https://twitter.com/TruthGundlach/status/1430707907054641154Jeffrey Gundlach
@TruthGundlach
·
Aug 25
I want a President who can answer questions without reading from crib notes. Doesn’t seem like much of an ask.
https://twitter.com/TruthGundlach/status/1430707907054641154Jeffrey Gundlach
@TruthGundlach
·
Aug 25
I want a President who can answer questions without reading from crib notes. Doesn’t seem like much of an ask.
nonequals wrote:
Perch wrote:
Did you completely miss the point that Blinken doesn't even know if the guy killed was a good guy or a bad guy?
Well, you DID miss the point that he's the freakin' Secretary of STATE. Anyone who expects him to be an expert in blowing up terrorists is WAY dumber than they think he is.
But yes, I will admit that he's a really senior member of the administration, and CERTAINLY responsible for knowing what the hell we're doing throughout the world. But also true that he plays essentially NO direct role in getting our counter-terrorism strikes right.
Perch wrote:
memo 618.. wrote:
If you were truly critical of trump, show us one of your posts, when he was president where you were critical of him. I would like to see it.
Your post might even have had a shred of credibility but then you talked about trump supporters not wanting to hear trump criticism because (I?) Didn't criticise Obama.
The trump cult members have been totally irrational in their acceptance of whatever trump does. If you are defending their reasoning, you lose complete credibilty.
Trump cult members have lost the right to discuss Biden's weaknesses. It seems like you have aligned yourself with this group.
First of all, you're still a hypocrite.
Second, you can ask Trump supporters why they wouldn't criticize Trump if you really want an answer. I can guess though that after 8 years of demagogues like you refusing to admit any Obama flaws and accusing those who dared criticize Obama of being racist, yea, I can see where Trump supporters may not be willing to concede anything to people like you. Just like you're unwilling to concede anything to them. Makes them idiots and you a hypocrite.
Third, I don't think I posted anything here during the Trump administration. Not on LRC. I only returned to LRC after a few years hiatus because of the Olympics. I may have posted once or twice about running but nothing political because there are too many hypocrites like you in political discussions.
Fourth, Trump is a buffoon. He's narcissistic, bigoted, obnoxious, misogynistic and lacks even rudimentary leadership skills. I can think of several reasons he should have been removed from office but the GOP powers-that-be were too spineless and party loyal to act. His moronic letter to Turkish President Erdogan alone should have been enough for him to be removed under the 25th Amendment. But, bad as he was, he's not President anymore. Biden is and he's screwing things up repeatedly. You'll cover for him because you're a hypocrite but that won't change the facts. So, yea, I'll be critical of Biden without being a hypocrite like you because I can also point out things he does well. Like yesterday's announcement of a trilateral agreement to build a nuclear powered sub for Australia. That's a good move. I'd like to see him make some good moves concerning the border crisis he created.
Fifth, when you refuse to admit Biden's flaws and then you're critical of someone else because they refuse to admit Trump's flaws it makes you a hypocrite and it means you're no better than they are so save your talk of "credibility" and "high ground" because you obviously don't know much about either.
First off, again, you're using the word hypocritical incorrectly. Anti-Trumpers simply aren't interested in discussing Biden's regular ole' average politician-level flaws/mistakes with people who were and are too stupid to see Trump coming from a mile away. And the proof of this can probably be seen when anti-Trumpers are talking about Biden/the current administration between themselves. Sure, critique away. But to discuss them with people sending sophomoric pics of Biden eating ice cream? Give me a f***** break. If that's not you, great. But it's a bunch of others. They simply deserve a hearty STFU. That's not hypocritical. It's just attempted noise cancellation.
