Defense Secretary Mattis says U.S. Troops to say in Iraq "for years"

[jmdrake]

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/24/mattis-us-troops-need-to-stay-in-iraq-for-years/

Oh....but let me guess. This doesn't matter because Trump himself didn't say it. Am I right? :rolleyes:

[AuH20]

This article is starting to be proven true.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

[CPUd]

846103962633879552
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/846103962633879552

[jmdrake]

This article is starting to be proven true.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

Sooo....you basically think Trump = Obama?

[CPUd]

Trump is Obama on steroids

[AuH20]

Sooo....you basically think Trump = Obama?

At the moment possibly. But Trump's psychological profile leads me to believe he can rebel if nudged or threatened. Trump despite his obvious flaws is someone who doesn't take orders well. This internal defiance is tied to his huge ego.

[AuH20]

Trump is Obama on steroids

Obama was brought into Washington D.C. on what amounted to be a red carpet. Trump's journey has been far more contested. It will be interesting to see how his presidency plays out.

[oyarde]

What a novel idea , I wonder if he thought of that himself .

[dannno]

Oh....but let me guess. This doesn't matter because Trump himself didn't say it. Am I right? :rolleyes:

Right, Trump is a results driven guy. If he doesn't see a good return on the taxpayer's money, i.e. if things aren't improving then changes will have to be made, and if it becomes unfeasible then the project will end. It's not going to take that long for this process to happen with Trump.

[fr33]

We probably need to spend a bunch of money on missiles and other military shit. They are fighting for our freedom in that god forsaken country. Imagine if we failed in Iraq. The Iraqis might force us pay income taxes, buy health insurance, and give up our properties to eminent domain.

[fr33]

Right, Trump is a results driven guy. If he doesn't see a good return on the taxpayer's money, i.e. if things aren't improving then changes will have to be made, and if it becomes unfeasible then the project will end. It's not going to take that long for this process to happen with Trump.

Are you really that retarded? He's going to do the same shit in Iraq that those before him did. The only hope we have, foreign policy wise, is that he'll not send our money to NATO.

[enhanced_deficit]

In that case, can Iraqis please help is with little debt ceiling problem in May 2017 with some of their oil?

[timosman]

In that case, can Iraqis please help is with little debt ceiling problem in May 2017 with some of their oil?

I doubt this would be sufficient plus we might hear something we would not like.:cool:

[TheCount]

Are you really that retarded? He's going to do the same shit in Iraq that those before him did. The only hope we have, foreign policy wise, is that he'll not send our money to NATO.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508996-Israel-amp-NATO-Funding-Exempt-from-Trump-International-Spending-Cuts

[AngryCanadian]

For Years? LOL well i guess till the whole region blows in US forces faces or the debt crashes.

[AngryCanadian]

What a novel idea , I wonder if he thought of that himself .
Hillary had the same idea to.

[osan]

This article is starting to be proven true.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

Seems to belabor the obvious, but at least its out there. Is the Boston Globe considered "mainstream" the way the Times is, or is it some fringe production?

The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

But if it came to that, I would very quietly remove as many troops from foreign soil as possible without arousing too much notice and set them to work, Tet-style, from sea to shining sea. I would shut NSA down and put the engineers to work on every building with all assets in place. I would do the same with CIA. You literally would have to kill all the higher ranking employees and destroy all the infrastructure with explosives and fire in one fell swoop in order to be effective.

After that, all troops come home. All foreign bases closed and demolished prior to abandoning the sites - burned to the ground and into fly-ash. New policy: we mind our own business henceforth, but be ye sorely aware that any move by any foreign power will be met with strict non-equivocation. That would be aimed mainly at China and Russia. We can trade if it please you, but we will destroy you in toto if you make the least gesture to mess with us.

After the 12 month adjustment period in the wake of the elimination of all social progreams, during which I am sure thousands of Americans would have to be killed due to rioting, martial law is lifted and we go on as a freer land... or so the theory goes.

Sadly, this is not likely to happen, and if it did, would likely not go as planned. Power such as that seems to have too strong an effect on any latent corruption, bringing it to incipiency and, thereafter, rapid full-bloom. The minds of all but a small handful of men are so screwed up now that it is virtually impossible to bring substantive positive change to the world. The critical mass simply does not exist. This is why I believe the world as we know it must be take from our hands and destroyed in order for anything REAL to change.

The reason I see martial law as the least unlikely path to the goal is that the people of America are far too ignorant, corrupt, and divided to come to a more conventionally implemented accord. At least half of the population has no interest in anything approaching freedom. More likely closer to 98% or even more, IMO. We can't even agree that grown men should not be allowed into ladies rest rooms to waggle their penises in the air just because they wear dresses and call themselves "Janey". How would we ever agree to changes as sweeping as the elimination of NSA/CIA?

The majority of the human race is being gently destroyed by a cadre of men who seem to have a very definite goal in mind. The active homosexualization of the young should be evidence enough for anyone of this. *****s don't usually procreate. But I digress, as usual. :)

[jmdrake]

Right, Trump is a results driven guy. If he doesn't see a good return on the taxpayer's money, i.e. if things aren't improving then changes will have to be made, and if it becomes unfeasible then the project will end. It's not going to take that long for this process to happen with Trump.

Right as in I knew that was the lame excuse you and other Trump fanbois would make.

[jmdrake]

Seems to belabor the obvious, but at least its out there. Is the Boston Globe considered "mainstream" the way the Times is, or is it some fringe production?

The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

But if it came to that, I would very quietly remove as many troops from foreign soil as possible without arousing too much notice and set them to work, Tet-style, from sea to shining sea. I would shut NSA down and put the engineers to work on every building with all assets in place. I would do the same with CIA. You literally would have to kill all the higher ranking employees and destroy all the infrastructure with explosives and fire in one fell swoop in order to be effective.

After that, all troops come home. All foreign bases closed and demolished prior to abandoning the sites - burned to the ground and into fly-ash. New policy: we mind our own business henceforth, but be ye sorely aware that any move by any foreign power will be met with strict non-equivocation. That would be aimed mainly at China and Russia. We can trade if it please you, but we will destroy you in toto if you make the least gesture to mess with us.

After the 12 month adjustment period in the wake of the elimination of all social progreams, during which I am sure thousands of Americans would have to be killed due to rioting, martial law is lifted and we go on as a freer land... or so the theory goes.

