Search Results: his interests

I will say I voted for Trump these past 3 elections. He may have not served the second election, and while many speculate it was because the left cheated, I would not be surprised but I don't know what information to believe anymore.

That is one very significant thing I need to emphasize: I don't know what sources to believe, which ones are conspiracy theories, and which ones are actually genuinely true. There is so much misinformation, I don't know exactly what to believe anymore regarding our government and politics. I just know there is a shit ton of corruption, greed, and passiveness at many turns.

I will say, on a positive note, I am happy Trump tackled this whole woke, "politically correct", social engineering issue head on and restored some common sense. This leftist PC propaganda was a cancer, and I honestly feel it was a main factor why our nation was heading down the tube. While the Trump administration has destroyed that cancer in multiple facets, sadly it is still running rampant on media.

I am also happy Trump addressed the border and illegal immigration crisis promptly, swiftly, and with full-on force.

Here is where I am losing my support with Trump: the cost of living, inflation, and opportunity for everyday, middle-class and working-class Americans and younger generations alike. I feel many of them are being butchered right now. This was the main "selling-point" for Trump during his first term. At some point he must take ownership as everyday Americans continue to struggle and scrape at the bottom of the barrel just to feed themselves, their children, and their pets.

Trump's solution of a 50-year mortgage sounds like a shit idea. Does this mean for younger generations to afford homes, the solution is to be enslaved to debt longer with more interest in the end? I also feel Trump is failing to address the soaring prices on basic essentials like food.

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”