New Donald Trump thread

Recommended Posts

Trump Is Trying to Ride the Pentagon Gravy Train to Reelection: https://mises.org/wire/trump-trying-ride-pentagon-gravy-train-reelection

Quote

Donald Trump likes to posture as a tough guy and part of that tough guy persona involves bragging about how much he’s spent on the US military. This tendency was on full display in a tweet he posted three days after an American drone killed Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani in Baghdad:

The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation!

That tweet was as much a message to the American public as to Iran’s rulers. Its subtext: Donald J. Trump (and he alone) has restored the US military to greatness after two terms of neglect under the less-than-watchful eye of Barack Obama; he’s not afraid to use it; and he deserves credit for everything he’s done, which means, of course, widespread political support. Nevermind that Washington has “only” spent about one-third of his claimed $2 trillion on military equipment since he took office, and that Pentagon spending reached a post-World War II record high in the Obama years. No surprise there: Trump has never let the facts get in the way of a good story he’s dying to tell.

He has, by the way, made similar claims to his most important audience of all: his donors. At a January 17 get-together with key supporters at Mar-a-Lago, his lavish Florida resort, he bragged that Pentagon spending had increased by $2.5 trillion on his watch. In fact, that figure is closer to total Pentagon spending in the Trump years. For his claim to be accurate, the Pentagon budget would have had to be $0 in January 2017, when he entered the Oval Office. Still, however outlandish what he says about the military may be, the underlying theme remains remarkably consistent: I’m the guy who’s funding our military like never before, so you should keep supporting me big time.

Don’t get me wrong. In collaboration with Congress, Trump has indeed boosted the Pentagon budget to near record levels. At $738 billion this year alone, it’s already substantially higher than spending at the peaks of the Korean and Vietnam Wars or during the Reagan military buildup of the 1980s. It’s more than the total amount spent by the next seven nations in the world combined (five of which are US allies). Only Donald Trump could manage to distort, misstate, and exaggerate sums that are already beyond belief in the service of an inflated self-image and ambitious political objectives.

Political Manipulation and “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs”

President Trump’s recent antics should come as no surprise. His use of Pentagon spending and military assistance for political gain has been hiding in plain sight since he entered the Oval Office. After all, that’s what the impeachment charges against him were all about. He was manipulating US military aid to Ukraine to strong-arm its government into generating dirt on Joe Biden, whom Trump, obsessed by poll numbers, saw at the time as his most threatening rival.

And don’t forget the president’s penchant for dipping into the Pentagon budget to pay for his cherished wall on the US-Mexico border, a vanity project that plays extremely well with his political base. So far, he’s proposed taking $13.3 billion from the Department of Defense’s budget to fund that “big, fat, beautiful wall,” $6.1 billion of which has already been granted to him. For good measure, Trump pushed the Pentagon to award a $400 million contract for building part of the wall to Fisher Sand and Gravel, a North Dakota firm owned by one of his donors.

The Ukraine scandal and the wall aside, the real politics of Pentagon spending—that is, of translating military dollars into potential votes in 2020—will come, Trump hopes, from his relentless touting of the alleged jobs being generated by weapons production. His initial major foray into portraying the buying and selling of arms as a jobs program for the American people occurred during a May 2017 trip to Saudi Arabia, his first foreign visit as president. He promptly announced a $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi regime that would, he swore, mean “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the United States.

In reality, the agreement itself—and the jobs to come from it—were both far less than advertised, but the message was clear enough: this country’s deal-maker extraordinaire was selling weapons over there and bringing jobs back in a major way to the good old US of A. Even though many of the vaunted arms deals he boasted about had been reached during the Obama years, he had, he insisted, gotten the Saudis to pay through the nose for weaponry that would put staggering numbers of Americans to work.

The Saudi gambit was planned well in advance. In the middle of a meeting with a Saudi delegation in a reception room next door to the White House, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner suddenly called Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. He asked her about a missile defense system that the administration wanted to include in the mega arms package that the president was planning to announce during his upcoming visit to the kingdom. According to a New York Times account of the meeting, the Saudis’ jaws dropped when Kushner dialed up Hewson in front of them. They were amazed that things actually worked that way in Trump’s America. That call apparently did the trick, as the Lockheed missile-defense system was indeed incorporated into the arms deal.

The arms-sales-equals-jobs drumbeat continued when Trump returned home from his foreign travels, most notably in a March 2018 White House meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. There, in front of the cameras, the president brandished a map showing where tens of thousands of US jobs linked to those Saudi arms deals would supposedly be created. Many of them were concentrated in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan that had provided his margin of victory in the 2016 election.