Sadly, this is not likely to happen, and if it did, would likely not go as planned. Power such as that seems to have too strong an effect on any latent corruption, bringing it to incipiency and, thereafter, rapid full-bloom. The minds of all but a small handful of men are so screwed up now that it is virtually impossible to bring substantive positive change to the world. The critical mass simply does not exist. This is why I believe the world as we know it must be take from our hands and destroyed in order for anything REAL to change.

The reason I see martial law as the least unlikely path to the goal is that the people of America are far too ignorant, corrupt, and divided to come to a more conventionally implemented accord. At least half of the population has no interest in anything approaching freedom. More likely closer to 98% or even more, IMO. We can't even agree that grown men should not be allowed into ladies rest rooms to waggle their penises in the air just because they wear dresses and call themselves "Janey". How would we ever agree to changes as sweeping as the elimination of NSA/CIA?

The majority of the human race is being gently destroyed by a cadre of men who seem to have a very definite goal in mind. The active homosexualization of the young should be evidence enough for anyone of this. *****s don't usually procreate. But I digress, as usual. :)

WTF? You are actually hoping Trump would impose martial law? You really have drunk the Trump kool aid. God help us all! This forum has gone bat guano crazy. A president Ron Paul never would have nominated a warmonger like Mattis in the first place. And if a Ron Paul nominee had said something this stupid Ron would have just asked for his resignation. Same with Jeff Sessions and his anti marijuana statements.

[osan]

. *****s don't usually procreate. But I digress, as usual. :)

I must once again register my irritation with this policy of **'ing out words. This is supposed to be a LIBERTY forum. It is supposed to be a place for rational adults to come together and discuss the various issues. I don't see how the policy of infantalizing words accords with adult discourse. Hell, even Q U E E R has become a normalized terms - the Q U E E R S use it all the time. I can see censoring the pejorative use of the term, but the blanket suppression makes no sense. I thought this is why we have moderators. And what about use of Q U E E R to describe things wholly unrelated to gay?

Honestly.

[osan]

WTF? You are actually hoping Trump would impose martial law? You really have drunk the Trump kool aid. God help us all! This forum has gone bat guano crazy. A president Ron Paul never would have nominated a warmonger like Mattis in the first place. And if a Ron Paul nominee had said something this stupid Ron would have just asked for his resignation. Same with Jeff Sessions and his anti marijuana statements.


You are on my ignore list, but something told me that you were going to respond in some unintelligent and dishonest manner. Sure enough.

I will say this once and only once, as it has not been my habit to make such statements: you are as a punk of the lowest rent, and dishonest in the deal; apparently lacking the basic language skills to properly parse my statements. Nowhere did I say or imply that I hoped he would do such a thing. You assassinate your own credibility.

Do the world a favor.

[jmdrake]

You are on my ignore list, but something told me that you were going to respond in some unintelligent and dishonest manner. Sure enough.

I will say this once and only once, as it has not been my habit to make such statements: you are as a punk of the lowest rent, and dishonest in the deal; apparently lacking the basic language skills to properly parse my statements. Nowhere did I say or imply that I hoped he would do such a thing. You assassinate your own credibility.

Do the world a favor.

You are the one who said the only way Trump could do real change is through martial law. Either you don't actually want real change or you want martial law.

[nikcers]

You are the one who said the only way Trump could do real change is through martial law. Either you don't actually want real change or you want martial law.

Martial law is less police state then status quo right guys?

[jmdrake]

Martial law is less police state then status quo right guys?

LOL. Makes you wonder what "drain the swamp" really means.

[spudea]

Right as in I knew that was the lame excuse you and other Trump fanbois would make.

some fights deserve a response. Please note Ron Paul voted yes on the Afghanistan campaign against Al Qaida. These are small counterterrorism forces, Trump has said he's not getting involved in a full ground war in the Middle East ever again.

[jmdrake]

some fights deserve a response. Please note Ron Paul voted yes on the Afghanistan campaign against Al Qaida. These are small counterterrorism forces, Trump has said he's not getting involved in a full ground war in the Middle East ever again.

You realize that Iraq is not Afghanistan right? And you also realize that Ron Paul regretted making that vote right? Ron learned from his mistakes. Trump is making Obama's mistakes and then some. The Iraqi army, once it realized that letting ISIS win was not a way to oust Maliki, is now kicking ISIS' ass and was doing so before Trump became president. ISIS is not staging attacks against the U.S. from Iraq like Al CIAda staged 9/11 from Afghanistan. Those carrying out these relatively small, "ISIS inspired" attacks have, for the most part, never even been to Iraq. Seriously you are sounding like a full bore neocon. "We must fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over hear." Ron Paul's philosophy that our intervention is causing the blowback has gone out the window with your support of Trump. And frankly who give a fvck about a promise not to "get involved in a full ground war" again? Obama can claim he didn't get us involved in a "full ground war" except the ongoing ground war in Afghanistan which Trump shows no sign of stoppage. When it comes to foreign policy, so far Trump = Obama and possibly worse.

[TheCount]

Martial law is less police state then status quo right guys?

Don't worry, it's just a temporary loss of freedoms. The government will give them back when we deserve them.

[CPUd]

846378467897888768
https://twitter.com/wjhenn/status/846378467897888768

[timosman]

Welcome to The Twilight Zone.

[osan]

some fights deserve a response. Please note Ron Paul voted yes on the Afghanistan campaign against Al Qaida. These are small counterterrorism forces, Trump has said he's not getting involved in a full ground war in the Middle East ever again.

I hope your characterization is correct. I do agree that some acts merit response, but that is only one side of the coin. The other relates to the precise nature of the response. I have no idea who was killed, or how many were. I can only hope that most, if not all, were bad guys.

Trump may be just another bad guy, but if he is not, he is staring down the maw of an endlessly dangerous beast which appears to want war and more of it. Pissing in that creature's cornflakes takes either a complete absence of brains or a pair bigger and of more brass than the average bear can claim. I hope Trump proves the latter, but in that case it will surprise me no whit to find his brains have been used to decorate some sidewalk, somewhere, before much longer.

Interesting times.

[osan]

Don't worry, it's just a temporary loss of freedoms. The government will give them back when we deserve them.

Therein the greater risk. As I wrote, such exercise of power left unchallenged has a way of leading to more of the same. Some precedents are impossibly dangerous, and yet doing nothing is at least equally so, if not more.

