Nancy Rogers

111.4K posts

Nancy Rogers

@NancyRedPA

Ex-GOP since May 2016. Conservative who hasn't changed her values. Truth matters. Character still counts.

Pittsburgh Entrou em Şubat 2022

532 Seguindo1.3K Seguidores

Tweet fixado

Nancy Rogers@NancyRedPA·12 Eki

This. x.com/robbi_fahey/st…

Robbi F@robbi_fahey

“A person's conscience doesn't abide by majority rule.” ~ To Kill a Mockingbird One’s inner sense of right and wrong is not determined by what the majority of people think. Personal morality is an internal standard that requires standing alone against popular opinion.

English

1.9K

Nancy Rogers@NancyRedPA·1m

@badjin_rank @greggnunziata Do you think any disagreement with Trump is fair and impartial?

English

Rank Badjin@badjin_rank·48m

The "contempt" is earned and well-deserved. When a Judge, and I mean ANY Judge repeatedly dishonors their oaths to Judge the law fairly and impartially, discredits and disqualifies the JUDGE, not Trump. Calling a spade a spade is simply pronouncing the truth. Attempting to denounce that truth is the most despicable of lies, for you are SUPPORTING deceit and dishonor.

English

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Gregg Nunziata@greggnunziata·2h

The contempt the president has for the independent judiciary, which is the keystone of our system of government, is itself discrediting and disqualifying. Quick, remedial, America lesson, for the first magistrate. Judges are unelected, by design. They don't think about "the will of the American voters", also by design. These are good things.

Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social@TrumpDailyPosts

Activist unelected Judges are trying to usurp the will of American voters

English

196

11.5K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Lauren@cabsav456·1h

You are an idiot. He tried for 4 weeks to get them to vote for full DHS funding. They refused without changes to ICE/CBP. So what he did was pass a bill funding all of DHS without ICE/CBP funding, and he said he would provide them with additional funds through reconciliation. Mind you, they are already funded massively via the BBB and are not at all suffering from the shutdown. TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA are suffering. This was a way to end the shutdown, and for some stupid ass reason, Mike Johnson rejected it. And all the MAGA mouth breathers are spreading this type of propaganda/misinformation to keep people stupid.

English

183

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Mike Levin@MikeLevin·1h

I’ve been in Congress through divided governments, bitter fights, and historic crises. I’ve never seen anything like the last 24 hours. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson killed Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s bipartisan deal to fund the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA. It was a deal that had the support of Senate Republicans and Democrats alike, 100-0! Why? Because Johnson places his own political survival and fealty to Trump over all else, including long waits at airports or anything else. We could have passed it in the House easily if only Johnson had allowed the vote to proceed. But instead he blew up the whole thing. Where this goes next is anyone’s guess, but what’s very clear is that Johnson is the worst and most subservient speaker in modern American history.

English

654

1.9K

34.7K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Jay Nordlinger@jaynordlinger·4h

The entire “post-liberal” team is going all-out for Orbán: Putin, Trump, Vance, Le Pen, Salvini, the AfD (not to mention Heritage, CPAC, etc.) … May they all lose, ingloriously.

English

141

746

19.4K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Rep. Jim McGovern@RepMcGovern·9h

Understand the difference. Those who peacefully protest Trump today love America. We hate what he is doing to America. When you love something, you fight for it. No kings. Not today. Not ever 🇺🇸

English

2.5K

8.8K

96.9K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

JanTheStitchWitch@pictureladyjan·7h

This man is extraordinary. He's not sitting back and waiting for help. He's out there selling what Ukraine can offer to those who need it, in exchange for what his country needs. All the while ensuring that Ukraine and Ukrainians are respected.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський@ZelenskyyUa

As a result of the war we are going through, and because our enemy is extensively using the Iranian “Shahed” drone technology, we have developed our own system. And today, we are sharing what we have developed with countries in the Middle East. Ukraine is highly regarded for this. We have shifted the geopolitical landscape. Everyone understands that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran. And everyone understands that, in terms of expertise, no one today can help the way Ukraine can. We are discussing several areas to ensure mutually beneficial cooperation. The first area is weapons, production, exchange of experience, and the exchange of resources that may not be available in one country or another. The second track concerns long-term energy cooperation. We're talking about ten-year partnerships. We have already signed a relevant agreement with Saudi Arabia, and we have also signed a ten-year agreement with Qatar. Over these ten years, we will focus on co-production, building manufacturing facilities—production lines in Ukraine and in these countries. We will also address, for example, how to supply a country with diesel in the event of shortages and major global challenges. Yesterday, I reached an agreement on diesel supplies for at least one year. From there, it becomes a matter for our companies and the local companies. From my conversation with journalists (1/3).