His trumpeting of employment linked to Saudi arms sales went further over the top when he claimed that more than half a million American jobs were tied to the sales that his administration had negotiated. The real number is expected to be less than a tenth of that total and well under .03 percent of the US labor force of more than 164 million people.

Much as Trump would like Americans to believe that US weapons transfers to the brutal Saudi dictatorship are a boon to the economy, they are, in reality, barely a blip on the radar of total national employment. The question, of course, is whether enough voters will believe the president’s Saudi arms fairy tale to give him a bump in support.

Even after the Saudi regime’s murder of journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi, the president continued to argue that the revenues from those arms deals were reason to avoid a political rupture with that nation. Unlike on so many other issues, Trump’s claims about arms sales and jobs are maddeningly consistent, if also maddeningly off the mark.

Trump to Ohio: “You Better Love Me”

Perhaps the president’s most blatant linkage of Pentagon spending–related jobs to his political future came in a March 2019 speech at an army-tank plant in Lima, Ohio. After a round of “USA! USA!” chants from the assembled crowd, Trump got right down to it:

Well, you better love me; I kept this place open, that I can tell you. [Applause.] They said, “We’re closing it.” And I said, “No we’re not.” And now you’re doing record business….And I’m thrilled to be here in Ohio with the hardworking men and women of Lima.

Of course, the president wasn’t actually responsible for keeping the plant open. In the early 2010s, the army had a plan to put that plant on “mothball” status for a few years because it already had six thousand tanks—far more than it needed. But that plan had been ditched before Trump ever took office, in no small part due to bipartisan pressure from the Ohio congressional delegation.

Misleading statements aside, the Lima plant is doing just fine at a time when the Pentagon budget is running at nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars per year, and Trump is capitalizing on it. He repeatedly returned to the jobs argument in his Lima speech, and even reeled off a list of other parts of the country involved in tank production:

Our investment will also support thousands of additional jobs across our nation to assemble these incredible Abrams tanks. The engines are from Alabama, transmissions are from Indiana, special armor from Idaho, and the 120-millimeter gun—and the gun parts from upstate New York and from Pennsylvania. All great places. In Ohio alone, almost 200 suppliers churn out parts and materials that go into every tank that rolls off this factory’s floor. Incredible.

Trump may not be able to find all the places in which the US is at war on a map, but he’s made a point of getting well briefed on where the money that fuels the US war machine goes, because he views that information as essential to his political fortunes in 2020.

The Domestic Economics of Weapons Spending

What Trump failed to mention in his Lima speech is that much of America is not heavily dependent on Pentagon weapons outlays. The F-35 combat aircraft, the most expensive weapons system in history and widely touted as a major job creator, is a case in point. The plane’s producer, Lockheed Martin, claims that the project has created 125,000 jobs spread over forty-five states. The reality is far less impressive. My own analysis suggests that the F-35 program produces less than half as many jobs as Lockheed claims and that more than half of them are located in just two states—California and Texas. And in fact, many of them are located overseas.

Most states are not heavily dependent on Pentagon spending. According to that institution’s own figures, in thirty-nine of the fifty states less than 3 percent of the economy is tied to it. In other words, 97 percent or more of the economic activity in most of the country has nothing to do with such spending.

....

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/02/white-house-set-nominate-nations-1st-african-american-military-service-chief-report.html

White House Nominates Nation's 1st African American Military Service Chief

The White House has nominated Gen. Charles "CQ" Brown to be the next top general to lead the U.S. Air Force. The nomination, announced by the Defense Department Monday afternoon, would make him the first African American officer to serve as the top uniformed officer for any of the military branches.

The Wall Street Journal first reported Monday that Brown, currently the head of Pacific Air Forces, would be tapped for 22nd Air Force chief of staff, following Gen. David Goldfein, who is set to retire this summer after four years in the position. Brown would also be the first black officer to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff since then-Army Gen. Colin Powell served as chairman between 1989 and 1993.

"The [Air Force] will be well served by the formidable talents of CQ Brown," Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett said in a tweet following the announcement. "He has unmatched strategic vision and operational expertise. His leadership will be instrumental as the service continues to focus on the capabilities and talent we need to implement the [National Defense Strategy]."

Before his post at PACAF, Brown was the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. He also served as the head of Air Forces Central Command (AFCENT) between 2015 and 2016, during the height of the air campaign against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria.

The highly decorated commander, an F-16 Fighting Falcon pilot by training, commissioned in 1984 and has accumulated more than 2,900 flight hours, including 130 combat hours in various aircraft.