What does one do when the population is so indescribably ignorant on the average, so divided, so apathetic, corrupt, cowardly, and greedy that they cannot or will not come together in agreement on the most basic elements of how life shall be? What does one do, given all that plus the fact that there are vested interests so deeply entrenched and accessing of the real power of the throne, so to speak, that not only can they set into motion that which we all claim to hate, but nobody will step up to put it to ends?

How much can a president really do in this context? How much can he do when Congress is so basically corrupt that men like Paul, Massie, and Amash constitute a proportion suggesting of a mosquito's fart in a hurricane for influence and the power to bring "real" change? That is why I brought up the notion of martial law as being the LEAST UNLIKELY path to the end in question. They are all unlikely. None of them seem very hopeful at all, but martial law seems the least hopeless... which is really saying next to nothing.

That all said, a truly good man in proper control of himself, given the minimal conditions, could perhaps pull off such a move. But once again, the precedent will have been set such that we all pretty well know that the next time a president will deem the situation sufficiently dire, he will repeat the performance. That might be OK, but what if it were another Obama who decided that we are at such a pass that we can no longer afford the BoR? We MUST have socialism for the greater good. He pulls that rabbit out of his ass and then where are we? Dangerville. Slavetown. Fuckitsburg. We're done.

And yet, to continue this way... are we any better off, as the general population becomes ever softer, more ignorant, and corrupted?

It would appear that the death spiral of an empire might be something that cannot be avoided due to the precise nature of the human animal. There are many examples of it, Rome not the least among them. They knew what was happening and still did nothing substantive to stop it. I wonder whether there is some superconscious aspect of the race of men that work subliminally and that actually wants its own destruction. How else does one explain what we see today? The world is literally gone mad and all we do is sit at our keyboards and talk about it as Theye continue to push us daily another inch toward a precipice that leads nowhere I would call "good".

It would be great to see Americans come to mass sense and put this to bed in a peacefully forceful manner. But we are not doing it. We sit, Theye act. How can anyone not think that this is going end poorly for the vast majority of us, if not all? Seriously, I'd like someone to show me a path forward, given the status quo and the current trends that doesn't end in our destruction, whether physical or "merely" circumstantial. Would anyone here suggest that Theye have a grand plan that will provide for us all lives of freedom and ease and prosperity? How does what we see lead to a better world, rather than one even more determinedly bent toward death, poverty, disease, and abject misery? Perhaps I am blind?

[Ender]

osan- you do know that remark from TheCount was pure sarcasm- amirite?

[RPtotheWH]

You realize that Iraq is not Afghanistan right? And you also realize that Ron Paul regretted making that vote right? Ron learned from his mistakes. Trump is making Obama's mistakes and then some. The Iraqi army, once it realized that letting ISIS win was not a way to oust Maliki, is now kicking ISIS' ass and was doing so before Trump became president. ISIS is not staging attacks against the U.S. from Iraq like Al CIAda staged 9/11 from Afghanistan. Those carrying out these relatively small, "ISIS inspired" attacks have, for the most part, never even been to Iraq. Seriously you are sounding like a full bore neocon. "We must fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over hear." Ron Paul's philosophy that our intervention is causing the blowback has gone out the window with your support of Trump. And frankly who give a fvck about a promise not to "get involved in a full ground war" again? Obama can claim he didn't get us involved in a "full ground war" except the ongoing ground war in Afghanistan which Trump shows no sign of stoppage. When it comes to foreign policy, so far Trump = Obama and possibly worse.

So did you freak out when Ron made that vote and call his supporters Paulettes or are you a hypocrite? Trump is going to make mistakes no doubt about it, it seems you gave Ron Paul a do-over though.........

[nikcers]

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon vice president, he picked Pence so he can make deals!

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even been elected.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even confirmed neocons in his cabinet.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Syria

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Iraq.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is a neocon , he doesn't even have any terrorist cells named after him or any peace prizes.

[jmdrake]

So did you freak out when Ron made that vote and call his supporters Paulettes or are you a hypocrite? Trump is going to make mistakes no doubt about it, it seems you gave Ron Paul a do-over though.........

:rolleyes: I hadn't even heard of Ron Paul at that point Trumpchump. I've called some Trump supporters hypocrites because they have been hypocrites. Ron Paul came out and said he regretted that vote. What mistakes did Trump admit to? Oh yeah, that's right. He doesn't make mistakes. MAGA! Trump = Obama in the worst possible way. Ron Paul wen't against his own party by being willing to stand up against the Iraq war. Trump initially supported the Iraq war (he lied when he said he was always against the Iraq war and you know it.) Trump demanded U.S. troops be used against Qaddafi, then lied and claimed he was always against that war. (And you know he lied). Now Trump's on Secretary of State is saying we should stay in Iraq for years! And if you don't understand the difference between a vote to go into Afghanistan in what Ron Paul thought would be a limited operation to root out Al Qaeda, and making the plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely with no clear goal in mind then you haven't learned diddly squat from Ron Paul at all over all these years. Seriously you haven't. And frankly if you are dumb enough to think my calling out Trump on this makes me a hypocrite than I will take that as a badge of honor.

[osan]

@osan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=25257)- you do know that remark from @TheCount (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58229) was pure sarcasm- amirite?


Certainly, and that is precisely why I responded as I did, to underscore the reality of what such a move would mean going forward... even though today "forward" == "backward". :(

[RPtotheWH]

:rolleyes: I hadn't even heard of Ron Paul at that point Trumpchump. I've called some Trump supporters hypocrites because they have been hypocrites. Ron Paul came out and said he regretted that vote. What mistakes did Trump admit to? Oh yeah, that's right. He doesn't make mistakes. MAGA! Trump = Obama in the worst possible way. Ron Paul wen't against his own party by being willing to stand up against the Iraq war. Trump initially supported the Iraq war (he lied when he said he was always against the Iraq war and you know it.) Trump demanded U.S. troops be used against Qaddafi, then lied and claimed he was always against that war. (And you know he lied). Now Trump's on Secretary of State is saying we should stay in Iraq for years! And if you don't understand the difference between a vote to go into Afghanistan in what Ron Paul thought would be a limited operation to root out Al Qaeda, and making the plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely with no clear goal in mind then you haven't learned diddly squat from Ron Paul at all over all these years. Seriously you haven't. And frankly if you are dumb enough to think my calling out Trump on this makes me a hypocrite than I will take that as a badge of honor.

