Rigged for Hillary wrote:
38% of Likely Voters believe Biden has dementia.
....and think he's still a better choice than Trump.
Enjoy your loss.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
38% of Likely Voters believe Biden has dementia.
....and think he's still a better choice than Trump.
Enjoy your loss.
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm asking a question. No idea why people have to fire bazookas at me.
Ok, I can see the G'8' invite as a bad idea. Agreed.
I'm just not sure if the C in C should be spouting off at the mouth when the IC hands him information. Trump is a bull in a china shop - do you want him fighting Putin on twitter? I sure don't. I'd rather the info be disseminated in the field and officers take of it.
Field officers can not issue sanctions, particularly against a country which is ostensibly not a party in the conflict. They can't call up Putin and tell him to knock it off. They can't apply diplomatic pressure. Only a functional executive branch can do that.
The big deal is not that some piece of intelligence came down that affects the field command. They've already got a pretty good idea that more than a few militant Afghans are trying to kill their troops.
This isn't a tactical problem, it's a strategic problem calling for a strategic response and thus falls to the commander in chief.
In the end the president gets a ton of really nasty information. It's not his job to preach on every bit of it. BUt sure, don't invite to the G7.
I see many people see this as worse than the Ukraine extortion. I sure don't. I'm just trying to get a sense of why the max outrage.
From a purely political perspective, supporting the military is a cornerstone of the GOP and so it's a big deal to get caught out apparently not giving a crap. While that probably doesn't surprise you, it's not going to play well with the base.
I guess this is the best answer - if you think that the bounty issue was serious enough to put sanctions on Putin or somehow otherwise disrupt the US-Russia diplomatic relationship, then you have a legit beef with Trump.
I am not able to say if the matter is big enough to purposefully damage relations between the two countries. I think a lot of dirty stuff goes in in war...not sure where the line is.
44,329 new cases and 337 new deaths in the US today.
No deaths in NYC. Only 12 in all of NY State.
That's remarkable.
At what point do we say 'this disease is not as deadly as it used to be?' Is this the moment?
Probably we have to wait another few weeks to see if this spike in cases winds up killing many people.
And remember that half of those killed were in nursing homes. Maybe we've figured out how to protect nursing homes, simple as that, plus some number of people wearing masks.
agip wrote:
I guess this is the best answer - if you think that the bounty issue was serious enough to put sanctions on Putin or somehow otherwise disrupt the US-Russia diplomatic relationship, then you have a legit beef with Trump.
I am not able to say if the matter is big enough to purposefully damage relations between the two countries. I think a lot of dirty stuff goes in in war...not sure where the line is.
I haven't been following any of this back and forth, but sure, a lot of dirty stuff goes on in a war. Though last time I checked, we weren't at war with Russia. So perhaps a country with whom we're ostensibly at peace with directly incentivizing someone to kill our troops is over the line?
reer wrote:
agip wrote:
I guess this is the best answer - if you think that the bounty issue was serious enough to put sanctions on Putin or somehow otherwise disrupt the US-Russia diplomatic relationship, then you have a legit beef with Trump.
I am not able to say if the matter is big enough to purposefully damage relations between the two countries. I think a lot of dirty stuff goes in in war...not sure where the line is.
I haven't been following any of this back and forth, but sure, a lot of dirty stuff goes on in a war. Though last time I checked, we weren't at war with Russia. So perhaps a country with whom we're ostensibly at peace with directly incentivizing someone to kill our troops is over the line?
Remember we bombed the Chinese embassy?
Was that over the line?
Remember we shot down a Syrian government Su-22?
Was that over the line?
Remember when Israel attacked a US Navy vessel?
None of that created much of a diplomatic problem.
Neither of these was exactly similar of course.
Look, I think what Russia did was over the line and deserved some payback. I'm just not clear on the massive outrage. The general feeling seems to be that unquestionably, trump should have reacted diplomatically. I'm trying to understand that overwhelming consensus.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Here are your heroes:
https://thepostmillennial.com/one-dead-14-year-old-in-critical-condition-after-another-shooting-in-seattles-occupied-zonehttps://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/four-men-charged-federal-court-attempting-tear-down-statue-andrew-jackson-lafayette
WRONG, I think they are 100% IDIOTS, absolutely clowns.
That is why I have NEVEF supported or promoted their stupidity here. Unlike your fan boi routine for the Trump/Kushner crime families.
Weak effort, be better Trigged.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
How can you be that stupid to believe that? Oh, I forgot, you are Biff, the dumbest person by far that I have ever encountered.
Biden wins if he is breathing.
Enjoy your loss & thanks for playing.