English

239

2.7K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

The Iranian regime wants things because it believes things. At the top of its list: survival. But not necessarily survival of any single individual, but regime survival. Not far below survival is all of that Islamic Revolutionary eschatological nutbaggery we’re so familiar with: a Shiite-flavored caliphate unifying the Muslim world, the destruction of Israel, seizing Mecca and Medina, beating up girls for showing too much forehead or ankle, hanging gay dudes, etc. The regime’s leaders also want Iran to be a regional hegemon, to have nuclear weapons. At least in the minds of the mullahs, these are not conflicting priorities. It’s a question of sequencing: You can’t get all of that sweet caliphate rizz without military dominance. - Jonah Goldberg

English

207

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

One of the cardinal sins in intelligence, war, and foreign policy is called “mirroring” or “mirror imaging.” It’s when you assume that your opponent has the same motives, values, and decision-making processes as you do. This gets at the main reason I have such contempt for the cartoonish version of “realism” that pervades a lot of left-wing, isolationist, and libertarian foreign policy. It’s systemic, reified mirroring. Many so-called realists think “self-interest” has a universal definition that spans all borders and cultures. This form of realism always had a vulgar Marxist twang to me, because many Marxists assume everyone everywhere is driven by their “class interests” in the same way that realists have a universal definition of “national interests.” Jihadi suicide bombers do not blow themselves up to further the class interests of the proletariat. Vladimir Putin is not sending hundreds of thousands of Russians to their death in Ukraine purely out of some “realist” definition of “national interest.” In international relations theory, the people who believe otherwise are called “suckers.” Nations care about honor. Some are driven by cultural, theological, or ideological commitments that defy one-dimensional, largely economic definitions of the national interest. What is true of nations is often true of people, too. In other words, mirroring isn’t just a problem in foreign policy. I still chuckle about a conversation I once had with the political consultant Dick Morris, who couldn’t grasp that I didn’t have—or want—some shady side hustle or grift that would allow me to more lucratively monetize my journalism career. Morris’ understanding of self-interest was just very different than mine. - Jonah Goldberg

English

160

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

I agree entirely that as a military endeavor, the war has been remarkably successful. But the key words in “stunning success of this war so far” is “so far.” I do not simply mean that militarily this could suddenly go horribly wrong—which of course is possible—or that we might end up losing militarily—which is damn near impossible. We haven’t lost a war militarily in decades. We lose wars when we lose the will to finish them. The importance of the “so far” point is that it constrains the category of the analysis to the purely military. The actual success of any war is determined when the fighting stops. And when the fighting stops, the criteria we apply include more than tallies of ships, planes, or tanks destroyed and enemies killed. It also weighs whether the larger strategic aims of the war were achieved. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong, and a strategic coup. Indeed, Vietnam is an excellent example of winning by not losing. The enemy hung on, and we lost our will. The Iraq war was a military tour de force, and a strategic mess. This gets at Abe’s point. The only way to convince people this war was worth it is by winning—really winning—it. Conceptually, that realization requires knowing what victory is. I don’t think victory is possible without regime change, for the reasons I alluded to above. Leave the regime in place and the clock restarts on the mullahs' eschatological agenda. And instead of a vaunted ballistic missile program as its first line of deterrence, Iran could have the Strait of Hormuz as its primary tripwire. “Try anything like that again, and we’ll really destroy the global economy” is politically and strategically at least as effective a deterrence as a ballistic missile or drone program. And that economic force field could then give Iran the space to reconstitute its military and nuclear programs. That’s certainly what the Israelis believe, which is why support for the war in Israel is so high. - Jonah Goldberg

English

297

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Judd Legum@JuddLegum·9h

Look how aggressively we are sanitizing Kushner's conflicts. The NYT described Kushner as "having business interests" in the Middle East. KUSHNER IS BEING DIRECTLY PAID TENS OF MILLIONS ANNUALLY BY MIDDLE EASTERN GOVERNMENTS

English

53.8K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

JanTheStitchWitch@pictureladyjan·1d

"Of course, I'm not liked because I'm not letting this end at the expense of the Ukrainians." That's precisely why we love you, Mr President.

Anton Gerashchenko@Gerashchenko_en

President of Ukraine: "[President Trump] wants the war to end, and he wants it to happen quickly. 'We want it to happen quickly' - in this situation, 'quickly' means at someone's expense. In this situation, that means at the expense of the Russians or at the expense of the Ukrainians. Of course, I'm not liked because I'm not letting this end at the expense of the Ukrainians. That's why I believe that a withdrawal from the east of our country poses a high risk for Ukraine and for Europe. And, ultimately, a failed peace poses big risks for Trump and his team. "

English

146

1.4K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Tom Hoefling@TomHoefling·10h

From the political weaponizing of the vast riches of billionaire oligarchs, to the takeover of every possible media organ, to the plundering of the state, to the castration of the legislative and judicial branches of government, Trump is utilizing the Putinist playbook.