Sensitive one aren't you. Do questions always get you so upset? Actually Trump just admitted he should have gone after tax cuts first. You're blind hate didn't allow you to see that headline I'm sure. What did Ron Paul say about working with people on issues you agree with them on? Did he say you should be a douche when you disagree? Or have you learned nothing from Ron Paul over the years?

[jmdrake]

Sensitive one aren't you. Do questions always get you so upset? Actually Trump just admitted he should have gone after tax cuts first. You're blind hate didn't allow you to see that headline I'm sure. What did Ron Paul say about working with people on issues you agree with them on? Did he say you should be a douche when you disagree? Or have you learned nothing from Ron Paul over the years?

You started with the attacks and you know it. If the moderators were on their job you would be banned for flamebait. I call Trump supporters hypocrites when they are actually being hypocrites like you are being right now. There are times on this forum when I've actually defended Trump. Not often because Trump rarely does something worth defending.

[RPtotheWH]

Quit sucking up to Trump. You are embarrassing yourself. As for getting upset? You lied about me. You started the fight. I hadn't gone against you (I don't know if I ever went against you) and for no reason you attacked me. So at this point, go fvck yourself. Seriously douche go fvck yourself. Don't attack someone who hasn't attacking you then feign offense when then strike back.

What? Now I see you're definitely upset. I guess in that incoherent babble you had a point, still trying to find it. No answer for the questions at the end huh? Where did I "attack" first?

[jmdrake]

What? Now I see you're definitely upset. I guess in that incoherent babble you had a point, still trying to find it. No answer for the questions at the end huh? Where did I "attack" first?

I don't like liars and right now that's what you are doing. Your attack is when you lied and claimed I "freak out" with everything Trump does or that I call Trump supporters "hypocrites" for no reason. That was a dishonest attack.

[RPtotheWH]

I don't like liars and right now that's what you are doing. Your attack is when you lied and claimed I "freak out" with everything Trump does or that I call Trump supporters "hypocrites" for no reason. That was a dishonest attack.

I see now that maybe you don't understand what a question is, perhaps that is why you get so worked up with them? <--- see that funny symbol there? That must be why you are avoiding the others.

[jmdrake]

I see now that maybe you don't understand what a question is, perhaps that is why you get so worked up with them? <--- see that funny symbol there? That must be why you are avoiding the others.

With them? Them who? I don't like liars and you've lied. Why do I not like liars? Home training I guess.

Now here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

TruNow here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

TruNow here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

Trump supporters lamenting that Trump can't do needed "change" unless he can impose martial law and he can't do that without the JCS. (See my current sig).

So here's the real question. Why aren't you upset by any of that? Seriously. Do you think that one actually justifiable vote by Ron Paul justifies everything Trump does and the lame excuses his die hard supporters come up with? Trump has single handedly co-opted the liberty movement. If that doesn't upset you, maybe you've already be co-opted.

[RPtotheWH]

With them? Them who? I don't like liars and you've lied. Why do I not like liars? Home training I guess.

Now here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

TruNow here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

TruNow here is real Trump supporter hypocrisy.

Trump's justice department warns pot festival in state where pot is legal and on Indian reservation that its policy is that such a gathering is still illegal and Trump supporters claim that doesn't matter because Trump himself is pro pot.

The military under Trump bombs a heavily civilian area and causes massive casualties a battle that the Iraqi government forces were winning already without our help and it's okay because MAGA.

The TSA under Trump increases groping and it's okay because MAGA and "Trump will fix it eventually."

Trump supporters lamenting that Trump can't do needed "change" unless he can impose martial law and he can't do that without the JCS. (See my current sig).

So here's the real question. Why aren't you upset by any of that? Seriously. Do you think that one actually justifiable vote by Ron Paul justifies everything Trump does and the lame excuses his die hard supporters come up with? Trump has single handedly co-opted the liberty movement. If that doesn't upset you, maybe you've already be co-opted.

This isn't about Trump, I asked you questions but you can't seem to focus. Where was the lie? Quote it for me since I'm so dumb.

[jmdrake]

This isn't about Trump, I asked you questions but you can't seem to focus. Where was the lie? Quote it for me since I'm so dumb.

It's all about Trump. You claimed I "freak out" by anything Trump does and unjustifiably call Trump supporters hypocrites and that I'm a hypocrite for not attacking Ron Paul on his Afghanistan vote. Do you want to retract that now? That's the lie. Or maybe you just aren't bright. My response that you don't want to address because you want to pretend this "isn't about Trump" is what proves your assertion wrong.

Edit: And for the record, you are the one not answering questions.

[RPtotheWH]

It's all about Trump. You claimed I "freak out" by anything Trump does and unjustifiably call Trump supporters hypocrites and that I'm a hypocrite for not attacking Ron Paul on his Afghanistan vote. Do you want to retract that now? That's the lie. Or maybe you just aren't bright. My response that you don't want to address because you want to pretend this "isn't about Trump" is what proves your assertion wrong.

Wow man you have the severest reading comprehension problem I have ever seen. Lets go to Webster on this one:


Definition of question
1
a (1) : an interrogative expression often used to test knowledge (2) : an interrogative sentence or clause
b : a subject or aspect in dispute or open for discussion : issue; broadly : problem, matter
c (1) : a subject or point of debate or a proposition to be voted on in a meeting (2) : the bringing of such to a vote
d : the specific point at issue
2
a : an act or instance of asking : inquiry
b : interrogation; also : a judicial or official investigation
c : torture as part of an examination
d (1) : objection, dispute true beyond question (2) : room for doubt or objection little question of his skill (3) : chance, possibility no question of escape

I noticed you didn't quote my post where I lied, too embarrassing when you went back and re-read it? I have nothing to retract, I Asked you a question and you went into name-calling, a bunch of fvck yous and avoided all questions.

[Ender]

So did you freak out when Ron made that vote and call his supporters Paulettes or are you a hypocrite? Trump is going to make mistakes no doubt about it, it seems you gave Ron Paul a do-over though.........

Uh... no one knew what the fuck was going on with 911; everyone was in a frenzy over it. Ron Paul did regret that decision and spoke about it.

This is now a new age and Trump is full on bombing countries and there will be no apology. It seems that you may be the hypocrite.

[Ender]

Welcome to The Twilight Zone.

I'll say.

[MRK]

Right, Trump is a results driven guy. If he doesn't see a good return on the taxpayer's money, i.e. if things aren't improving then changes will have to be made, and if it becomes unfeasible then the project will end. It's not going to take that long for this process to happen with Trump.