Sourpole, your far left Antifa & BLM rioters have hijacked the Dem party. Wait until the debates when America sees just how much Dementia Joe has cognitively declined. This will end badly for you.
Enjoy your loss.
Enjoy your permanent self ban & thanks for playing.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
The Dems voted for and have now nominated a moderate over the more radical options, Warren or Sanders.
Just stop making yourself look stupid. Give yourself and your battered reputation a break. You’re taking a pounding lately.
1100 wrote:
agip wrote:
Could someone explain why this is so bad for Trump?
I don't get it. I'm sure he didn't hide any info from troops in the field that would endanger them.
The C in C isn't supposed to micromanage operations. What would have been an appropriate course for trump?
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding.
Russia is paying bounties for the deaths of American troops. Trump has no response and even openly pushes for Russian interests in attending G7 meetings (among other things). And you ask why this is bad for Trump?!?
WTF? Are you trolling? Brain dead? What?
That maybe minus the last four questions would have been my answer.
IF this is true and Trump sat back and let it happened and continued LOBBYING for Russia to be allowed back into a G8, then that is a monumental scandal of epic proportions and a betrayal of the US military who put their lives in harms way. Shocked this needs to be explained.
agip wrote:
reer wrote:
I haven't been following any of this back and forth, but sure, a lot of dirty stuff goes on in a war. Though last time I checked, we weren't at war with Russia. So perhaps a country with whom we're ostensibly at peace with directly incentivizing someone to kill our troops is over the line?
Remember we bombed the Chinese embassy?
Was that over the line?
Remember we shot down a Syrian government Su-22?
Was that over the line?
Remember when Israel attacked a US Navy vessel?
None of that created much of a diplomatic problem.
Neither of these was exactly similar of course.
Look, I think what Russia did was over the line and deserved some payback. I'm just not clear on the massive outrage. The general feeling seems to be that unquestionably, trump should have reacted diplomatically. I'm trying to understand that overwhelming consensus.
Here’s Rubio saying ‘don’t freak out this happens all the time’ which is probably how I feel about this.
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1277642107268800512?s=21agip wrote:
reer wrote:
I haven't been following any of this back and forth, but sure, a lot of dirty stuff goes on in a war. Though last time I checked, we weren't at war with Russia. So perhaps a country with whom we're ostensibly at peace with directly incentivizing someone to kill our troops is over the line?
Remember we bombed the Chinese embassy?
Was that over the line?
Remember we shot down a Syrian government Su-22?
Was that over the line?
Remember when Israel attacked a US Navy vessel?
None of that created much of a diplomatic problem.
Neither of these was exactly similar of course.
Look, I think what Russia did was over the line and deserved some payback. I'm just not clear on the massive outrage. The general feeling seems to be that unquestionably, trump should have reacted diplomatically. I'm trying to understand that overwhelming consensus.
Because we know there won’t be payback
agip wrote:
1100 wrote:
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding.
Russia is paying bounties for the deaths of American troops. Trump has no response and even openly pushes for Russian interests in attending G7 meetings (among other things). And you ask why this is bad for Trump?!?
WTF? Are you trolling? Brain dead? What?
I'm asking a question. No idea why people have to fire bazookas at me.
Ok, I can see the G'8' invite as a bad idea. Agreed.
I'm just not sure if the C in C should be spouting off at the mouth when the IC hands him information. Trump is a bull in a china shop - do you want him fighting Putin on twitter? I sure don't. I'd rather the info be disseminated in the field and officers take of it.
In the end the president gets a ton of really nasty information. It's not his job to preach on every bit of it. BUt sure, don't invite to the G7.
I see many people see this as worse than the Ukraine extortion. I sure don't. I'm just trying to get a sense of why the max outrage.
You're embarrassing yourself.
Monkeys typing wrote:
agip wrote:
I'm asking a question. No idea why people have to fire bazookas at me.
Ok, I can see the G'8' invite as a bad idea. Agreed.
I'm just not sure if the C in C should be spouting off at the mouth when the IC hands him information. Trump is a bull in a china shop - do you want him fighting Putin on twitter? I sure don't. I'd rather the info be disseminated in the field and officers take of it.
Field officers can not issue sanctions, particularly against a country which is ostensibly not a party in the conflict. They can't call up Putin and tell him to knock it off. They can't apply diplomatic pressure. Only a functional executive branch can do that.
The big deal is not that some piece of intelligence came down that affects the field command. They've already got a pretty good idea that more than a few militant Afghans are trying to kill their troops.
This isn't a tactical problem, it's a strategic problem calling for a strategic response and thus falls to the commander in chief.
In the end the president gets a ton of really nasty information. It's not his job to preach on every bit of it. BUt sure, don't invite to the G7.