English

499

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

All of Trump’s talk this week about how a great deal to end the war is just around the corner strikes me as a similar tactic to his “two weeks” schtick. It’s just something to say to buy time. I think it’s probably not a complete lie that the Iranians are talking, but it’s certainly an exaggeration that they’re “begging to make a deal.” And whether you believe it or not, the fact is the regime knows the truth of it. If it’s a lie, then the regime’s leaders are not crazy for thinking they’re winning, because Trump has signaled that he wants out of the war more than they do. He loves to say he won’t tell the enemy what he’s going to do. Fair enough. But when he says the war will be over soon, he’s telling the regime something far more useful than revealing some target package. Maybe it will work, but I can’t envision a scenario in which Trump declares victory and gives up only for the Iranians to respond by blowing up a tanker, oil facility, or some American soft target. The cliché about the Middle East is that you win by not losing. For the Iranians, simply declaring that they took the worst the big and little Satans could dish out and are still standing is a strategic win. Claiming sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and turning it into an Iranian maritime toll booth would be a massive strategic victory for the Islamic Republic. And, so far, I don’t see the exit strategy that prevents that from happening—other than an actual victory. - Jonah Goldberg

English

385

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський@ZelenskyyUa·7h

We want to prepare drone deals for partners who are helping us, and be prepared for any challenges. A drone deal includes drones, electronic warfare systems, and, most significantly, the complete system of defense. We might not have enough “Patriots”, but we do have a system capable of integrating any defensive lines or layers. And this is the most valuable asset Ukraine possesses today: the experience of our military. If we want Ukraine to be treated at a high level, it is more than only drones; it is our specialists and our military. The combination of experienced military personnel with private and public sectors in one system is exactly what we should offer as a long-term export model—so that the private sector, the state, and our military all benefit. Today, we have started such steps with three countries. From my conversation with journalists (2/3).

English

186

797

137.2K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Tatarigami_UA@Tatarigami_UA·8h

You don’t need to take Volodymyr Zelenskyy or Marco Rubio at their word to find out that Rubio is bluntly lying. Just look at Provision 21 of Trump’s 28-point peace plan: “Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.”

English

458

2.5K

75.3K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

But putting the cranks aside, I think the larger problem with the Iran war debate on the right is that people are talking past each other. The “why can’t you see we’re winning” folks want to focus on the military scorekeeping. That’s defensible, but that narrow prism blinds them to some degree, not just to the strategic challenges, like Iran’s asymmetric advantages in the Strait of Hormuz, but also to the entirely legitimate concerns of a public that wasn’t consulted or prepared for yet another massive Trumpian ego trip. Preparing the public for a war of choice isn’t just a matter of good manners or constitutional hygiene, it’s an essential necessity for strategic success. Why? For starters, you need public opinion on your side. But doing things the right way also helps the administration see its blind spots. Does anyone doubt that the war would be going better if the administration had held a hearing where it had to answer what its plan for the Strait of Hormuz was? Trump is now threatening the existence of NATO because he’s so “disappointed” allies he said he didn’t need aren’t now racing to help out there. I think NATO should help. But it’s as if Trump doesn’t understand that our NATO allies are democracies and their leaders are elected politicians, answerable to publics that detest Trump—for understandable reasons. - Jonah Goldberg

English

332

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Tymofiy Mylovanov@Mylovanov·9h

Zelenskyy: If Ukraine is in NATO, the war is over. We are in a strong union. I would think that I did everything then. Am I ready to step aside? I'm ready. Absolutely. History is stronger than the emotions of two or three people. History is simply stronger.

English

262

1.9K

40.6K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Scott Lincicome@scottlincicome·8h

The Trump administration's new biofuels bailout means higher US gas and food prices and worse environmental outcomes. But at least farmers will get another $3-4B from the government. share.google/EGlElRioRuG8wo…

English

110

217

23.5K

Nancy Rogers retweetou

Non-Hyphenated American@NHAunleashed·1d

Donald Trump has a similar challenge understanding the Iranians because he thinks everyone eventually just wants a “deal.” That assumption worked out for him pretty well—so far—in Venezuela, because the Maduro regime was basically just a bunch of mobsters pretending to be socialists. But the Iranians want different things because they believe different things. And they are willing to watch a lot of the world burn to get them. In fact, they’re willing to light the matches. These are the bastards, after all, who used thousands of children to clear minefields and soak up enemy fire in the Iran-Iraq war. Indeed, just this week, the regime lowered the age for “war supporting” roles to 12. If you’re that determined, or simply that evil, closing the Strait of Hormuz and blowing up your neighbor’s oil and gas facilities is hardly a moral or strategic red line. Listening to Trump, he clearly believes that if you kill the fanatic(s) at the top, you’ll eventually find someone who wants to cut a deal. I don’t think this is logically preposterous. It’s certainly possible that you can liquidate enough Iranian leaders until you find that person. But the regime isn’t organized in a way to make that easy, particularly only striking from the air. Yes, Iran has someone called a “supreme leader” but under him are layers upon layers of true believers who are convinced this war is an existential battle, not a mere negotiation. Trump’s view of “leadership” is entirely personalized, which is one reason he rejected the idea of building support for the war in advance. It’s also why he thinks other leaders can just cut a deal, the way he thinks he can. - Jonah Goldberg

English

713

Descobrir

@badjin_rank @greggnunziata @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates @NASA