To this day, if I feel a contractor is overcharging me, I’ll pick up the phone, even if it’s only for $5,000 or $10,000, and I’ll complain. People say to me, “What are you bothering for, over a few bucks?” My answer is that the day I can’t pick up the telephone and make a twenty-five-cent call to save $10,000 is the day I’m going to close up shop.

He's definitely a statist, but he does get a rush out of saving tons of money.

His predecessors on the other hand seemed to get a rush out of the opposite.

[timosman]

He's definitely a statist, but he does get a rush out of saving tons of money.

His predecessors on the other hand seemed to get a rush out of the opposite.

They did not know it was possible. Constrained by their own imagination or lack thereof.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Don't worry, it's just a temporary loss of freedoms. The government will give them back when we deserve them.


Or when people like you advocate that we ask government for them. :rolleyes:

[RJ Liberty]

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon vice president, he picked Pence so he can make deals!

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even been elected.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even confirmed neocons in his cabinet.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Syria

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Iraq.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is a neocon , he doesn't even have any terrorist cells named after him or any peace prizes.


Post of the day.

[osan]

They did not know it was possible. Constrained by their own imagination or lack thereof.


Two things.

1: The bolded is almost certainly false.

2: Anyone that clueless has no business as janitor at a middle school, much less being POTUS.

[TheCount]

He's definitely a statist, but he does get a rush out of saving tons of money.

His predecessors on the other hand seemed to get a rush out of the opposite.

He's not saving any money.

[jmdrake]

Wow man you have the severest reading comprehension problem I have ever seen. Lets go to Webster on this one:



I noticed you didn't quote my post where I lied, too embarrassing when you went back and re-read it? I have nothing to retract, I Asked you a question and you went into name-calling, a bunch of fvck yous and avoided all questions.

I answered your questions. I don't have a reading comprehension problem. You have a lying problem. It's all here for anyone to see. Here is the exact quote:

So did you freak out when Ron made that vote and call his supporters Paulettes or are you a hypocrite? Trump is going to make mistakes no doubt about it, it seems you gave Ron Paul a do-over though.........

The lie from you is that if I didn't "freak out" over Ron voting to send troops into Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden I am a hypocrite. Well I did not "freak out" and I am not a hypocrite. If you are too stupid to understand the difference between Ron Paul making a sensible vote for what he hoped was limited action to take out Osama Bin Laden, and Donald Trump's defense secretary now saying we should stay in Iraq for years then that's on you.

Now, I've answer your question again. And this time I quoted you. It's time for you to man up and answer my questions and quote me. Where have I "freaked out" because Donald Trump make an excusable mistake? Quote me or shut up. Where did I call Trump supporters hypocrites when they weren't actually being hypocrites? Quote me or shut up. Enough of your games. Man up or shut up.

[jmdrake]

Uh... no one knew what the $#@! was going on with 911; everyone was in a frenzy over it. Ron Paul did regret that decision and spoke about it.

This is now a new age and Trump is full on bombing countries and there will be no apology. It seems that you may be the hypocrite.

^This 1000 times. We are being overrun with Trump trolls who lack the common decency for honest conversation. Not all Trump supporters are Trump Trolls, but @<u><a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=36325" target="_blank">RPtotheWH</a></u> is.

Edit: And you hit the nail on the head when you said "there will be no apology." Trump supporters can't hide behind the "Well Trump makes mistakes too" excuse because Trump never admits to making mistakes. And in this case we have enough information ahead of time to know going back into Iraq indefinitely with no clear purpose is stupid.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

[nikcers]

Uh... no one knew what the $#@! was going on with 911; everyone was in a frenzy over it. Ron Paul did regret that decision and spoke about it.

This is now a new age and Trump is full on bombing countries and there will be no apology. It seems that you may be the hypocrite.

Two distinct occasions of the media apologizing for covering something too much. They apologized after 9/11 and after Trump won the nomination. Both times people high up in the government seemed to have unfettered access to the MSM- to which pretty much they could write the news. The question comes to mind is would they apologize if they were not "caught".

[timosman]

Two things.

1: The bolded is almost certainly false.

2: Anyone that clueless has no business as janitor at a middle school, much less being POTUS.

You are definitely not a team player. How could anybody work with you with these unrealistic expectations toward others?!:confused:

[osan]

You are definitely not a team player. How could anybody work with you with these unrealistic expectations toward others?!:confused:

What on earth are you talking about?

[RPtotheWH]

I answered your questions. I don't have a reading comprehension problem. You have a lying problem. It's all here for anyone to see. Here is the exact quote:

So did you freak out when Ron made that vote and call his supporters Paulettes or are you a hypocrite? Trump is going to make mistakes no doubt about it, it seems you gave Ron Paul a do-over though.........

The lie from you is that if I didn't "freak out" over Ron voting to send troops into Afghanistan to take out Osama Bin Laden I am a hypocrite. Well I did not "freak out" and I am not a hypocrite. If you are too stupid to understand the difference between Ron Paul making a sensible vote for what he hoped was limited action to take out Osama Bin Laden, and Donald Trump's defense secretary now saying we should stay in Iraq for years then that's on you.

Now, I've answer your question again. And this time I quoted you. It's time for you to man up and answer my questions and quote me. Where have I "freaked out" because Donald Trump make an excusable mistake? Quote me or shut up. Where did I call Trump supporters hypocrites when they weren't actually being hypocrites? Quote me or shut up. Enough of your games. Man up or shut up.

Ron Paul can do what he hopes is a sensible move and have it backfire, but no one else? Interesting, You sound like a reasonable person. Again I asked a question, I did not make a statement, need me to post the definition of that too? Actually I asked like 10 questions, you answered about 1 and barely at that. How can someone lie when asking a question? If you weren't missing a chromosome you could have just said you are neither and explained why, instead you slipped into autistic screeching.

I had no idea you were asking questions when you were typing fvck 10 times. It's hard to see any rational thought in there. You represent Ron Paul and the liberty movement well. You don't think the post with all those fvcks in it was freaking out? I see that you don't hold traditional definitions of everyday words.

[MRK]

He's not saving any money.

All I know so far is that in the first 2 months the debt was reduced by $100 billion [1]. Has this changed? Will it change?

I think the guy just enjoys kicking ass economically, and it seems the Presidency is his latest proving grounds.