Second, your first lengthy paragraph above suggests that you don't REALLY understand the concept of magnitude. It appears to suggest that a lot of future Trumpers saw SUCH bad things from Obama that it's in the least bit acceptable that they accepted and supported the massive and deep list of Trump's vices. Complete and utter BS. If you (anyone) watched Trump for about 10 seconds and still ardently supported him, you have NOTHING else to blame. You did bad (and stupid). And if you watched him for about 10 minutes and still voted for him in 2020, you also did very bad. No thing and no person excuses either of these things. And I know, intelligent and/or otherwise decent people did it. And I don't understand it. And I guess I never will. But JC, it's so massively disappointing and clearly horrible for this country.
nonequals wrote:
First off, again, you're using the word hypocritical incorrectly. Anti-Trumpers simply aren't interested in discussing Biden's regular ole' average politician-level flaws/mistakes with people who were and are too stupid to see Trump coming from a mile away. And the proof of this can probably be seen when anti-Trumpers are talking about Biden/the current administration between themselves. Sure, critique away. But to discuss them with people sending sophomoric pics of Biden eating ice cream? Give me a f***** break. If that's not you, great. But it's a bunch of others. They simply deserve a hearty STFU. That's not hypocritical. It's just attempted noise cancellation.
Second, your first lengthy paragraph above suggests that you don't REALLY understand the concept of magnitude. It appears to suggest that a lot of future Trumpers saw SUCH bad things from Obama that it's in the least bit acceptable that they accepted and supported the massive and deep list of Trump's vices. Complete and utter BS. If you (anyone) watched Trump for about 10 seconds and still ardently supported him, you have NOTHING else to blame. You did bad (and stupid). And if you watched him for about 10 minutes and still voted for him in 2020, you also did very bad. No thing and no person excuses either of these things. And I know, intelligent and/or otherwise decent people did it. And I don't understand it. And I guess I never will. But JC, it's so massively disappointing and clearly horrible for this country.
I'm not using ANY word incorrectly.
You seem to have a habit of responding to my posts as though you haven't even read them or didn't comprehend them. Or you're mistakenly lumping me in with others who post here. I didn't vote for Trump and don't support him. I don't know why that's so hard for you and others to understand but the difficulty is a result of your shortcomings not mine.
Perch wrote:
nonequals wrote:
First off, again, you're using the word hypocritical incorrectly. Anti-Trumpers simply aren't interested in discussing Biden's regular ole' average politician-level flaws/mistakes with people who were and are too stupid to see Trump coming from a mile away. And the proof of this can probably be seen when anti-Trumpers are talking about Biden/the current administration between themselves. Sure, critique away. But to discuss them with people sending sophomoric pics of Biden eating ice cream? Give me a f***** break. If that's not you, great. But it's a bunch of others. They simply deserve a hearty STFU. That's not hypocritical. It's just attempted noise cancellation.
Second, your first lengthy paragraph above suggests that you don't REALLY understand the concept of magnitude. It appears to suggest that a lot of future Trumpers saw SUCH bad things from Obama that it's in the least bit acceptable that they accepted and supported the massive and deep list of Trump's vices. Complete and utter BS. If you (anyone) watched Trump for about 10 seconds and still ardently supported him, you have NOTHING else to blame. You did bad (and stupid). And if you watched him for about 10 minutes and still voted for him in 2020, you also did very bad. No thing and no person excuses either of these things. And I know, intelligent and/or otherwise decent people did it. And I don't understand it. And I guess I never will. But JC, it's so massively disappointing and clearly horrible for this country.
I'm not using ANY word incorrectly.
You seem to have a habit of responding to my posts as though you haven't even read them or didn't comprehend them. Or you're mistakenly lumping me in with others who post here. I didn't vote for Trump and don't support him. I don't know why that's so hard for you and others to understand but the difficulty is a result of your shortcomings not mine.
He’s not my choice but to each their own. Couple of questions for you.
1. What was the hardest thing to take last November when you realized your candidate had lost?
2. Are you still hurt by today?
Biden approval is tanking. He's failing on the border, failing on foreign relations, failing on inflation, failed on Afghanistan and left Americans behind.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E_M6-6_XIAQ16RV?format=jpg&name=small
Is Bidon the first known dementia ridden elderly man to head an international crime family and steal a Presidential election or have there been others? 🤔
ENJOY YOUR LOSS 👋🏼
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Dem cheaters.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9PVkqEWQAQY6nh?format=jpg&name=small
The ninjas will finally prove this massive nationwide conspiracy against right wing losers.