With posts that have taken him across Europe, the Pacific and the Middle East, Brown has also "commanded a fighter squadron, the U.S. Air Force Weapons School, and two fighter wings" throughout his career, his bio states.

Despite publicly stated efforts across the military services to attract and retain minority troops, the most senior ranks remain largely homogenous. A 2015 report from USA Today found that, of 280 Air Force generals at the time, just 18 belonged to minority groups, and just 13 -- or 4% of the total -- were African American.

Between 2014 and 2015, Brown was the director of operations, strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at U.S. Air Forces in Europe. During that time, the general told Air Force Times he had been focused on watching Russia's activities unfold in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but quickly had to switch gears during his tour to focus on deterring ISIS forces from making gains in Iraq and Syria.

"When you ask me what my biggest accomplishment was during this time of my [AFCENT] command, [strategic] targeting. That was it," Brown told this reporter during an interview in 2016.

Brown's goal at the command was to streamline processes between the Air Force, coalition air components and the intelligence community to create better dynamic and deliberate targeting operations for battlefield success.

"In the last 15 years or so, we've done a lot of close-air support for troops in contact and overwatch, and the deliberate targeting process -- we lost a little muscle memory from what we had in the past," he said, referencing operations in Afghanistan. "So I think this is something that's going to help us in the [Central Command area of operations] and in other contingencies later on that we as a nation or we as the coalition team may face in the future."

Like his PACAF predecessor, Air Force Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, Brown has worked to improve collaboration with partner forces, with an emphasis on integrating fifth-generation combat capabilities, such as those within the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, into theater.

"Our allies and partners are on the front lines of fifth-generation integration in the Indo-Pacific," Brown said in 2018, referencing how the U.S., Australia, Japan and South Korea will all operate the F-35 in coming years.

 

I sure wish President Trump wasn't so racist......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

 

I sure wish President Trump wasn't so racist......

 

You do realize that Strom Thurmond, who ran most of his political career on a segregationist platform, had a mixed-race daughter as a result of a liaison with the family's Black maid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, foxbat said:

You do realize that Strom Thurmond, who ran most of his political career on a segregationist platform, had a mixed-race daughter as a result of a liaison with the family's Black maid?

What is your point?  That Mr. Trump is a rampant racist because Mr. Thurmond was also?   Talk about false equivalency.................

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

What is your point?  That Mr. Trump is a rampant racist because Mr. Thurmond was also?   Talk about false equivalency.................

 

 

Or he could have meant that just because some people do certain things with or for some people of color, it does not erase other things they have done in their history that were racist. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

What is your point?  That Mr. Trump is a rampant racist because Mr. Thurmond was also?   Talk about false equivalency.................

 

 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mulvaney is out ...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/trump-mulvaney-out/index.html

FTA:

President Donald Trump announced late Friday that he was replacing his acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, with Republican Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a shake-up in the top echelons of the West Wing just as the President confronts a growing public health crisis and girds for reelection.

Meadows, who had previously announced he was leaving Congress, will become Trump's fourth chief of staff in a little more than three years in office. In a tweet, Trump did not denote him "acting," a designation Mulvaney never graduated from in the turbulent 14 months he spent in the job.

"I am pleased to announce that Congressman Mark Meadows will become White House Chief of Staff. I have long known and worked with Mark, and the relationship is a very good one," Trump tweeted Friday just after arriving at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Trump, who did not immediately offer an explanation for the swap, thanked Mulvaney and said he would become special envoy for Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, foxbat said:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

*yawn*

 

9 hours ago, Irishman said:

Or he could have meant that just because some people do certain things with or for some people of color, it does not erase other things they have done in their history that were racist. 

So once a racist always a racist?

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

*yawn*

 

 

 

I feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I feel the same way.

*yawn*

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2020 at 7:55 PM, foxbat said:

You do realize that Strom Thurmond, who ran most of his political career on a segregationist platform, had a mixed-race daughter as a result of a liaison with the family's Black maid?

Ok - but the current President (not a senator) is who nominated the first black officer to the position that was noted in the article......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Ok - but the current President (not a senator) is who nominated the first black officer to the position that was noted in the article......

He has a black friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Ok - but the current President (not a senator) is who nominated the first black officer to the position that was noted in the article......

I was speaking to the idea that such an act doesn't preclude one from being a racist.  Strom Thurmond also paid for college for his daughter who attended an HBCU.  I think we'd have trouble posting a line like "Strom Thurmond paid for an HBCU college education for his mixed-race daughter.  I sure wish Senator Thurmond wasn't so racist."  