He's seemingly wasted a lot of money in NASA /offense budget spending. However he might think it's necessary for enforcing the international reserve currency racket, so he might see it as a net gain, whether it is or (probably) not. He might also just be paying off the military, Roman emperor-style, to ensure he doesn't get couped by the deep state commies.

[1] https://www.theissue.com/politics/us-debt-reduced-by-100-billion-in-president-trumps-first-2-months

[TheCount]

All I know so far is that in the first 2 months the debt was reduced by $100 billion [1]. Has this changed? Will it change?

The debt dropped 0.06% during tax season. He has not reduced any budgets anywhere. He is trooping around promising to spend money on everything.


I think the guy just enjoys kicking ass economically, and it seems the Presidency is his latest proving grounds.

Just his DOD spending alone was equal to the theoretical savings from getting rid of Obamacare.


He might also just be paying off the military, Roman emperor-style, to ensure he doesn't get couped by the deep state commies.

#everythingtrumpdoesthatidontlikeisbecausedeepstat e

[r3volution 3.0]

Right, Trump is a results driven guy. If he doesn't see a good return on the taxpayer's money, i.e. if things aren't improving then changes will have to be made, and if it becomes unfeasible then the project will end. It's not going to take that long for this process to happen with Trump.

I don't believe it..

Do you have a long and unwatchable Steph video to confirm?!

[timosman]

I don't believe it..

Do you have a long and unwatchable Steph video to confirm?!

Everybody loves long and unwatchable Molyneux videos. I think the idea with his videos is to make AJ look sane.

[dannno]

I don't believe it..

Do you have a long and unwatchable Steph video to confirm?!

Would you say you have worked with many people in upper management who are highly competent in business and have had experience working in private organizations that have been able to run longterm profits?

[timosman]

What on earth are you talking about?

Just playing the devil's advocate.:rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul can do what he hopes is a sensible move and have it backfire, but no one else?

What is sensible at this point about keeping troops in Iraq for years? Seriously, you want to defend that position as being sensible in 2017? Okay. Go right ahead. Using your logic then there is no reason to ever criticize anything Obama ever did because someone could argue "Well he did what he thought was sensible." Obamacare. "Trying to take care of people who can't afford healthcare is sensible." Climate change initiatives. "Many scientists say CO2 is destroying the planet so Obama trying to do something about it is sensible."

Now here's a question for you. How is posting a thread showing where Trump did something I disagreed with "freaking out?" If Ron Paul did something I disagreed with I would post it. So far he hasn't. And yes that includes the vote to take out Osama Bin Laden. Taking out an enemy that directly attacked us makes sense. Does it not make sense to you? Had you been in congress would you have voted to do nothing? Ron didn't vote for an indefinite stay in Afghanistan and nation building but that's what Bush did anyway. You want to attack Ron on that vote, well how would you have voted? In this case the alternative is easy to see. We don't need to be involved in Iraq when the Iraqi forces already had ISIS on the run. The first thing we need to do to stop ISIS is to stop funding groups affiliated with ISIS. Tulsi Gabbard has a bill in congress right now to do that. So Trump has a really good opportunity to get behind something that would actually stop ISIS. Why hasn't he? Instead of going after me for what you apparently think is hypocrisy, why aren't you tweeting your hero Trump to support real change?


Again I asked a question, I did not make a statement, need me to post the definition of that too?

Okay. I will ask you a question. When are you going to stop sleeping with your sister? See. I just asked a question. I didn't make a statement. Sometimes statements are made by asking question. And you made a dishonest statement with your fake question. It's the false choice fallacy.

[jmdrake]

I don't believe it..

Do you have a long and unwatchable Steph video to confirm?!

Good to see you back! The mods have been banning the wrong people. :(

[osan]

Just playing the devil's advocate.:rolleyes:


Oh, OK. Sorry, but your timbre was opaque to me. Call me dense.

[MRK]

He might also just be paying off the military, Roman emperor-style, to ensure he doesn't get couped by the deep state commies.






#everythingtrumpdoesthatidontlikeisbecausedeepstat e

I enjoyed your points about the budget. They were informative.

I'm not sure what the quote means. I think this is the only time I've used the word deep state, and here I used it only to specify which commies I was talking about.

I only mused he might be paying off the military to make sure he doesn't get couped - and added a historical reference to where my suspicion came from.

[TheCount]

I enjoyed your points about the budget. They were informative.

I'm not sure what the quote means. I think this is the only time I've used the word deep state, and here I used it only to specify which commies I was talking about.

I only mused he might be paying off the military to make sure he doesn't get couped - and added a historical reference to where my suspicion came from.Pretending that Trump would really like to do something else other than the thing that he's actually doing because of some imaginary deep state bogeyman is delusional nonsense.

[MRK]

Pretending that Trump would really like to do something else other than the thing that he's actually doing because of some imaginary deep state bogeyman is delusional nonsense.

When did I say he's doing anything for just one reason to the exclusion of other reasons? I'm so confused.

I'll just be leaving now. I can't speak this language.

[timosman]

When did I say he's doing anything for just one reason to the exclusion of other reasons? I'm so confused.

I'll just be leaving now. I can't speak this language.

That's how you communicate righteousness. TheCount is quite good at it but I think he is overdoing it a bit.:cool:

[MRK]

That's how you communicate righteousness. TheCount is quite good at it but I think he is overdoing it a bit.:cool:

Gotta do what ya gotta do. I've been there :)

[merkelstan]

Pretending that Trump would really like to do something else other than the thing that he's actually doing because of some imaginary the real deep state bogeyman is delusional nonsense.

Fixed it for you.

In fact it's difficult to tell what Trump really wants to do. So you get partial credit.

[jmdrake]

Pretending that Trump would really like to do something else other than the thing that he's actually doing because of some imaginary deep state bogeyman is delusional nonsense.

:rolleyes: If you believe the deep state is imaginary, then you must have tuned out everything Edward Snowden revealed to the world. That said, I don't see how Trump escalating wars and signing us up for a long term stint in Iraq does anything to hurt the deep state or the puppet masters behind it.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul can do what he hopes is a sensible move and have it backfire, but no one else?

You are not answering my questions while I am answering yours. Here are my questions to you again.

1) Why do you think that Trump setting us up to stay in Iraq indefinitely is sensible or hopefully sensible?

2) Would you have voted against taking out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

3) Do you believe that Trump should not learn from others mistakes?