I see many people see this as worse than the Ukraine extortion. I sure don't. I'm just trying to get a sense of why the max outrage.
From a purely political perspective, supporting the military is a cornerstone of the GOP and so it's a big deal to get caught out apparently not giving a crap. While that probably doesn't surprise you, it's not going to play well with the base.
Bingo.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
And enter Matt and other minions to engage in their usual xenophobic fear mongering.
https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1277628850130780160?s=20The homeowners had every right to defend their family & property. What the media doesn't want you to know is that the "peaceful protesters" who the couple confronted had just violently smashed through a locked gate to gain access to the private street they lived on.
There was property damage & criminal trespass.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbsuQbvXgAc75fH?format=png&name=small
Observe the endangered species. A couple of morons defending their white privilege. From peaceful protest.
This is a really good piece from Carl Bernstein
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/trump-phone-calls-national-security-concerns/index.html
Here’s the CIA director saying ‘chill, this happens all the time’
https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1277774329170837507?s=21
L L wrote:
This is a really good piece from Carl Bernstein
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/trump-phone-calls-national-security-concerns/index.html
CNN)In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, /b] according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.
agip wrote:
reer wrote:
I haven't been following any of this back and forth, but sure, a lot of dirty stuff goes on in a war. Though last time I checked, we weren't at war with Russia. So perhaps a country with whom we're ostensibly at peace with directly incentivizing someone to kill our troops is over the line?
Remember we bombed the Chinese embassy?
Was that over the line?
Remember we shot down a Syrian government Su-22?
Was that over the line?
Remember when Israel attacked a US Navy vessel?
None of that created much of a diplomatic problem.
Neither of these was exactly similar of course.
Look, I think what Russia did was over the line and deserved some payback. I'm just not clear on the massive outrage. The general feeling seems to be that unquestionably, trump should have reacted diplomatically. I'm trying to understand that overwhelming consensus.
Those are very poor examples and aren't at all analogous to the current alleged actions, but it sounds like you now agree that the current situation would be over the line.
Maybe this was mentioned elsewhere, but has the media latched onto the possibility that the information was purposely withheld from Trump because he wasn't trusted? Perhaps unlikely, but interesting to think about. I have no idea who's the ultimate decider of what gets into his daily briefings.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
I had never heard of "trendingpolitics.com", so I Googled. Here is the first hit:
"Trending Politics is hyper-partisan conservative news and opinion website."
Good lock with that, you moron.
Ha! No different when your side posts from liberal sites, such as raw story.
I don't post crap from any site like that. You are so dumb. Why not just take 5 minutes to research something before posting it? Are you incapable? The reason why we all know how stupid you are is that you continue to show us almost with every post. Learn something for once. Man Biff, you are such a moron.
Biden wins if he is breathing.
Enjoy your loss & thanks for playing.
agip wrote:
44,329 new cases and 337 new deaths in the US today.
No deaths in NYC. Only 12 in all of NY State.
That's remarkable.
At what point do we say 'this disease is not as deadly as it used to be?' Is this the moment?
Probably we have to wait another few weeks to see if this spike in cases winds up killing many people.
And remember that half of those killed were in nursing homes. Maybe we've figured out how to protect nursing homes, simple as that, plus some number of people wearing masks.
As usual, you don't have any clue about COVID. Remarkable that you provide daily updates that are so devoid of insight.
But just for kicks - "At what point do we say 'this disease is not as deadly as it used to be?' Is this the moment? " - This is so idiotic and clueless it is hard to believe that it was typed by someone who ostensibly watches this stuff daily.
Please check on the average age of COVID cases now versus in April and then get back to us. Even better, just stop with your embarrassingly insight-free daily updates.
No offense.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
You're gonna lose king of all Iibtards. You are far from being correct at all. Your past posts will bite you in the ass on election night.
Based on what? You never answer when I ask you what happened to your betting site confidence. What happened to big crowds and enthusiasm? What happened to The House would never impeach him? What are you right about?
You are wrong at every turn. You post false nonsense. Trump's approval rating is slipping. Almost every swing state is polling for Biden. The margin is much bigger than Hillary every had. Conservatives are ripping Trump left and right. We're in a recession. There are changes afoot that are liberal-led. He has been impeached.
So, based on what? How in the world is Trump going to win this election? You never tell us. You only falsely say that Biden has dementia and that he won't win, I guess because of that. Info that we have tells us otherwise.
Voters don't give a sh!t about Biden's mental state, only that he's not Trump. You are a moron fool who was conned by an idiot. You can't do anything but post stupid memes.
State you case. Why in the world do you believe Trump is going to win?