I don't have an issue with the posting of the act of the nomination, but I did not see it, as seemed to be alluded to, as somehow providing evidence that the President isn't racist or doesn't have racist tendencies.  I do find the timing interesting ... on the heels of the South Carolina primary ... when talk of Black support for Biden compared to Sanders was at the forefront of several media coverages.  A prime opportunity to blunt said news and for the President and/or White House to say "me too."

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I encourage everyone who chooses to be negative and question my work at the White House to take time and contribute something good and productive in their own communities. #BeBest”

First Lady Melania Trump responding to former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary of State, former Democrat Presidential Candidate,  HIllary Clinton's criticism of her cyber-bullying initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, foxbat said:

FTA:

Quote

At an emergency meeting last week, the Fed made the deepest interest rate cut since the financial crisis a decade ago. Forecasters expect borrowing costs could hit the zero lower bound by this spring.

So Mr. Trump effectively wants to borrow money for "free".  Nice.

And anyway the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional creation that should be abolished in the first place:

https://www.aier.org/article/its-a-snap-to-abolish-the-fed/

Quote

...

There is a disconnect between what the Fed says and what it does simply because the system is too complex to be run from the center. Money in circulation is determined by a combination of depositor/borrowing behavior and the risk tolerance of banks themselves. There is no money wizard in Washington who can operate the whole like some precision machine.

Which raises the topic: why do we need the Fed?

It manages a clearing system for banks but banks can do that themselves without help from Washington. It manages the federal funds rate because it holds overnight loans between banks. Here again, banks can perform those operations without help. It pursues a mandate to control inflation and unemployment – macroeconomic stabilization, as it is called – but the record shows that this has mostly been a failure.

What else does the Fed do? It backs the promise to make good on debt issued by the federal government, but municipal governments issue debt all the time without recourse to a central bank. Plus, Treasury debt should be subject to a default premium like all other debt. Without such market pressure, investors get poor signals about the real quality of the debt they are holding.

Anything else? The main Fed and all the regional Feds issue an amazing amount of research reports but surely the fine men and women who write them can find other outlets, such as the Social Science Research Network or maybe Medium. It’s true that the St. Louis Fed has the best online tool for data reporting but how many people know that this is actually outsourced to a private sector firm? [Correction from the St. Louis Fed media relations: “FRED is a St. Louis Fed product, it is not outsourced.”] 

Money without Policy

There is plenty of downside to having a central bank. It tempts politicians to believe there is no cost to endless debt issuance. Without a default premium and rational investing decisions, there is no punishment for fiscal irresponsibility. Think of how state governments have to have balanced budgets. This is because they have no central bank to guarantee payment on the debt. Ending the Fed would do far more to restrain spending than pious speech or even a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget at the federal level.  

Imagine a world in which financial markets were not constantly buffeted between optimism and pessimism based on the words of the Fed chairman. The current system is not bringing stability but just the opposite.

I’m thinking too of the long history. The Fed was created more than a century ago. Its first great achievement was not ending “wildcat banking” but rather providing the funding for the first World War. Not a good beginning. That blew a bubble that popped in 1921. Then it blew another that popped in 1929. Then it botched an attempt to reflate from 1930 all the way to the second World War, which it also funded.

The postwar history was of endless screw ups: inflation, recession, stagflation, and all-around mercy that culminated in the great pillaging of 1979. Then came the Savings and Loan Crisis, the dotcom bubble, the reflation after 9/11, the housing fiasco that blew up 7 years later, then the bailout of banks with balance-sheet manipulations, then the convoluted and contradictory regime that followed.

Finally, there is the grave political danger of the Fed. Every president wants lower rates. The only exception in my lifetime came in Reagan’s first term when he demanded tight money to end inflation. I doubt we’ll ever see those days again. Even the current president who denounced bubble blowing on the campaign trail is now pushing for the Fed to help his reelection prospects.

It’s all too much. At some point, we should recognize that the idea of central banking is a relic from a technocratic/nationalist age that does have a role in an infinitely complex and global financial and monetary world. Unlike a century ago, forms of money, lending, and banking are hugely diverse. As a practical matter, the Fed and the banking system controls less and less of it. This undermines the whole premise of central banking. And yet this institution is still hanging around.

Here to There

How to get rid of it? I used to think this was a complex problem, that we needed some huge monetary reform to make it happen. A serious gold standard would be great. The trouble here is that sensible reform will require the cooperation of the people and interest groups that benefit most from the status quo. The best policy will be the one that has the least steps, remembering that the main point is to end the system of centralized, discretionary policy that is so subject to abuse.