4) Since Trump said (lied) that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, why should he think war in Iraq is "sensible" now?

6) Why do you ignore the fact that Trump lied about being against the war in Iraq?

7) Why do you ignore the fact that Trump lied about being against the war in Libya?

8) Why did Trump lie about being against the war in Iraq?

9) Why did Trump lie about being against the war in Libya?

10) Why did Trump think taking out Qaddafi in Libya could have possibly turned out good?



Interesting, You sound like a reasonable person. Again I asked a question, I did not make a statement, need me to post the definition of that too?


I already answered this. A false choice question is not a question at all. It is a statement. Your false choice question, did I "freak out" about Ron Paul's vote for Afghanistan or am I a hypocrite, is a statement, not a question, and it is a lie. The embedded lie is that if I didn't "freak out" then I must be a hypocrite. The other embedded lie is that if I criticize Trump that is "freaking out." It's not. And you are not a reasonable person.

Now, I will ask you a question you haven't answered.

12) Have you stopped sleeping with your sister?

Are you going to answer that question? Or are you going to realize that question is a statement?



Actually I asked like 10 questions, you answered about 1 and barely at that.

That is a lie. Enumerate all 10 questions or withdraw the lie.



How can someone lie when asking a question? If you weren't missing a chromosome you could have just said you are neither and explained why, instead you slipped into autistic screeching.

How can you lie and say in the same post that I am a "reasonable person" then say I am "missing a chromosome?" Another lie by you.



I had no idea you were asking questions when you were typing fvck 10 times.

I didn't type "fvck" 10 times. Post a quote showing all 10 or admit that you are lying again.

[TheCount]

:rolleyes: If you believe the deep state is imaginary, then you must have tuned out everything Edward Snowden revealed to the world. That said, I don't see how Trump escalating wars and signing us up for a long term stint in Iraq does anything to hurt the deep state or the puppet masters behind it.Oh, the deep state definitely exists, but it's not a shadowy group of cigar-smoking supervillains in a dark room with their hands over 'coup' and 'assassinate' buttons on the desks in front of them. And it's certainly not an absolute governmental power which can be blamed, in a toddler-like fashion, every time Trump bangs his shin on the Oval Office coffee table.

[jmdrake]

I enjoyed your points about the budget. They were informative.

I'm not sure what the quote means. I think this is the only time I've used the word deep state, and here I used it only to specify which commies I was talking about.

I only mused he might be paying off the military to make sure he doesn't get couped - and added a historical reference to where my suspicion came from.

Okay. ^This is a lame ass argument. It sounds like what I typically hear from Obama supporters. "Sure I disagree with Obama attacking Libya..but he was forced to do it."


Oh, the deep state definitely exists, but it's not a shadowy group of cigar-smoking supervillains in a dark room with their hands over 'coup' and 'assassinate' buttons on the desks in front of them. And it's certainly not an absolute governmental power which can be blamed, in a toddler-like fashion, every time Trump bangs his shin on the Oval Office coffee table.

Okay. I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. The deep state is, by definition "shadowy." Whether they smoke cigars or not is irrelevant. Villains? Yes. Supervillains? Depends on the definition. Not a good excuse for all of Trumps misdeeds? I totally agree.

[dannno]

Not a good excuse for all of Trumps misdeeds? I totally agree.

Trump's deeds - Trump's misdeeds > Deep state

[Athan]

http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/24/mattis-us-troops-need-to-stay-in-iraq-for-years/

Oh....but let me guess. This doesn't matter because Trump himself didn't say it. Am I right? :rolleyes:

Don't discredit yourself like with the other users have around the forum for having their tongues up David Brock's ass. It's a good thread and good topic worthy of serious concern of Trump's handling of the destabilized region after decades of neocon's fiasco and destruction. Stop with the polarizing bull$h!t. For f*ck's sake do we really need another user to ID himself as just another partisan?

[jmdrake]

Trump's deeds - Trump's misdeeds > Deep state

And the excuse I hear from Obama supporters is pretty much the same.


Don't discredit yourself like with the other users have around the forum for having their tongues up David Brock's ass. It's a good thread and good topic worthy of serious concern of Trump's handling of the destabilized region after decades of neocon's fiasco and destruction. Stop with the polarizing bull$h!t. For f*ck's sake do we really need another user to ID himself as just another partisan?

I don't even know why David Brock is and frankly I don't care. And I'm not the one with the polarizing bullsh!t. Not being partisan != giving Trump a pass or giving stupid arguments in defense of Trump a pass. Sorry but the argument put forward by Trump supporters that it doesn't matter what people under Trump say because it's not Trump saying it...and then it doesn't matter what Trump tweets because....Rence Priebus....is stupid. If you call that "partisan" then I don't really value your opinion on the meaning of the term. When Trump or someone in his administration does something that seems possibly good (like Chris Cristie sending signals that he may be open to a kindler/gentler approach to the GWOD), I give them the benefit of the doubt. Same with the witch hunt against General Flynn. But I won't be bullied by anyone and that includes you.

[Athan]

I don't even know why David Brock is and frankly I don't care. And I'm not the one with the polarizing bullsh!t. Not being partisan != giving Trump a pass or giving stupid arguments in defense of Trump a pass. Sorry but the argument put forward by Trump supporters that it doesn't matter what people under Trump say because it's not Trump saying it...and then it doesn't matter what Trump tweets because....Rence Priebus....is stupid. If you call that "partisan" then I don't really value your opinion on the meaning of the term. When Trump or someone in his administration does something that seems possibly good (like Chris Cristie sending signals that he may be open to a kindler/gentler approach to the GWOD), I give them the benefit of the doubt. Same with the witch hunt against General Flynn. But I won't be bullied by anyone and that includes you.

He's the dude running Shareblue which has a few members here trying to crack consensus, create division, and degrade community discussion and quality on behalf of the progressives. Don't help those igits.

You don't have to give Trump a pass nor did I insinuate you should even though you quickly want to run to that as an excuse. The problem I had is you are mocking members and already derailing your thread by bating it. Just don't make it out to seem like users are too dumb to not attribute this to Trump's deference to the military. It's pretty fvcking evident. Post the story THEN if you think you have something smart to add do something like this:

"Though it is Matthis saying this, it is likely that Trump is giving too much leash to the military leadership without demanding exit goals and strategy similar to dubbya. Something concerning we should do more than watch, but also voice our concerns that we are going to simply be stuck in quagmire in perpetuity and on the road to bankruptcy in the region similar to how Osama Bin Laden wanted us to be."