Aaaaaaany day now.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/572648-arizona-senate-president-requests-cyber-ninjas-turn-over-election-audit-documents%3fampAnd Durham will prove the deep state was out to get Trump and the fbi was biased and criminally investigating trump.
WHOOPS
Guess trump lied about that too!!!!!
https://www.rawstory.com/durham-investigation-trump-russia-probe/
Louiseanna wrote:
Perch wrote:
I'm not using ANY word incorrectly.
You seem to have a habit of responding to my posts as though you haven't even read them or didn't comprehend them. Or you're mistakenly lumping me in with others who post here. I didn't vote for Trump and don't support him. I don't know why that's so hard for you and others to understand but the difficulty is a result of your shortcomings not mine.
He’s not my choice but to each their own. Couple of questions for you.
1. What was the hardest thing to take last November when you realized your candidate had lost?
2. Are you still hurt by today?
Look up your local junco or vo-tech school. They probably have classes in reading comprehension and logic that will help you out.
nonequals wrote:
Perch wrote:
Did you completely miss the point that Blinken doesn't even know if the guy killed was a good guy or a bad guy?
Well, you DID miss the point that he's the freakin' Secretary of STATE. Anyone who expects him to be an expert in blowing up terrorists is WAY dumber than they think he is.
YES, HE’S SECSTATE! He’s part of the situation room decision making process on a drone strike like this. If you don’t think SecState was involved AND should know after the fact whether the victim was a good guy or a bad guy then you don’t know how a President and administration work. Hillary Clinton was certainly involved in the decision making process for the Bin Laden raid when she was SecState.
I'll just say that if you are too batpoop crazy and criminal for the legal profession to work for you, then you should not be president of the United States.
///
The book said that Trump shrugged off warnings that Giuliani and the GOP lawyer Sidney Powell's claims about mass voter fraud in the 2020 election were becoming untethered from reality. Those concerns intensified after Giuliani and Powell held a rambling, sweaty news conference alleging that a global communist conspiracy was responsible for thwarting Trump in the election.
"They were just beyond bizarre," South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told Trump afterward, according to the book. "And I think it took a lot of the air out of the balloon that the challenges are so unfocused, haphazard and conspirational." He added that the news conference, during which black liquid was seen trickling down Giuliani's face, "accelerated the beginning of the end."
But Trump brushed Graham off, Woodward and Costa reported. He also told advisors of Giuliani: "He's crazy. He says crazy sh/t. I get it. But none of the sane lawyers can represent me because they've been pressured. The actual lawyers have been told they cannot represent my campaign."
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Dem cheaters.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9PVkqEWQAQY6nh?format=jpg&name=small
Trump lost. Reality is tough for you but he lost. Sure the conman will tell you he won, but its just another con.
Did you really think trump was going to be honest and decent and admit to losing? You and I and everyone else knew he was always going to lie and say that he won.
Trump is playing you and others as fools. So have some respect for yourself and stop the nonsense.
Perch wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Well, you DID miss the point that he's the freakin' Secretary of STATE. Anyone who expects him to be an expert in blowing up terrorists is WAY dumber than they think he is.
YES, HE’S SECSTATE! He’s part of the situation room decision making process on a drone strike like this. If you don’t think SecState was involved AND should know after the fact whether the victim was a good guy or a bad guy then you don’t know how a President and administration work. Hillary Clinton was certainly involved in the decision making process for the Bin Laden raid when she was SecState.
Yes, I'm sure that you're an expert on it. The President or SECDEF or Combatant Commander, or......down the line can gather whomever they want in a room to get advice on a military action. This does not mean that the SECSTATE is in the chain of command on a military strike. He/she simply isn't.