The simplest solution would be to normalize the Fed’s balance sheet (it’s already happening) and then pull the plug by freezing the monetary base. No more printing via open-market operations. Let banks and other intermediaries take it from there, issuing their own branded and redeemable notes on a competitive basis in response to consumer demand. Competition, redemption requirements, transparency, and no more too-big-to-fail would prevent overissue and incentivize a system far more sound than the current one.

As part of this, we need liberalization of monetary alternatives, whether proprietary monies, precious metals like gold and silver, or permissionless use of cryptocurrency. We live in an age of innovation. The quality of money, banking, and payments systems should benefit from market forces rather than be monopolized by government.

Wouldn’t the world fall apart? Not at all. I predict that the news would be front page for the usual 48-hour news cycle and then the world would move on. No big deal. There is no downside. And a huge upside. All it requires is some political courage.

Ideally, Congress, which created the creature in the first place, would step up and do the right thing. It’s also intriguing to imagine what would happen if the president, famous for his edgy uses of the executive order, would shutter the place with the stroke of a pen.

Even if it doesn’t happen, I am safe to predict the Fed’s growing irrelevance in an age of innovation in cryptocurrency and ever more choice over depository institutions. Might as well call it now and end the Fed.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is the medias fault....they were unfair and picking and bullying those Republican presidents

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

it is the medias fault....they were unfair and picking and bullying those Republican presidents

No clearly the only factor leading to any of those crashes were Republican presidents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

No clearly the only factor leading to any of those crashes were Republican presidents. 

If there is anything we have learned over the past 3 years....

It's the medias fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

If there is anything we have learned over the past 3 years....

It's the medias fault.

As I have stated several times, I have been involved in a couple of media stories, one of which garnered some national attention. The amount of misinformation, in some cases outright lies is astounding to me. To think at the very least the media isn't manipulative is sticking your head in the sand. And I know local media doesn't like to be tied into the CNN's/Fox/MSNBC's of the world, but they are just as culpable. I saw an article posted just last week on one of the Indy TV stations in regards to one of my stories, numerous fallacies to the point it was pretty much laughable in my opinion. Some of it is clearly incompetence, but some of it is clearly intentional. How else could you watch CNN and Fox coverage of the same story and get two completely different stories? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentagon to “reconsider” parts of controversial $10 billion JEDI contract. Amazon says it lost deal because Trump hates Bezos; DoD will now review.: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/pentagon-to-reconsider-parts-of-controversial-10-billion-jedi-contract/

Quote

Amazon has notched up another minor victory in its lawsuit against the Department of Defense over a massive contract the federal government awarded to Microsoft late last year.

The DoD said Thursday that it will re-evaluate part of its decision to award the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract (JEDI, because of course) to Microsoft, CNN Business was first to report. In a court filing, the agency specified that it "wishes to reconsider its award decision in response to the other technical challenges presented by" Amazon Web Services.

JEDI, an agreement to build a cloud computing and storage platform for use by the entire DoD, is valued around $10 billion over the next several years. Multiple enterprise computing companies were on the initial shortlist of potential vendors, including Oracle and IBM. By April, the DoD dropped the list of finalist candidates to two: Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure. Industry-watchers by and large thought Amazon would win out and were surprised when Microsoft emerged the victor in October.

Amazon filed suit in December, claiming that Microsoft got the contract not because of a superior platform or superior bid, but rather due to "improper pressure from President Donald J. Trump, who launched repeated public and behind-the-scenes attacks to steer the JEDI Contract away from AWS to harm his perceived political enemy—Jeffrey P. Bezos, founder and CEO of AWS' parent company, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"), and owner of the Washington Post."

The company sought and won a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DoD from moving forward on the project while the legal challenge is still in progress. In that order (PDF), which was recently made public, Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith ruled that Amazon seems likely to win its case on the merits. Not only does the record seem to support Amazon's claim that the DoD erred in certain technical and pricing judgements when making its decision, Campbell-Smith wrote, but also it seems to support Amazon's claim that the decision was due to improper prejudice.

Amazon said it was "pleased" the DoD is reviewing the JEDI award, adding, "We look forward to complete, fair, and effective corrective action that fully insulates the re-evaluation from political influence and corrects the many issues affecting the initial flawed award."

For its part, Microsoft said it supports the decision to "reconsider a small number of factors" as likely being "the fastest way to resolve all issues and quickly provide the needed modern technology to people across our armed forces."

I wouldn't put such behavior past Mr. Trump.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...