See how I didn't say or subtly imply "Oh and hey f*ck you Rand Paul supporters" there?

[dannno]

And the excuse I hear from Obama supporters is pretty much the same.

lol.. difference is Obama was a creation of the deep state...

[TheCount]

I must once again register my irritation with this policy of **'ing out words. This is supposed to be a LIBERTY forum. It is supposed to be a place for rational adults to come together and discuss the various issues. I don't see how the policy of infantalizing words accords with adult discourse. Hell, even Q U E E R has become a normalized terms - the Q U E E R S use it all the time. I can see censoring the pejorative use of the term, but the blanket suppression makes no sense. I thought this is why we have moderators. And what about use of Q U E E R to describe things wholly unrelated to gay?

Honestly.The profanity filter can be turned off in your profile settings.

[osan]

The profanity filter can be turned off in your profile settings.

It is off. This is not the product of the filter. This is site policy.

[TheCount]

It is off. This is not the product of the filter. This is site policy.Interesting. I hadn't noticed.

[jmdrake]

He's the dude running Shareblue which has a few members here trying to crack consensus, create division, and degrade community discussion and quality on behalf of the progressives. Don't help those igits.

You don't have to give Trump a pass nor did I insinuate you should even though you quickly want to run to that as an excuse.

Yeah you did insinuate that, but that's okay. As far as David Brock is concerned, I'm not him. If you think I am that's not my concern.



The problem I had is you are mocking members and already derailing your thread by bating it. Just don't make it out to seem like users are too dumb to not attribute this to Trump's deference to the military. It's pretty fvcking evident. Post the story THEN if you think you have something smart to add do something like this:


Sorry but the "Rence Priebus must be using Trump's twitter" excuse is worthy of mocking.



"Though it is Matthis saying this, it is likely that Trump is giving too much leash to the military leadership without demanding exit goals and strategy similar to dubbya. Something concerning we should do more than watch, but also voice our concerns that we are going to simply be stuck in quagmire in perpetuity and on the road to bankruptcy in the region similar to how Osama Bin Laden wanted us to be."

See how I didn't say or subtly imply "Oh and hey f*ck you Rand Paul supporters" there?

And I didn't say or subtly imply "F*ck you Trump supporters" either. I'm very specific in mocking really really stupid arguments. And sometimes Rand Paul supporters have made really really stupid arguments as well. Case in point the "Rand is playing 3D chess" excuse for every questionable thing Rand does. So....really you've just proven me right in spades. I don't have sacred cows. When Rand implied that testimony from torture might be okay I was the one sounding the teocon alarm bells. It wasn't that I had anything against Rand, but I saw that kind of compromise would come back and bite him in the ass. Guess what? It did. So think next time before you try to lecture me okay?

[jmdrake]

lol.. difference is Obama was a creation of the deep state...

And Trump is totally trustworthy. :rolleyes:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/08/05/National-Politics/Images/GettyImages-843167781438806851.jpg?uuid=Xge46juxEeWI0-YhMKzJdQ

[dannno]

And Trump is totally trustworthy. :rolleyes:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/08/05/National-Politics/Images/GettyImages-843167781438806851.jpg?uuid=Xge46juxEeWI0-YhMKzJdQ

Ill one up you :rolleyes:

http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Screen-Shot-2016-06-10-at-2.02.19-PM.png

[Athan]

Yeah you did insinuate that, but that's okay. As far as David Brock is concerned, I'm not him. If you think I am that's not my concern.

Sorry but the "Rence Priebus must be using Trump's twitter" excuse is worthy of mocking.

And I didn't say or subtly imply "F*ck you Trump supporters" either. I'm very specific in mocking really really stupid arguments. And sometimes Rand Paul supporters have made really really stupid arguments as well. Case in point the "Rand is playing 3D chess" excuse for every questionable thing Rand does. So....really you've just proven me right in spades. I don't have sacred cows. When Rand implied that testimony from torture might be okay I was the one sounding the teocon alarm bells. It wasn't that I had anything against Rand, but I saw that kind of compromise would come back and bite him in the ass. Guess what? It did. So think next time before you try to lecture me okay?

1. I didn't insinuate it, I even went so far as to praise the thread subject, and I went further to clarify what was unnecessary in a follow up post in case there was confusion. I even underlined what exactly the problem is. Now we aren't even debating the subject exactly because of it. Of which I do admit is half my fault.

2. No I mean one of Brock's companies' employees. Not the gay boyfriend of Alefantis himself. People like him tell others what to promote because they are lazy, useless, and achieve their position by literally sucking the right cock for connections.

3. Interesting, I admit I haven't seen "Rence Priebus must be using Trump's twitter" excuse post you were mocking from another thread. That's pretty retarded and I admit I didn't know the context of your comment was relating to such stupid excuse.

4. That "f*ck you supporters" was intentional humor and was meant to highlight and illustrate a point by being purposely cartoonish. Obviously you didn't imply it in a similar manner, I just wanted to make it such an obvious parody you'd see and make the connection how it would cause a reaction.

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/75ajZ5x.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/F7ZlQca.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you say you have worked with many people in upper management who are highly competent in business and have had experience working in private organizations that have been able to run longterm profits?

Hard to say, complicated issue, lotsa ins, lotsa outs, lotta what have yous...

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ) a 16 hour lecture series to explain the matter in detail.

[jmdrake]

Ill one up you :rolleyes:

http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Screen-Shot-2016-06-10-at-2.02.19-PM.png

That's nice. Did OJ Simpson call Donald Trump before Trump decided to run for president and encourage him to get involved in GOP politics? Was Donald Trump implicated in any of the same crimes OJ Simpson was implicated in the way Donald Trump is implicated in the Clinton/Epstein underage sex slave scandal?

[TheCount]

That's nice. Did OJ Simpson call Donald Trump before Trump decided to run for president and encourage him to get involved in GOP politics?He's broken the code; OJ is the secret power behind Trump.

[TheCount]

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon vice president, he picked Pence so he can make deals!

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even been elected.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even confirmed neocons in his cabinet.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Syria

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is going to have a neocon foreign policy, how can you even say that when he hasn't even sent troops to Iraq.

you guys are crazy if you think Trump is a neocon , he doesn't even have any terrorist cells named after him or any peace prizes.

As far as the Trumpkins are concerned, you'll be able to strike out that last one soon.