Moreover, if you expect a career diplomat (sometimes at best, notably to include Hillary) to be able to provide any meaningful assistance to a very difficult process of deciding who the bad guys are, where they are at a particular moment, and whether it's possible and reasonably safe to strike them, you know far, far less about this topic than you think. Sure, he could chime in on, say, what the geopolitical implications would be of making the strike - whether it failed or succeeded. But in terms of tactically getting it right and/or doing the after action when it goes wrong? Zero.
CT strike screwed up? You've got LOTS of folks to ask about that before the SECSTATE. And very likely never.
And I'll put it another way. Would you have really wanted Hillary Clinton - smart lady who married a very capable man, hung on, and then obtained high offices for which she was unqualified - playing much of a role in deciding whether or not a bunch of SEALS could and should perform a very dangerous raid in Pakistan? Like me, I doubt it. Same with Antony Blinken and a given CT strike in Kabul.
Perch wrote:
Louiseanna wrote:
He’s not my choice but to each their own. Couple of questions for you.
1. What was the hardest thing to take last November when you realized your candidate had lost?
2. Are you still hurt by today?
Look up your local junco or vo-tech school. They probably have classes in reading comprehension and logic that will help you out.
Says the guy who thinks that the following is a good example of "hypocrisy":
Person 1: "John has given up on talking with those idi*** about certain topics. Because, well, he's utterly convinced that they're idi***, they have no credibility, and it's simply not worth the time and effort."
Person 2: "Wow, John is is SUCH a hypocrite!!"
HINT: Person 2 does NOT understand the meaning of the word.
nonequals wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that you're an expert on it. The President or SECDEF or Combatant Commander, or......down the line can gather whomever they want in a room to get advice on a military action. This does not mean that the SECSTATE is in the chain of command on a military strike. He/she simply isn't.
Moreover, if you expect a career diplomat (sometimes at best, notably to include Hillary) to be able to provide any meaningful assistance to a very difficult process of deciding who the bad guys are, where they are at a particular moment, and whether it's possible and reasonably safe to strike them, you know far, far less about this topic than you think. Sure, he could chime in on, say, what the geopolitical implications would be of making the strike - whether it failed or succeeded. But in terms of tactically getting it right and/or doing the after action when it goes wrong? Zero.
CT strike screwed up? You've got LOTS of folks to ask about that before the SECSTATE. And very likely never.
And I'll put it another way. Would you have really wanted Hillary Clinton - smart lady who married a very capable man, hung on, and then obtained high offices for which she was unqualified - playing much of a role in deciding whether or not a bunch of SEALS could and should perform a very dangerous raid in Pakistan? Like me, I doubt it. Same with Antony Blinken and a given CT strike in Kabul.
Well, you're just wrong. SecState is always part of that decision making process. Not from a tactical sense but from a strategic sense. As in, how will the govt of the country involved respond? How will our adversaries (Russia/China) respond? How will our allies respond? That's SecState's province. Sure, SecState isn't deciding which military capability is used but he/she is most definitely in the room, providing input and privy to the entire process. Not making the final decision but assuredly providing an opinion. And Blinken was rightfully asked about the results of that strike. Sorry you don't understand the process better.
I think I remember you now. Aren't you the one who claims to be a conservative but is actually a poser? Acting like a conservative but actually an alter ego? I'm pretty sure you are. I figured that out once before but then forgot about you. Nice job though, you fooled me for a bit this time. Well played.
nonequals wrote:
Says the guy who thinks that the following is a good example of "hypocrisy":
Person 1: "John has given up on talking with those idi*** about certain topics. Because, well, he's utterly convinced that they're idi***, they have no credibility, and it's simply not worth the time and effort."
Person 2: "Wow, John is is SUCH a hypocrite!!"
HINT: Person 2 does NOT understand the meaning of the word.
Let me help you out since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension and analytical thought.
Person 1: I don't like that certain people will never admit to Trump's faults.
Person 1: I won't admit to Biden's faults.
Person 1 is a hypocrite. Rationalization about magnitude notwithstanding.
It's been fun but I know now that you're just a poser and probably posting under numerous names. Thought for a bit that you had more integrity than that but I was wrong. Regardless it's obvious there's nothing to be gained from this entire thread so I guess I'll move on.